Seriously, ITMFA
October 31, 2019 11:24 AM   Subscribe

 
Ian Milhiser, Vox: The most important part of the Democrats’ impeachment resolutionThe Mueller hearing was a debacle for Democrats. The new impeachment rules show that they’ve learned their lesson.

TL;DR: The five-minute questioning rule is being relaxed in favor of a process that lets the chair and ranking member go as long as 45 minutes if they need to. I'll gladly take 45 minutes of Schiff over 5 minute blocks from back-benchers, and if it means we get even more of Devin Nunes stepping on his own dick, well, that's even better.
posted by tonycpsu at 11:33 AM on October 31, 2019 [44 favorites]


Does the new rule set let the Ds use an attorney to mix it up with deponents?

amash is my kind of loyal opposition - I despise his policy takes, but he lives in the fact-based real world. h/t digby.
posted by j_curiouser at 11:39 AM on October 31, 2019 [5 favorites]


Also, the chair and ranking member can delegate their questioning to staff, i.e. genuine practicing lawyers with no interest in grandstanding for a re-election ad.

(The downside is that 5-minute blocks are still happening, just after the 45-minute chair/ranking question sessions)
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 11:40 AM on October 31, 2019 [7 favorites]


Court weighs Trump claim that ex-White House counsel McGahn, top aides are absolutely immune from congressional subpoena (WaPo)
The White House blocked McGahn’s testimony, advising the former counsel that he was “absolutely immune from compelled congressional testimony” and directing him not to appear.

Lawyers for the committee’s Democrats call the claim “spurious” and say it has no grounding in case law. The House asked the court to expedite the case so it could be appealed by whichever side loses, saying the Trump administration was seeking to establish a dangerous precedent shielding top presidential advisers from testifying before Congress, even those who no longer work for the White House.
John Bolton’s former deputy asks judge to resolve conflicting demands for House impeachment testimony (WaPo)
In a letter to Kupperman’s lawyers, House Democratic leaders said Justice Department opinions are not binding on Congress or the courts. The president, they wrote, has no “authority to direct the conduct of private citizens who are no longer his subordinates — much less to direct them to defy a lawful command from a coequal branch of government.”

Kupperman’s attorney emphasized in response that it is not Kupperman who disagrees with the House position but Trump — and the presidents before him who have claimed immunity. Kupperman will comply, his lawyer wrote, if the judge determines he must.

Leon, who is presiding over Kupperman’s case, was nominated by President George W. Bush in 2001, and is known for his colorful language and unpredictable decisions. He brings to the bench years of experience in government — as a Justice Department attorney and lawyer for congressional committees investigating three sitting presidents.
posted by katra at 11:42 AM on October 31, 2019 [4 favorites]


The five-minute questioning rule is being relaxed in favor of a process that lets the chair and ranking member go as long as 45 minutes if they need to.

As long as 45 minutes, as many times as the chair wants.
posted by grouse at 11:57 AM on October 31, 2019 [3 favorites]


Mod note: Couple comments deleted; sorry, let's stick to what's actually happening with impeachment, not doomy predictions.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 12:09 PM on October 31, 2019 [24 favorites]


I guess we shouldn't be surprised that THIS is what finally triggered impeachment. Like a good shoplifter, Trump understands that we have great difficulty recognizing crimes as such if they're committed openly and brazenly. He has been sauntering out of department stores with piles of coats while the press and general public ask themselves if he's really doing that. The Ukraine affair is a refreshing return to normalcy: phone calls meant to be kept secret, altered transcripts, backroom deals--finally, here is some old-fashioned political crime-doing! The fact that they're trying to hide everything is how we know the crimes are happening!

It's infuriating, there's piles of other reasons he should be here already. And we're learning nothing. Even as he's being investigated for Ukraine, he's openly doing the same damn thing with China and calling on them to run their own Biden investigations. But he did that on TV so it was in the news cycle for what, a couple of days before being dropped? It's bonkers. I guess we should count ourselves lucky that at least SOME of the hidden shit was uncovered because otherwise I don't think this reaction from the press and public would've ever happened.
posted by Anonymous at 12:13 PM on October 31, 2019


Oh don't worry, there will be lots of, "well, he does this all the time in public and no one complains, so this can't possibly be a crime either", spin as well. (Which also ignores the whole "doesn't have to be a crime to be impeachable" bit.) Though I do think the details of this are going to make it harder to float their other usual, "oh, he was just joking, you know he's just such a kidder, that guy" defense.
posted by bcd at 12:18 PM on October 31, 2019 [1 favorite]


Trump's calls for Republican lawmakers to focus on substance of impeachment inquiry over process largely ignored (Lauren Lantree, ABC News)
As the House impeachment probe moves toward a new phase of open hearings, President Donald Trump is calling on Republican lawmakers to shift their strategy from attacking the process of the inquiry to poking holes in the substance of House Democrats' case.
On the other hand:

Trump Wants a Substantive Defense, Dammit (Kevin Drum, Mother Jones)
Doesn’t Trump realize that the reason his allies are whining about process is because they have no defense to offer on substance? Maybe not. Maybe Trump is so delusional he actually believes that there’s some substantive defense of extorting a foreign country to smear a political rival.
posted by ZeusHumms at 12:22 PM on October 31, 2019 [9 favorites]


The One Trick Pony can never stop. Trump lures GOP senators on impeachment with cold cash Politico
posted by Harry Caul at 12:44 PM on October 31, 2019 [6 favorites]


Maybe Trump is so delusional he actually believes that there’s some substantive defense of extorting a foreign country to smear a political rival.

Well, maybe. Or maybe he's a malignant narcissist who can't stand being accused of wrongdoing even if he ultimately gets away with it (hence his insisting that the call that had officials scrambling to bury it by abusing the classification system was "perfect").

But doubtless Trumps inability to keep his yap shut is making it harder for Republicans to defend him, so good.
posted by Gelatin at 12:46 PM on October 31, 2019 [5 favorites]


Trump lures GOP senators on impeachment with cold cash

As I said in the previous thread, Democrats need to keep talking about that fact using the phrase "slush fund."
posted by Gelatin at 12:47 PM on October 31, 2019 [34 favorites]


The Democrats should call Biden as a witness. Biden should emphasize the unreality of the conspiracy theory and his outrage against those going after his child.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 12:59 PM on October 31, 2019 [1 favorite]


The Democrats should call Biden as a witness.

Hard disagree. Including Biden would concede the point that this all comes down to something Biden and son might have actually done, instead of being a figment of a deranged and paranoid imagination.
posted by Faint of Butt at 1:03 PM on October 31, 2019 [108 favorites]


The Democrats should call Biden as a witness.

I'd put good money on him making a horrible gaff or two that right wing media would use to maximum effect. And it would be fuel for the both-siderism in mainstream media.

This isn't about Biden - keep him out of the headlines.
posted by Candleman at 1:06 PM on October 31, 2019 [63 favorites]


I retract my suggestion.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 1:29 PM on October 31, 2019 [59 favorites]


Moving the call transcript to the classified record keeping system will be what brings Tr*mp down. As is always the case, it ain't the crime it's the cover-up.
posted by PhineasGage at 1:31 PM on October 31, 2019 [7 favorites]


Judge Pushes Back On DOJ Claim She Can’t Enforce McGahn Subpoena (Tierney Sneed, TPM)
A federal judge expressed heavy skepticism Thursday of the Justice Department’s claims that the court can play no role in enforcing a subpoena the House issued to former White House counsel Don McGahn.

“So what does checks and balances mean?” U.S. District Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson asked Justice Department attorney James Burnham at one point in the hearing.

The case being heard predates the current Ukraine-focused impeachment inquiry, but nonetheless stands to have major implications for President Trump’s efforts to stonewall the probe.
posted by ZeusHumms at 1:47 PM on October 31, 2019 [11 favorites]


Does Marbury v. Madison have any relevance here? Even amid contemporary Republican monarchist disregard for basic constitutional principles and stare decisis?
posted by PhineasGage at 2:03 PM on October 31, 2019 [3 favorites]


Conservatives would love nothing more to chop away at Marbury and the whole concept of judicial review. That's the end game of the railing about "unelected liberal activist judges" that's been their rallying cry for my whole life.
posted by tivalasvegas at 2:37 PM on October 31, 2019 [9 favorites]


I think that’s not really reading them right. If SCOTUS consisted entirely of R-judging justices, they would be arguing that judicial review was utterly sacred.
posted by notoriety public at 2:38 PM on October 31, 2019 [11 favorites]


I've long since learned that trying to get American journalists to focus on the substance rather than on the flash and the process is a fool's errand. Making judgement calls is hard. Explaining what will happen next is easy and makes you look informed!
posted by Merus at 2:39 PM on October 31, 2019 [4 favorites]


Meh. They love judicial review and stare decisis when it's to their benefit. As usual complaining about the process and powers is the ploy used when it's not to their benefit. See also: Impeachment procedures, deficits.
posted by dragstroke at 2:40 PM on October 31, 2019 [5 favorites]


Doesn’t Trump realize that the reason his allies are whining about process is because they have no defense to offer on substance?

I am looking forward to the entire world learning about Sovereign Citizen / Admiralty Law.
posted by srboisvert at 3:27 PM on October 31, 2019 [18 favorites]


House Republicans reflect the general sentiment in the Republican Party in not wavering in supporting the President. Unless and until this changes we’re stuck.
posted by interogative mood at 3:37 PM on October 31, 2019 [1 favorite]


If we could offer Trump a way out, where he didn't have to be president any more, but he could still do his rallies, he would take it in a heartbeat.
posted by BigCalm at 4:15 PM on October 31, 2019 [3 favorites]


As usual complaining about the process and powers is the ploy used when it's not to their benefit. See also: Impeachment procedures, deficits.

It's like a game of Calvinball where the only true rule is the straight white Republican male must always win.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 4:17 PM on October 31, 2019 [20 favorites]


WaPo: 5:10 p.m.: Judge schedules Kupperman hearing for Dec. 10
In court Thursday, Kupperman’s attorney, Charles Cooper, who also represents Bolton, did not rule out the possibility that Bolton could be added to the lawsuit if he is subpoenaed. [...] Throughout the hearing, the judge emphasized the importance of moving quickly to resolve an important matter of public interest. He chastised a Justice Department lawyer who asked for more time to file a brief because of a holiday conflict.

“When it’s a matter of this consequence to this country, you roll your sleeves up and get the job done,” Leon said.
posted by katra at 4:31 PM on October 31, 2019 [5 favorites]


Roll up your sleeves and get the job done. Let’s reconvene and talk about it more in a month and a half.
posted by lostburner at 4:54 PM on October 31, 2019 [16 favorites]


If only the Trumpists would let more immigrants in to get the job done. [Loving "Hamilton" reference, of course...]
posted by PhineasGage at 4:58 PM on October 31, 2019 [1 favorite]


If we could offer Trump a way out, where he didn't have to be president any more, but he could still do his rallies, he would take it in a heartbeat.

Doubtful. Under the current (batshit) Queensbury rules we are playing by, being President is shielding him from criminal prosecution.
posted by lazaruslong at 5:14 PM on October 31, 2019 [2 favorites]


I retract my suggestion.
posted by dances_with_sneetches


... and your marshmallow stick.
posted by RolandOfEld at 5:41 PM on October 31, 2019 [1 favorite]


I am looking forward to the entire world learning about Sovereign Citizen / Admiralty Law.

Pelosi needs to make sure the flags in the house don't have gold fringe.
posted by nestor_makhno at 5:52 PM on October 31, 2019 [7 favorites]


‘We think we’re ready’: Democrats near end of closed-door impeachment testimony (Politico)
At this point, the investigators say they’re seeing diminishing returns on the parade of closed-door depositions — and they’re eager to move to the public phase of the process. That means it’s decision time for Democrats.

“A lot of the damning evidence already came out. And a lot of these witnesses are corroborating essentially the same narrative, which hasn’t changed,” said Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.), a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. A House Intelligence Committee source echoed that sentiment, asserting that the investigators gathering reams of evidence behind closed doors are not willing to let the process drag out, especially as the White House seeks to block the testimony of next week’s spate of high-level witnesses. [...]

Democrats are now likely to wind down their closed-door depositions after next week. That means the public-facing part of the impeachment inquiry could begin as soon as mid-November, when the House comes back into session after a brief recess next week.

Democrats involved in the investigation say they don’t need five, six or seven witnesses to affirm the same set of facts that Trump himself has already acknowledged, or what was provided by witnesses with firsthand knowledge.
posted by katra at 5:57 PM on October 31, 2019 [7 favorites]


Senate GOP shifts tone on impeachment

8 Republican senators to watch on impeachment

Can someone smarter than me predict the odds of impeachment going through the GOP-controlled Senate right now? I hear hopeful stuff and the evidence seems strong, but all the successes in the House are pointless if the Senate dismisses the case, right? And 20 Republican senators breaking party lines for the supermajority seems like a lot.
posted by OmniPrincess at 6:05 PM on October 31, 2019


"Can someone smarter than me predict the odds of impeachment going through the GOP-controlled Senate right now?"

0%
posted by 922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a at 6:08 PM on October 31, 2019 [19 favorites]


I'm not sure it's worth making any predictions until we've seen the public hearings. They could result in no change in public opinion and end up being more of the same or they could produce a Have You No Decency At All moment that causes the narrative to shift directions rapidly. I don't want to pin my hopes on the latter but enough truly bonkers stuff has come out so far that I have to admit it is still possible.
posted by feloniousmonk at 6:24 PM on October 31, 2019 [15 favorites]


all the successes in the House are pointless if the Senate dismisses the case, right?

Well, that's the rub.

This is presumably the calculus that Pelosi has been doing all along: is an impeachment that doesn't result in Trump's conviction in the Senate and removal from office a net win or loss for the Democrats, when viewed in the context of 2020?

My interpretation of what Pelosi has been doing is that she thought impeachment-without-removal was a losing proposition, but then changed her mind as public opinion started to really shift.

FWIW, I don't think the odds of conviction are exactly 0%, but they're not good—it would take a significant shift of public opinion within Trump's base to peel off enough Republican senators to make a difference. And I don't think anyone really knows if that's possible. It's easy to be cynical and say that it's not, but there's really no evidence either way.
posted by Kadin2048 at 6:31 PM on October 31, 2019 [11 favorites]


For what it's worth, Predictit currently has a 21% chance of conviction. I'd take the under on that myself though. They also have a 37% chance of an impeachment vote passing before the new year, but an 80% chance of one or more impeachment articles passing before April 1. I find the latter two more plausible.
posted by chortly at 6:37 PM on October 31, 2019 [3 favorites]


all the successes in the House are pointless if the Senate dismisses the case, right

Well, given the shifts we've seen in polling on impeachment, I don't think its unreasonable to say that getting a lot of evidence out in the open during impeachment hearings might further move public opinion against Trump.

In other words, even if the Senate doesn't convict (and I agree, it's extremely unlikely, although I would say not completely impossible), the hearings and coverage and all the information about the White House that will come out in all this could still be a factor in the election.

At the very least, the idea that impeachment would create a backlash and increase support for Trump is definitely not the case at this point, quite the opposite (that could still change, of course, but it seems much less likely at this point).
posted by thefoxgod at 6:43 PM on October 31, 2019 [3 favorites]


all the successes in the House are pointless if the Senate dismisses the case, right

You sometimes have to fight battles even when the odds seem insurmountable because those battles despite being defeats can sometimes still contribute something to the overall victory. Also sometimes you win.

At the very least you are planting a flag that says you will not stand for what is going on and that is not nothing.
posted by srboisvert at 7:00 PM on October 31, 2019 [84 favorites]


State Dept. agrees to turn over Giuliani-related documents to watchdog group after lawsuit (ABC News)
According to a brief filed in court late Wednesday, the documents include any communications between Giuliani and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo or anyone on his behalf, as well as other key senior officials at the department as the House works through an impeachment inquiry centered over Ukraine policy. [...]

The agreement gives the department until Nov. 22 to search for and process any communications, including text messages, emails and calendar entries, between Giuliani and his associates Victoria Toensing, Joseph DiGenova and Pompeo or top advisers, including State Department counselor Ulrich Brechbuhl, former senior adviser and veteran diplomat Michael McKinley, senior adviser Mary Kissel, and the undersecretary of state for management Brian Bulatao. [...]

The request must also include any communications about Giuliani, Toensing or DiGenova's plans to travel to Ukraine, communicate with Ukrainian officials or encourage them to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden or his son Hunter, who sat on the board of Ukrainian energy company Burisma. [...]

The lawsuit also requires the State Department to produce any communications with anyone outside government about former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch. [...] As part of the lawsuit, the department has agreed to search for "final directives" and "accompanying explanations" for Yovanovitch's ouster from Pompeo, Sullivan and Brechbuhl, who is also a West Point classmate and close friend of Pompeo's.

While the department and American Oversight reached consensus on these issues, they did not agree on any documents related to the July 25 call, with the department arguing it didn't fit within the scope of the court's ruling and it may not produce any documents before the November deadline.
posted by katra at 7:04 PM on October 31, 2019 [8 favorites]


Can someone smarter than me predict the odds of impeachment going through the GOP-controlled Senate right now?

Nobody knows, and the more certain anyone is the less likely it is they are knowledgeable enough to know.

It seems unlikely that the Senate will convict and remove from office, but it's a political process and everything depends on what public opinion does. If something happens to dramatically shift public opinion (which also seems unlikely but nobody really knows) then Senators will follow their voters.
posted by biogeo at 7:11 PM on October 31, 2019 [7 favorites]


The Republican Closing Argument Against Impeachment is Personally Implicated in the Scandal (Marcy Wheeler, emptywheel)
[...] perhaps the most telling aspect of the debate is that the Republican closing argument — yet another recital of that same Hamilton quote — came from Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy.

Kevin McCarthy is implicated in the scandal he doesn’t want investigated.

McCarthy received money both personally and in the guise of his Protect the House PAC from Igor Fruman and Lev Parnas, the grifters at the core of the influence operation that led to Trump’s quid pro quo conversation with Volodymyr Zelensky. He also keynoted an event with the grifters. While he has said he’d donate the money to charity (though has not yet, as far as I know, shown that he did that), there is no way to unring the bell of their support. He became Majority Leader with the support of men who have since been indicted for that support.
posted by katra at 7:15 PM on October 31, 2019 [47 favorites]


all the successes in the House are pointless if the Senate dismisses the case, right

We don't stop having a system of laws, just because some bad guys have slimeball lawyers and friends in high places.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 8:05 PM on October 31, 2019 [17 favorites]


Nasty House floor fight sets baseline for Trump impeachment (NBC News)
Few Republicans other than McCarthy have gone so far as to describe Trump's pursuit of foreign investigations into Biden, who is the polling leader for the Democratic presidential nomination, or his pause on foreign aid appropriated by Congress for political or policy reasons as "legitimate."

Many have said those actions fall short of their definition of impeachable offenses, but they have been wary of approving of the behavior. And some — most notably 2016 Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney, now a senator from Utah — have slammed Trump for his conduct.

"By all appearances, the president's brazen and unprecedented appeal to China and to Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden is wrong and appalling," Romney said recently.
3 takeaways from the House’s impeachment inquiry vote (WaPo)
There is some merit to the GOP argument that House Democrats are selectively leaking damaging testimony about Trump. [...]

But Republicans on the three committees in these depositions could do the reverse, by leaking information that exonerates Trump. It seems likely that isn’t happening not because of their profound respect for the testimony, but because to date there hasn’t been information exonerating Trump.

Rather, people in Trump’s administration are alleging at a minimum that they were uncomfortable with his politicization of Ukrainian foreign policy, and at worst thought it threatened national security.
posted by katra at 8:10 PM on October 31, 2019 [17 favorites]


all the successes in the House are pointless if the Senate dismisses the case, right

It's already been successful. Trump's a proven criminal beyond a shadow of a doubt whether or not the Senate impeaches him. The numbers of Republicans and Independents supporting impeachment has sky rocketed.

One question Republicans should ask themselves is how their vote will look a few years down the road. My guess would be that most of the public at that point will accept that his actions were criminal and that he should have been impeached.

Covering for Trump is not a winning game for Republicans in the long run, because their objectives require narratives that provide a shred of plausible deniability. Defending Trump will shatter their credibility generally.

And yeah, Republicans may in the end say they don't care, but that's a lot different than getting to pretend your real aim is national security, or that you're tough on crime, or whatever false narrative they're spouting.
posted by xammerboy at 9:07 PM on October 31, 2019 [9 favorites]


On the pure political pragmatics side of things, the main reason Trump's approval is at 42% rather than 45% or 50% is that he is constantly hammered with major scandals. Every time there's a break between major scandals, his approval rating starts drifting upwards towards some higher equilibrium. So pragmatically, impeachment hearings are just the next step in keep the scandals firmly in the public eye, and without that or something equivalent, he becomes much more re-electable. Perhaps impeachment may achieve a bit more than the usual scandal, but in my own most optimistic scenario that would entail beating his numbers down to maybe 38% through to the next election. But less optimistically, the main benefit of the impeachment process may be simply to keep his numbers down at their current sub-equilibrium level through the next year.
posted by chortly at 9:32 PM on October 31, 2019 [20 favorites]


Trump ditches New York to become a Florida resident, court documents show (CNN, Oct. 31, 2019)

The President changed his permanent residence to his Mar-a-Lago Club in Palm Beach, Florida, in late September, and first lady Melania Trump followed suit in October, in forms filed with the Palm Beach County Circuit Court. In a series of tweets Thursday night, Trump said he was leaving New York because he's been "treated very badly" by politicians in the Empire State. [...]

The change was primarily for tax purposes, a person close to the President told the Times. Florida does not collect income tax. The person close to the President also told the Times that Trump was enraged by the Manhattan district attorney's lawsuit in pursuit of his tax returns. It is unclear how switching residences would affect the lawsuit.


In earlier threads, there was discussion -- well, inextinguishable hope -- that if he wasn't brought down by his federal tax returns, New York would still have leeway to pursue for any fraud in his state filings. Federal returns and impeachment, Nixon's precedent, from last January:

Trump is not going to release his tax returns just to avoid impeachment. But, like Nixon, that may trigger it. (NBCnews.com, Jan. 11, 2019) Defying a Congressional subpoena is an impeachable offense, but what's in Trump's tax returns could be, too.

[...] The fraud charge centered on charitable deductions taken on Nixon’s 1969-72 tax returns in the amount of $576,000, for the donation of his personal papers to the U.S. government. July 25, 1969 was the last date on which a donor was allowed this deduction, due to a change in the tax laws; investigators determined that the gift was made months after the deadline in April 1970. The IRS and the Joint Committee on Taxation then determined that the deed donating Nixon’s papers, which had been signed by a White House lawyer, had been backdated to 1969.

Thus, the IRS and the Joint Committee on Taxation disallowed the deductions; some Democrats on the Judiciary Committee argued that tax evasion based on having falsified the paperwork was an impeachable offense.

The House Judiciary Committee eventually voted on an article of impeachment jointly charging Nixon with tax fraud and violations of the Emoluments Clause of the constitution. The article was defeated in the committee by a vote of 26-12 in July 1974.

posted by Iris Gambol at 9:36 PM on October 31, 2019 [6 favorites]


Dumpster fireside chat: Trump says he wants to read Ukraine call transcript to American people
A defiant President Trump signaled he will not cooperate with the Democratic Party's impeachment proceedings, insisting his telephone conversation with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky was "a good call" and that he might read it aloud to Americans so they can see his point.

“This is over a phone call that is a good call,” Trump, sitting behind the Resolute Desk, said in an interview with the Washington Examiner. "At some point, I’m going to sit down, perhaps as a fireside chat on live television, and I will read the transcript of the call, because people have to hear it. When you read it, it’s a straight call.”
posted by kirkaracha at 10:04 PM on October 31, 2019 [13 favorites]


It's worth noting that Mitch McConnell's numbers are cratering just in time for his election campaign. He's tied himself pretty hard to The Cheeto and of course his wife is on The Cheeto's staff. But if he gets desperate enough he might turn on him.
posted by Mitheral at 10:42 PM on October 31, 2019 [30 favorites]


As an outsider here I may be missing the point, but my understanding is that this does not require any demonstration that the Bidens did anything wrong, or that there was a reward for Ukraine to do as requested, but simply that the request was made to a foreign power to personally aid the president. Setting aside the Ukraine, that request was made of China entirely in public.

The Senate is a court in this in name only and can do as it chooses, but as a matter of law is this not already settled?
posted by How much is that froggie in the window at 12:23 AM on November 1, 2019 [4 favorites]


Trump lures GOP senators on impeachment with cold cash

Gazprom shares, surely?
posted by acb at 2:22 AM on November 1, 2019 [5 favorites]


The Senate is a court in this in name only and can do as it chooses, but as a matter of law is this not already settled?

Like everything else Trump has done that deserves impeachment, you would think so. But we're all living in a funhouse mirrorland.
posted by Anonymous at 3:50 AM on November 1, 2019


As an indication of where the Republican Party is right now, Rep Don Young (R-AK) chose to head butt (sort of) the camera rather than answer the question of whether or not it was OK for the President to pressure foreign governments to interfere with our elections.

Not that Don Young is an intellectual giant, but giving a weasel worded answer to a question like that is politicking 101, the fact that he chose to kind of, sort of, in a really wimpy way, head butt the camera instead of giving a weasel answer is probably a sign that the Republicans do not really have a good defense set up. You'd think they'd already have their talking points distributed and ready to go, they usually do, but either Young missed the memo or they don't.
posted by sotonohito at 6:19 AM on November 1, 2019 [16 favorites]


The talking point is "we are all potential jurors, so we have nothing to say." Of course it doesn't really make any sense. A juror, of course, could be asked before a murder trial if they thought murder generally was a bad thing.
posted by xammerboy at 6:36 AM on November 1, 2019 [1 favorite]


David Brooks of the NyTimes asks "If Trump-style Republicans were trying to impeach a President Biden, Warren or Sanders, and there was evidence of guilt, would you vote to convict? Answer honestly."

He really thinks Democrats would be okay with their candidate helping Russia take over a Democratic country for profit. There's an example of a Republican showing who they really are.
posted by xammerboy at 6:42 AM on November 1, 2019 [50 favorites]


After McConnell advice, Trump lays off GOP senators on impeachment (Burgess Everett & Nancy Cook, Politico)
[In a one-on-one meeting last week], [Moscow] Mitch McConnell gave Donald Trump some straightforward advice: Stop attacking senators — including Mitt Romney — who likely will soon judge your fate in an impeachment trial.
posted by ZeusHumms at 6:46 AM on November 1, 2019 [5 favorites]


David Brooks calling the central problem of America "elite negligence" in the pages of the NY Times is seriously the funniest fucking thing. The man became a college professor through sheer clout and used the position to meet and marry his 23-years-younger research assistant. Literally all his fortunes were made complaining about how oblivious and disconnected wealthy people are. Guy's asshole is shaped like a Klein bottle, and he just stares up it day in and day out.
posted by rorgy at 7:00 AM on November 1, 2019 [58 favorites]


He really thinks Democrats would be okay with their candidate helping Russia take over a Democratic country for profit. There's an example of a Republican showing who they really are.

Probably not Russia; in the Republican projection funhouse-mirror world, the Dems would be helping France or Sweden or someone take over America and impose socialised healthcare and fast trains and such.
posted by acb at 7:01 AM on November 1, 2019 [7 favorites]


I got this statement from desiccated corpse Senator Chuck Grassley, yesterday:

House Democrats announced the opening of impeachment proceedings more than a month ago. So far, this process has been defined by its secrecy, lack of due process and fundamental unfairness. This vote is an implicit admission by House Democrats of exactly that. It’s a day late and a dollar short.

Democrats’ impeachment proceedings are rooted in animus, a lack of rights for the accused, no transparency and anger at the 2016 election results. Even with this long-overdue resolution, House Democrats are still denying House Republicans the unrestricted right to call their own witnesses, to rebut Democratic witnesses and to have the same right to subpoena witnesses that the Democrats have granted themselves. And the president’s counsel still doesn’t have the right to be present and ask questions of witnesses before the Intelligence Committee, which has been given the role the Judiciary Committee has played in the past. This all stands in stark contrast to previous impeachment proceedings.

As a result, this will continue to be a purely partisan and political process – a continuation of Democrats’ impeachment obsession that began before President Trump was even inaugurated. This entire process has been contaminated from the beginning and the Senate may have a difficult time taking seriously an impeachment founded on these bases
.

Democrats have a tough row to hoe - based on this correspondence from Grassley, they could make a compelling case based on the facts and relevant constitutional questions and he’s just gonna say, “I don’t wanna.”
posted by Big Al 8000 at 7:02 AM on November 1, 2019 [5 favorites]


[David Brooks] really thinks Democrats would be okay with their candidate helping Russia take over a Democratic country for profit. There's an example of a Republican showing who they really are.

Who knows or cares what Brooks really thinks, but the odds he's offering this opinion in good faith are zero (and thank you, NYT op-ed page, for continuing to employ this hack). Brooks' job is to make conservative excesses palatable to the Times' readership, and so he excuses Republicans; partisan refusal to check the president's abuse of power by playing that paper's favorite "both sides do it" card, even as he concedes the evidence of Trump's guilt.

When one is reduced to claiming that it's okay because surely the other side is as bereft of principles as you are, it's time to rethink your position.

But Brooks' feeble effort means Republicans must feel vulnerable to charges pf partisan hypocrisy and dereliction of duty, so Democrats can and must push back against this rot.
posted by Gelatin at 7:04 AM on November 1, 2019 [13 favorites]


In this Trumpian Era, the question remains: Can you impeach the Donald Emperor?

The Trump administration’s obsession with an ancient Persian emperor, Washington Post - Today's WorldView > Analysis, Ishaan Tharoor, October 31, 2019:
President Trump and his lieutenants have a penchant for Middle Eastern monarchs. In close to three years in power, the administration has courted or hosted virtually all the region’s unelected potentates, yoking its anti-Iranian agenda in part to the concerns of a clutch of Arab sheikhs and princes. But looming above them all is a royal ghost from the past.
The real Cyrus the Great ( 559–530 BC) is spinning in his grave.
posted by cenoxo at 7:22 AM on November 1, 2019 [2 favorites]


I got this statement from desiccated corpse Senator Chuck Grassley, yesterday

More on impeachment from Senator Grassley:
Some say that this impeachment effort is part of a right-wing conspiracy, it is a Republican plot to get a Democratic President. Let's look at how we got here and see if that argument holds up.
He also cites "abuse of power and authority" as a reason to convict Clinton.
posted by kirkaracha at 7:31 AM on November 1, 2019


Trump's withholding the aid to Ukraine that Congress approved was a violation of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974
...which requires the president to report to Congress whenever he wants to hold up or not spend money that has been approved by Congress. And there is no doubt that President Trump failed to notify Congress that he has already withheld nearly $400 million in needed military aid for Ukraine to defend itself.
posted by kirkaracha at 7:50 AM on November 1, 2019 [26 favorites]




The GOP defense of Trump is getting more corrupt. Here’s what’s next. (Greg Sargent, WaPo OpEd)
In other words, Republicans will say they’re totally eager to engage on the substance, without defending or even acknowledging the actual substance of what Trump did. […]

It isn’t that Republicans substantively object to what Trump did — many probably do not — it’s that this is hard to defend politically. But resolutely pretending these facts don’t exist will continue to get harder, because the sheer scope of the corruption is overwhelming. […]

But the ultimate complication for the GOP might come from Trump himself. I submit that when Trump rage-tweets that we should “READ THE TRANSCRIPT!” and threatens to read it aloud on television, it signals where he’d really like this to end up: With Republicans unabashedly defending what he actually did do.

In other words, Trump wants Republicans to say: Trump was damn right to pressure Ukraine to investigate Biden, because Biden is corrupt. Trump himself has at times unabashedly told reporters that, yes, Ukraine should investigate Biden. […]
He's rejecting our reality, and asserting his own. Again.
posted by ZeusHumms at 8:17 AM on November 1, 2019 [23 favorites]


Poll warning for Trump and Republicans: Danger ahead. (Jennifer Rubin, WaPo Opinion)
If they drill down on Trump’s approval numbers, Republicans might go into full panic mode. His approval numbers are atrocious among women (31/64), white college graduates (38/61), women college graduates (32/67), suburban dwellers (41/56) and independents (38/57). Among suburban women he trails 33 to 63 percent. He is surviving almost entirely on white evangelicals (74/23). The top takeaways from this survey should be sobering for Republicans.

First, unless you are a Senate Republican from a state with a whole lot of white evangelicals, association with Trump may be injurious to your political survival. That should leave lawmakers such as Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine), Joni Ernst (R-Iowa), Martha McSally (R-Ariz.) and Cory Gardner (R-Colo.) from states with less than 26 percent white evangelicals looking to separate themselves from Trump (and consider breaking with him on impeachment).

Second, this is not a 50-50 country, but rather a country approaching 40-60 as Trump alienates just about every cross-section outside his base. Trump’s base is a dwindling minority of the population, and as isolated as his supporters are in the right-wing media bubble, that bubble has not tainted the majority of the country.

Third, Trump’s numbers with Americans under 30 (22/72) suggest he (and perhaps the Trumpized brand of politics) is going to wane as these Americans age and vote in greater numbers.

Finally, Republicans who deny Trump did anything wrong might want to think how that is going to play when even before they hear the evidence directly, 55 percent say he did something wrong, 47 percent seriously so.
posted by katra at 8:29 AM on November 1, 2019 [18 favorites]


If they drill down on Trump’s approval numbers, Republicans might go into full panic mode.

Please let it happen. Please.
posted by medusa at 8:41 AM on November 1, 2019 [11 favorites]


atrocious among women (31/64), white college graduates (38/61), women college graduates (32/67), suburban dwellers (41/56) and independents (38/57). Among suburban women he trails 33 to 63 percent.

26% of eligible voters voted for Trump in 2016.
posted by Rust Moranis at 8:47 AM on November 1, 2019 [11 favorites]


David Brooks of the NyTimes asks "If Trump-style Republicans were trying to impeach a President Biden, Warren or Sanders, and there was evidence of guilt, would you vote to convict? Answer honestly."

The evidence would be thrown out because requiring a Democratic president to drive David Brooks in a New York cab has already been established as torture. Mostly of the truth but still torture nonetheless.
posted by srboisvert at 8:51 AM on November 1, 2019 [3 favorites]


David Brooks of the NyTimes asks "If Trump-style Republicans were trying to impeach a President Biden, Warren or Sanders, and there was evidence of guilt, would you vote to convict? Answer honestly."

Conservative Democrats won't even vote for Bernie if he's the nominee. You really think they'll protect him in an impeachment trial? Manchin would be first in line to throw President Sanders under that bus.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 8:54 AM on November 1, 2019 [8 favorites]


26% of eligible voters voted for Trump in 2016.

And he barely won. That 26% constituted his base plus a number of groups -- notably suburban women -- that he's been steadily losing since. And meanwhile, he's energized Democratic turnout to the point that Republicans have had to fight hard for victories in the South, and not always won them. 2018 was a blue wave fueled in part by mobilizing Democratic turnout, which is why Republicans are working so hard to restrict the vote.

Trump needs more than his base and he can't afford to lose the more moderate elements of his 2016 coalition, but he already has. 2016 was a nasty surprise, but it truly may have been the last gasp of a patriarchal, evangelical rump that truly is seeing its influence wane as the country changes, as the Republicans themselves predicted after Romney's defeat. They have to be antidemocratic, because they can't win a majority of the vote any more. They didn't in 2016, by nearly three million.
posted by Gelatin at 8:56 AM on November 1, 2019 [27 favorites]


The President changed his permanent residence to his Mar-a-Lago Club in Palm Beach, Florida

The article cited above discusses numerous legal and financial impacts of this change, but all I can think is that the Trump: Florida Man memes are going to be absolutely choice.
posted by Sublimity at 8:57 AM on November 1, 2019 [10 favorites]


Manchin would be first in line to throw President Sanders under that bus.

Two days ago Manchin stated that he wouldn't vote for Sanders in the general and refused to say that he wouldn't vote for Trump.

"Vote blue no matter who" only goes one direction.
posted by Rust Moranis at 8:58 AM on November 1, 2019 [14 favorites]


I don't know why Republicans are afraid of the truth - Nancy Pelosi before the vote.

A+ shade there Nancy. This is a fact-finding excersize after all. Facts are bad for the republicans! When they complain about the process being unfair, they are essentially saying 'hey! the proof and facts are so obviously on your side, it's not fair because we have no defense against that!'
posted by adept256 at 9:30 AM on November 1, 2019 [5 favorites]


2016 was a nasty surprise, but it truly may have been the last gasp of a patriarchal, evangelical rump that truly is seeing its influence wane as the country changes,

Been waiting 20 years for this to happen. Never has. Never wanes.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 9:32 AM on November 1, 2019 [30 favorites]


Rust, I abhor dems who vote against us, too. But if they get us a majority that means control of the agenda and the committees, and that’s not nothing.
posted by rikschell at 9:41 AM on November 1, 2019 [11 favorites]


The Democratic Party needs to stand for more than "not nothing." Including not voting for fucking Trump.
posted by Rust Moranis at 9:53 AM on November 1, 2019 [4 favorites]


In a just world his constituents would vote him out in the next election. Just like we should do with Trump. If the Dems did not have a majority would impeachment even be a topic of discussion?
posted by Justin Case at 10:04 AM on November 1, 2019


Mod note: Couple comments removed, please wind down the time-filling arguments. If nothing is happening right now other than bleh congresspeople being bleh, we don’t need to fight down to the bone about the nature of blehness.
posted by cortex (staff) at 10:15 AM on November 1, 2019 [8 favorites]


Apparently Pelosi went on the Late Show with Stephen Colbert last night to make the case for / defend the impeachment process. Hot takes on Twitter are mixed, because of course they are.

CNN reports that the latest polling has impeach-and-remove favored by 82% of Democrats, 18% of Republicans, and 47% of self-described independents. Overall, that works out to 49% for, 47% against.

I think what's often elided in these polling articles is the overall number of self-described Democrats vs. Republicans; there's a certain both-sides-ism that pervades the reporting, seemingly making the assumption that there are an equal number of Ds and Rs. Which isn't true; Trump has driven many moderate Republicans out of the party since taking over and remaking it into his personal organ. (A phrase that I regret typing as soon as I read it, but I will now leave you all with as well.)

As of Oct 2019, Gallup reported that 29% of Americans identified as Democrats, 26% as Republicans, and 43% as "independent". That's a significant slide for Republicans, who once polled at 31% back in mid-2016. It seems most of the disaffected Republicans have become independents, not Democrats, making that perhaps the key indicator if you care about Trump's possible fate in the Senate.
posted by Kadin2048 at 10:32 AM on November 1, 2019 [13 favorites]


So as far as I can tell, House Republicans have no strategy at all. They're trying to survive day to day by showing enough loyalty and subservience to avoid a tweet or a primary challenge and that's it. If there's any strategy overall, it seems to be... I dunno, running the clock out on this until the new year and then McConnell pulls his bullshit of "It's an election year, let the people decide." He'll run the impeachment trial because the rules say he has to, sure, but nothing will be in good faith. And then Senate Republicans all mumble whatever about being troubled but follow suit with the same party line.

None of that means Democrats shouldn't fight like hell, because the fight itself is necessary even without any real prospect of removing the fucker. And as been said, if Republicans in Congress do turn on him, it'll all happen at once.

But I haven't seen anything else that looks like a strategy from Republicans so far other than complaining about the process and throwing tantrums. That's not a fight. That's making a display of loyalty.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 10:39 AM on November 1, 2019 [5 favorites]


The Impeachment Inquiry Is Fully Legitimate (Michael Gerhardt, The Atlantic)
The seriousness and circumspection of [the impeachment] process stands in marked contrast to the president’s attacks on it. […] Republicans have moved the goal posts in their quest to defend the president’s conduct as perfectly legitimate and the current hearings as anything but.

Their argument is not merely wrong but dangerous, and it seems to be gaining traction in the national conversation. I have been working on federal impeachment law for more than two decades—since I published my first book on the topic—and in that time I have been asked numerous questions about impeachment, typically about the scope of impeachable offenses. But I have never heard assertions like those being made today on the president’s behalf, which question the legitimacy of the process itself and the Constitution’s constraints on presidential power.
Michael Gerhardt is a constitutional law professor at the University of North Carolina School of Law.
posted by ZeusHumms at 10:47 AM on November 1, 2019 [7 favorites]


We don’t need to fight down to the bone about the nature of blehness.

I beg your pardon, good sir, you appear to be unfamiliar with the place known as Metafilter.
posted by medusa at 10:48 AM on November 1, 2019 [24 favorites]


Rudy Had a Secret Meeting With Zelensky’s Rival, Too (Daily Beast, via Politico)
The meeting took place just around the time when the president’s lawyer began expressing interest in conspiracies about Ukraine’s role in the Mueller probe.
The meeting with former Ukrainian Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko took place on Dec. 5, 2018 in the U.S. and was set up with the help of two former Republican members of Congress. [...] While the meeting was disclosed in a Department of Justice lobbying database, the contents of what was discussed have remained private. But a contemporaneous Ukrainian press report on the meeting said that Tymoshenko and Giuliani reportedly "discussed security issues, including the escalation of Russia's war against Ukraine and the US assistance to our country.” [...]

The fact that she took the time to meet with Giuliani suggests that both she and her handlers understood the powerful role that he was playing in U.S. policy toward Ukraine well before that role became public and sparked congressional interest in Trump’s impeachment. That U.S. aid to Ukraine was a discussion topic raises additional questions about how involved Giuliani was in actually crafting American foreign policy despite playing no official role in State Department channels. [...] Giuliani has said that he began “investigating Ukraine back in November” of 2018. [...]

The person who set up that meeting was former congressman Bob McEwen, an Ohio Republican who has become a powerful advocate in conservative circles since leaving the Hill. [...] Although McEwen is not a registered lobbyist, he did sign on as a “consultant” in a FARA registration filed by the Livingston Group [...] McEwen is close with Vice President Mike Pence and has been pictured with him several times throughout the last few years, including events with the Council for National Policy, an umbrella group for conservative activists that McEwen runs. Several weeks ago, Pence thanked McEwen publicly for the work he did at the Council. [...]

Through it all, McEwen appears to have adopted the same criticisms and fears of the Mueller investigation that Giuliani himself espoused. [...] in March of this year he retweeted a Trump tweet of conservative media figure (and conspiracy theorist purveyor) John Solomon alleging that there was a “Ukrainian plot to help Clinton.” [...] McEwen is scheduled to host a talk with Sidney Powell, the attorney for former National Security Adviser Mike Flynn, on the “corrupt Mueller investigations”.
posted by katra at 11:46 AM on November 1, 2019 [6 favorites]


I just tweeted the following:
Yes, @realdonaldtrump please do read the full transcript of your perfect call on TV! We all want to hear what you said about Biden. #ReadTheTranscript #FiresideChat
Naturally, I encourage other people to tweet something similar — it would be fantastic if he actually did it! I love the idea of #ReadTheTranscript (content warning: Trumpists) being full of people asking Trump to incriminate himself.
posted by danielparks at 12:04 PM on November 1, 2019 [6 favorites]


As Trump moves to bully witnesses and derail impeachment, Democrats see obstruction (WaPo)
President Trump has sought to intimidate witnesses in the impeachment inquiry, attacking them as “Never Trumpers” and badgering an anonymous whistleblower. He has directed the White House to withhold documents and block testimony requested by Congress. And he has labored to publicly discredit the investigation as a “scam” overseen by “a totally compromised kangaroo court.”

To the Democratic leaders directing the impeachment proceedings, Trump’s actions to stymie their probe into his conduct with Ukraine add up to another likely article of impeachment: Obstruction. [...] Laurence H. Tribe, a constitutional law scholar at Harvard Law School who has informally advised some Democratic House leaders, said Trump’s actions are unprecedented.

“I know of no instance when a president subject to a serious impeachment effort, whether Andrew Johnson or Richard Nixon or Bill Clinton, has essentially tried to lower the curtain entirely — treating the whole impeachment process as illegitimate, deriding it as a ‘lynching’ and calling it a ‘kangaroo court,’ ” Tribe said.

“It’s not simply getting in the way of an inquiry,” he added. “It’s basically saying one process that the Constitution put in place, thanks to people like James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, for dealing with an out-of-control president, is a process he is trying to subvert, undermine and delegitimate. That, to me, is clearly a high crime and misdemeanor.”
posted by katra at 12:09 PM on November 1, 2019 [20 favorites]


has driven many moderate Republicans out of the party since taking over and remaking it into his personal organ

Old, white, and male, with a history of traumatizing women? shrinking in both size and relevance by the day? yep, that all checks out.

Here's hoping the analogy holds up and the reality of a woman in power is enough to make what remains of the party shrivel up and die.

posted by Two unicycles and some duct tape at 12:11 PM on November 1, 2019 [4 favorites]


The thing about Trump wanting to read the transcript is that he's pulling his usual magician's trick on us, he wants people to focus on one phone call as if that's the entire of the scandal and ignore the entire network of meetings that led up to it. Now his agitators don't have to go out there and defend against a vast conspiracy, they just have to push "Even if he did it, it was just one phone call. I bet they all do it."
posted by Freon at 12:17 PM on November 1, 2019 [14 favorites]


Seen on Facebook:

"Fun fact: Every Republican just voted against the impeachment transparency that every Republican was demanding last week."

Part of the crisis in the media is that they expect Republicans to act in bad faith, so don't remark on it -- which is why Democrats get criticized for carrying forward with impeachment in the face of expected lockstep Republican opposition in the Senate, and Republicans don't get criticized for the fact that everyone expects their lockstep opposition. It's like the media know that Republican calls for "transparency" and "process" are only placeholder arguments so they don't seem to even notice when Republicans reveal they never meant it anyway.

(Republicans complaining about "gotcha questions" is working the refs to obtain exactly this result.)
posted by Gelatin at 12:20 PM on November 1, 2019 [37 favorites]


Wiktionary definition of 'work the refs'
1. (sports) To attempt to persuade the referee or other officials to view the players on one's team with a sympathetic bias. quotations

2. (politics, by extension) To manipulate the press to view one's candidate favorably and to report negative stories on one's opponent. quotations
posted by ZeusHumms at 12:24 PM on November 1, 2019 [1 favorite]


Anytime I've seen him read anything he stops every sentence to throw in all kinds of asides. His "reading" would end up being garbled non-sense. "Hello. I said that first. How kind of me. I'm not sure I remember if he said it back. I didn't have to say it, but I did. How big of me. I don't think the media even noted it. I try and say it whenever I meet someone. Hello. Then I wave or shake their hands. Unless I'm on the phone. Then you can't. Anyway, case closed. There was no pressure. Perfect call."
posted by xammerboy at 12:41 PM on November 1, 2019 [34 favorites]


My guess is that the pauses for the insertion of random comments has to do with reading off the teleprompter. Since he won't wear glasses, the font is huge and scrolls slowly so he's waiting to read the next line of text to emerge. Not having read it beforehand, he has no clue what he's going to say next so he improvises.
posted by TWinbrook8 at 12:52 PM on November 1, 2019 [6 favorites]


Pelosi on Friday did not rule out including instances of Trump’s possible obstruction of special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s investigation into Russian election interference in articles of impeachment drafted by the House.

“There were 11 obstruction-of-justice provisions in the Mueller report,” Pelosi said during an interview on Bloomberg television. “Perhaps some of them will be part of this, but again that will be part of the inquiry to see where we go.”
posted by kirkaracha at 1:57 PM on November 1, 2019 [3 favorites]


Trump: The Soviet Witch Coup Has Found Me Innocent
Republicans have spent weeks calling impeachment proceedings a coup, and then a witch hunt. Confusingly, they appear to believe witch hunts are quasi-judicial proceedings run by actual witches, and accordingly circulated merchandise depicting Democrats as a coven. Then yesterday — of all days to stop talking about witches! — they made the puzzling decision to switch metaphors again, and begin likening impeachment to a Soviet show trial. It was as their sole messaging objective was to make Arthur Miller turn over in his grave.
posted by kirkaracha at 2:22 PM on November 1, 2019 [14 favorites]


The message from the Gerhardt essay needs to be shouted from the rooftops.

I have long thought that, though Republican voters hated President Obama because of his race, Republican elites hated him because he was a constitutional scholar. The last thing they want is someone in the presidency who knows full well what they shouldn’t be able to get away with.
posted by Sublimity at 2:23 PM on November 1, 2019 [19 favorites]


Part of the crisis in the media is that they expect Republicans to act in bad faith,

Is this true? I wondered why each and every discussion with Republicans doesn't begin with an analysis of "Are you acting honestly and in good faith?"

I thought it was more "both sides" bullshit poisoning the discourse.
posted by mikelieman at 3:04 PM on November 1, 2019 [2 favorites]


Third, Trump’s numbers with Americans under 30 (22/72) suggest he (and perhaps the Trumpized brand of politics) is going to wane as these Americans age and vote in greater numbers.

True; Generation X will need to come up with its own terrible politicians when the time comes.
posted by acb at 3:18 PM on November 1, 2019 [1 favorite]


Thank you to the OP, katra, who keeps posting great links and thanks as well to the many other contributors to this thread. I much appreciate your efforts!
posted by Bella Donna at 3:24 PM on November 1, 2019 [42 favorites]


I had a revelation recently, that the reason the GOP keeps talking about impeachment overturning the results of an election is because that is the talking point they had prepared for the Mueller investigation into the 2016 election. But now we have this new crime of interference with the Next election and they don't have any way of defending it so they're still repeating the talking point from their last strategy. It's the same reason they're making process arguments: because they have no other defense.
posted by threeturtles at 4:03 PM on November 1, 2019 [4 favorites]


the reason the GOP keeps talking about impeachment overturning the results of an election is because that is the talking point they had prepared for the Mueller investigation into the 2016 election

Sure, but they themselves are ignoring the results of the 2018 election where they lost 40 seats in the House and the Democrats took control.
posted by kirkaracha at 4:50 PM on November 1, 2019 [8 favorites]


White House official who heard Trump’s call with Ukraine leader testified that he was told to keep quiet

“If this is such a perfect call, why is everybody going to these extraordinary lengths?” said a U.S. official familiar with Vindman’s testimony this week. “Why are people running immediately to the White House counsel? Why is the White House counsel telling people not to talk about it?”

posted by ActingTheGoat at 4:50 PM on November 1, 2019 [33 favorites]


Growing number of GOP senators consider acknowledging Trump’s quid pro quo on Ukraine (WaPo)
Meanwhile, the president has frustrated Senate Republicans by seeming to change his messaging strategy every day rather than present a coherent defense of his actions, said multiple Senate GOP officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity to comment frankly. [...]

Such a step would also undercut Trump’s central talking point on impeachment — and would clash with House Republicans’ strategy. Trump’s Capitol Hill allies and Republican leaders, including House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (Calif.) and House Minority Whip Steve Scalise (La.), are sticking with Trump’s line that there was no proposed trade-off with Ukraine. [...] In the Senate, however, some Republicans aren’t as confident and have expressed concerns about the endless drip of embarrassing headlines from daily witness testimony that the U.S. aid and a White House visit for Zelensky hinged on the Biden probe. [...]

“He honestly believes that there may have been corruption in Ukraine, and before he turns over $400 million of American taxpayer money, he’s entitled to ask,” [Sen. John Neely Kennedy (R-La.)] said, later adding, “The issue to be litigated … is going to be: Did the president have a good-faith reason to believe that Hunter Biden may have been involved in corruption? And if I’m correct in my analysis, then there will be a lot of time spent on what Mr. Biden did for the money.”
On Bidens and Ukraine, Wild Claims With Little Basis (Bloomberg, Oct 9, 2019)
posted by katra at 6:03 PM on November 1, 2019 [2 favorites]


WaPo: 7:30 p.m.: Energy Secretary Rick Perry expected to testify in impeachment inquiry
Energy Secretary Rick Perry, who told Trump he would resign by the end of the year, is expected to testify Wednesday in the House impeachment inquiry, said a person working on the investigation who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss closed-door conversations. Perry, who previously refused to comply with a subpoena demanding documents pertaining to the probe, is set to appear on the same day as a slate of other high-level agency officials.
Rick Perry won't testify at impeachment inquiry hearing (Politico, 08:54 PM EDT)
“The Secretary will not partake in a secret star chamber inquisition where agency counsel is forbidden to be present," DOE spokesperson Shaylyn Hynes said in an email, adding that Perry would consider a request from lawmakers to testify in an open hearing.
posted by katra at 6:08 PM on November 1, 2019 [6 favorites]


"Generation X will need to come up with its own terrible politicians when the time comes"

Oh, we have, believe me. But people under 30 aren't Generation X anymore.

I can see why you'd make that mistake, though, because like Millennials and the following generation, we want the damn Boomers to stop running everything.
posted by litlnemo at 6:33 PM on November 1, 2019 [22 favorites]


I can see why you'd make that mistake, though, because like Millennials and the following generation, we want the damn Boomers to stop running everything.

Millennials alone outnumber Boomers but vote at half the rate. All they have to do is vote.

Trump’s numbers with Americans under 30 (22/72) suggest he (and perhaps the Trumpized brand of politics) is going to wane as these Americans age and vote in greater numbers.

If they wait much longer to vote, more of them will more likely vote as Republicans because every demographic becomes more conservative as they get older.

If Millennials want change, they need to start voting now, not 10 years from now.
posted by JackFlash at 7:16 PM on November 1, 2019 [12 favorites]


> If they wait much longer to vote, more of them will more likely vote as Republicans because every demographic becomes more conservative as they get older.

it's less that every demographic becomes more conservative as they get older as it is that rich people are more likely to both be conservative and also live longer.
posted by Reclusive Novelist Thomas Pynchon at 7:41 PM on November 1, 2019 [42 favorites]




CSM does a take on Gen X candidates past and present. (short version, lack of a candidate probably best represents gen x).
posted by Harry Caul at 2:58 AM on November 2, 2019 [2 favorites]


Mod note: This is an impeachment post and impeachment thread for discussing impeachment things about the impeachment inquiry, so let's please drop the Millennials / Gen X thing and other off topic items at this point. Thanks.
posted by taz (staff) at 6:57 AM on November 2, 2019 [9 favorites]


Amid impeachment inquiry, U.S. trade officials in Ukraine for talks (Politico)
On Thursday, the top Democrats on the Senate Finance and Foreign Relations committees asked U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer for information on whether the White House interfered with his efforts to restore some trade benefits for Ukraine that Trump suspended in December 2017.

That followed a Washington Post story last month, which said Lighthizer was discouraged from submitting the recommendation by then-national security adviser John Bolton on the grounds that Trump was unlikely to approve it. [...] They also asked whether Trump had ever asked Lighthizer to convey the president's interest in Ukraine launching an investigation into the activities of any of his political opponents. [...]

USTR has not yet issued any response to Wyden and Menendez's letter, or to an earlier letter from Wyden about whether Trump had asked China for a similar investigation as part of the U.S.-China trade negotiations.
posted by katra at 8:54 AM on November 2, 2019 [2 favorites]


The impeachable offense Trump may have committed — but Democrats aren’t really talking about (Aaron Blake, WaPo)
Why get bogged down in specific offenses with actual statutory requirements that the other side could argue must be satisfied, when you’re really making a general case about abuses of power? That risks allowing people to argue this wasn’t technically bribery, and maybe allowing the accused to skate. A number of experts have argued against defining what Trump did as bribery, including Renato Mariotti and Teri Kanefield, for that very reason.

But we’re in a different era now, in which polarization has rendered basically any subjectivity and plausible deniability politically weaponized. The phrase “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” is a nebulous one to pretty much every American who doesn’t call themselves a constitutional scholar. That allows plenty of people to convince themselves Trump’s actions don’t rise to the level required.

You could argue that defining Trump’s misdeeds by a less subjective term would be much more fruitful. Does your average person know whether what Trump allegedly did is a “high Crime” or “Misdemeanor?” Perhaps not. And perhaps they think a “high Crime” means something, well, with a high degree of criminality — which isn’t true.

Could they be convinced, by contrast, that it was the kind of bribery that is expressly forbidden in the Constitution? And, on a more basic level, do people even know that bribery is an impeachable offense? Those are the questions Democrats should probably be asking themselves about now.
posted by katra at 8:58 AM on November 2, 2019 [8 favorites]




Experts on Trump's conduct: 'Plainly an abuse of power, plainly impeachable' (Guardian)
As Democrats hit the gas on impeachment this week, Donald Trump exhorted Republicans to defend him on the substance of his actions in the Ukraine scandal, instead of sniping about the process.

“Rupublicans [sic],” Trump tweeted “go with Substance and close it out!”

[...] there is a (slightly) subtler version of Trump defense that Republicans are trying out which says that while Trump’s conduct has not been irreproachable, neither has it been impeachable.

The argument, according to constitutional experts and historians of impeachment, is not a strong one. In fact, Trump’s conduct, according to analysts interviewed by the Guardian, hews more closely than any previous conduct by any other president to what scholars conceive as a concrete example of impeachable behavior. [...]

Many are finding defending Trump difficult at the moment. Republican lawmakers spent Thursday fleeing reporters trying to ask the question, “Do you think it’s OK for the president to pressure foreign governments to interfere in our elections?”. One lawmaker even headbutted a camera rather than reply.
posted by katra at 9:10 AM on November 2, 2019 [5 favorites]


Trump tries to banish the specter of impeachment with red-state campaign tour (WaPo)
A new poll from the AP-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research contained mixed news for Trump. Despite an 85 percent approval rating among Republicans, 33 percent of Republicans said Trump doesn’t make them feel “proud,” and 41 percent of Republicans said Trump doesn’t make them feel “excited.”

The poll released Thursday found that 61 percent of Americans, including 26 percent of Republicans, say Trump has little to no respect for the country’s democratic institutions and traditions. That is an issue at the heart of the impeachment inquiry into whether Trump improperly pressured the leader of Ukraine for political favors.
posted by katra at 9:13 AM on November 2, 2019 [5 favorites]


Holy crap, I hadn’t registered this before.

From the WaPo article:
A vague eight-word phrase was added and attributed to Zelensky that the foreign leader never said. The specific word that Zelensky did say was omitted from the official record: “Burisma,” the Ukrainian company that employed Biden’s son Hunter. In its place, the official transcript used this instead: “the company that you mentioned in this issue.”
posted by bjrubble at 9:15 AM on November 2, 2019 [31 favorites]


"they are basically asking, in quite robust terms, for help in doing a hatchet job on their own intelligence services”

The damage this will do to the most effective and longest-established international agency relationships is incalculable. This alone will lead to lost lives and a more unstable world. Astoundingly stupid to the point of actual evil aimed at allies and the USA itself. Barr should be immediately sacked and made to face the strongest possible charges.
posted by Devonian at 9:25 AM on November 2, 2019 [42 favorites]


And, on a more basic level, do people even know that bribery is an impeachable offense? Those are the questions Democrats should probably be asking themselves about now.

Well, we can start with the fact that bribery is one of the examples of impeachable crimes listed in the Constitution.
posted by rhizome at 9:32 AM on November 2, 2019 [17 favorites]


The damage this will do to the most effective and longest-established international agency relationships is incalculable. This alone will lead to lost lives and a more unstable world. Astoundingly stupid to the point of actual evil aimed at allies and the USA itself. Barr should be immediately sacked and made to face the strongest possible charges.


Yes, at this point Putin has won so much I'm tired of him winning.
I'm afraid rebuilding international trust, and law and order will take more than a generation, but I hope there are new leaders waiting out there who will do it better and faster than that. As not American, I look at the presidential candidates through that lens, and non of them really impress me. Maybe Harris? I understand why domestic issues feel more important for the American voters, but lawlessness and corruption harms everyone.
posted by mumimor at 9:48 AM on November 2, 2019 [9 favorites]


Growing number of GOP senators consider acknowledging Trump’s quid pro quo on Ukraine (WaPo)

Note that this strategy fallback position concedes not only the quid pro quo, but also that Trump tried to pressure a foreign government to launch an investigation that would benefit him politically. Republicans seem to have successfully moved the goalposts by yammering about "quid pro quo" -- nice messaging, Democrats, and way to get suckered again, "liberal media" -- but the fact that Trump asked a foreign government to interfere in a US election again is impeachable all by itself, and Trump released the evidence that he did so himself.
posted by Gelatin at 10:30 AM on November 2, 2019 [4 favorites]


I thought it was more "both sides" bullshit poisoning the discourse.

The fact that the media knows it has to make a tendentious effort to distort Democratic conduct into a "both sides" narrative proves that they expect bad faith from the Republicans. They're just more concerned about excusing said bad faith and bad conduct with its lazy, cowardly "both sides" narrative than on telling the truth about it, because facts have a liberal bias and the media is terrified of being called liberal, though they will be any time they publish anything Republicans don't like.
posted by Gelatin at 10:37 AM on November 2, 2019 [3 favorites]


The New York Times has rightly been lambasted widely for their both-sideism on impeachment issues and practically every other political topic these days, but it's hard to level such a charge against them for a piece like this: In Trump’s Twitter Feed: Conspiracy-Mongers, Racists and Spies.
We look inside the alternate reality of President Trump’s Twitter account, where he absorbs and amplifies a noxious stream of disinformation.
posted by PhineasGage at 11:00 AM on November 2, 2019 [18 favorites]




Your Childhood Pet Rock, I would encourage you to post the Buzzfeed 302s cache news as a separate FPP. I think it is something a lot of us will want to chew over, and this is not actually the appropriate thread for that.
posted by Bella Donna at 11:28 AM on November 2, 2019 [9 favorites]


The limited release of the 302s ("Another installment will be released every month for at least the next eight years") appear to have some relevance to the impeachment inquiry, so maybe there is a way we can keep focused on that aspect here:
Manafort was pushing the conspiracy theory that Ukraine hacked the DNC as early as 2016

Page 14: In an April 2018 interview with the special counsel’s office, Rick Gates, who had served as deputy Trump campaign chair and long been Paul Manafort’s right-hand man, told investigators that after the campaign learned the DNC had been hacked, Manafort pushed the theory that Ukraine, not Russia, had orchestrated the attack. It’s a conspiracy theory that’s persisted in right-wing circles, even after the US Intelligence Community concluded Russia was involved, and one that Trump brought up in his July 2019 call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

In a written memorandum of the July call released by the White House, Trump at one point says to Zelensky, “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.”

Read more on this.
posted by katra at 11:40 AM on November 2, 2019 [3 favorites]


Trump lures GOP senators on impeachment with cold cash

Gazprom shares, surely?

Saudi Aramco's trillion dollar IPO
posted by Mrs Potato at 11:57 AM on November 2, 2019 [5 favorites]


“This is over a phone call that is a good call,” Trump, sitting behind the Resolute Desk, said in an interview with the Washington Examiner. "At some point, I’m going to sit down, perhaps as a fireside chat on live television, and I will read the transcript of the call, because people have to hear it. When you read it, it’s a straight call.”

With a roaring fire going in the live chat's background, one should be careful their own posterior doesn't spontaneously combust. Fireproof underwear? Will fire extinguishers be available?
posted by cenoxo at 1:56 PM on November 2, 2019


At some point, I’m going to sit down, perhaps as a fireside chat on live television, and I will read the transcript of the call

AKA Dumpster-fire-side chat.
posted by sexyrobot at 2:30 PM on November 2, 2019 [17 favorites]


A presidential loathing for Ukraine is at the heart of the impeachment inquiry (WaPo)
Three of President Trump’s top advisers met with him in the Oval Office in May, determined to convince him that the new Ukrainian leader was an ally deserving of U.S. support. They had barely begun their pitch when Trump unloaded on them, according to current and former U.S. officials familiar with the meeting. In Trump’s mind, the officials said, Ukraine’s entire leadership had colluded with the Democrats to undermine his 2016 presidential campaign. “They tried to take me down,” Trump railed. [...]

“We could never quite understand it,” a former senior White House official said of Trump’s view of the former Soviet republic, also saying that much of it stemmed from the president’s embrace of conspiracy theories. “There were accusations that they had somehow worked with the Clinton campaign. There were accusations they’d hurt him. He just hated Ukraine.” [...]

In the end, most U.S. officials agreed that Trump’s anger with Ukraine, like many of his grievances, was connected with the 2016 election and his feeling that Ukraine was responsible for the humiliating fall of Paul Manafort, Trump’s former campaign chairman. Trump’s hatred, they concluded, was ingrained, irrational and possibly irreversible.
Internal Mueller documents show Trump campaign chief pushed unproven theory Ukraine hacked Democrats (WaPo)
The new information shows how early people in Trump’s orbit were pushing the unsubstantiated theory about Ukraine’s role. And it illustrates a link between Mueller’s investigation, which concluded in March, and the current House impeachment investigation of Trump. [...] Regarding Ukraine, a summary of an interview with Gates conducted in April 2018 shows that Gates told the FBI that Manafort citing Ukrainians for the hacks “parroted a narrative” that was also advanced at the time by Konstantin Kilimnik — an employee of Manafort who the FBI has assessed to have ties to Russian intelligence. [...]

Shortly after the Democratic convention, Gates told the FBI that he was traveling in a car with Trump to the airport from Trump Tower in New York when Trump received a phone call related to WikiLeaks. Shortly after boarding an airplane, Gates said, Trump informed him that additional releases of information would be forthcoming. [...] In written answers to questions posed by Mueller, Trump indicated he had no advanced knowledge of WikiLeaks’ plans.
posted by katra at 2:31 PM on November 2, 2019 [19 favorites]


Hell, he actually believes the shit that the conservative conspiracy complex are feeding him. It's like an ouroboros of lies.

I think by this point they all believe it; they're in a closed loop of bullshit that Newt Gingrich started 25 years ago. Matt Gaetz is 37 years old. He grew up immersed in the bullsht, and I think he truly, truly believes that there is some kind of giant conspiracy working above and beyond the powers of the two branches of the US Government to stop.

This impeachment process must become a starting point toward delegitimizing the right wing in America. How this happens is beyond me.
posted by Room 101 at 3:20 PM on November 2, 2019 [32 favorites]


It's as if someone never revealed to their child that Santa wasn't real and kept going to more elaborate lengths to sneak presents under the tree and got them to go to college and get a job by telling them Santa would be mad if they didn't and now the parents finally died and the adult child is getting angrier and angrier every time Santa doesn't show up to magically give them what they want at Christmas...
posted by Scattercat at 3:23 PM on November 2, 2019 [21 favorites]


This impeachment process must become a starting point toward delegitimizing the right wing in America. How this happens is beyond me.

Unfortunately I seriously doubt that is the direction that the process will drive the believers.
posted by Bovine Love at 3:58 PM on November 2, 2019 [2 favorites]


BuzzFeed News, yesterday: A Lawyer For Giuliani's Ukrainian Associate Tried To Argue He Was Not A Flight Risk. It Did Not Go Well. "On the way out of the federal courthouse in downtown New York, Blanche shook his head, seeming defeated. When BuzzFeed News asked him for his card in order to get the spelling of his name correct, he responded, 'I wish you wouldn’t spell my name right. I wish I had one of my colleague's cards to give you instead. Lord.'"
posted by jocelmeow at 4:41 PM on November 2, 2019 [33 favorites]


CORRECTION November 1, 2019, at 3:19 p.m.

Assistant US Attorney Nicolas Roos's name was misstated in an earlier version of this post.

Should have gotten his card.
posted by JackFlash at 4:50 PM on November 2, 2019 [15 favorites]


"[Rick] Gates recalled a time on the campaign aircraft when candidate Trump said, 'get the emails.' [Michael] Flynn said he could use his intelligence sources to obtain the emails," investigators wrote in a summary of Gates' April 2018 interview with Mueller's team. Flynn was a foreign policy adviser on the campaign and became Trump's first national security adviser.

"Flynn had the most Russia contacts of anyone on the campaign and was in the best position to ask for the emails if they were out there," the investigators also wrote about Gates' interview.


So Trump ordered them to get the illegally hacked emails and Michael Flynn offered to do it since he had intelligence sources. It doesn't say whether they were US or Russian intelligence, but either way he was attempting to use government assistance to help the Trump campaign. That is a crime and Trump okayed it.
posted by JackFlash at 4:56 PM on November 2, 2019 [29 favorites]


Gates described in an interview with Mueller investigators last year how several close advisers to Trump, Trump's family members and Trump himself considered how to get the stolen documents and pushed the effort, according to investigators' summary.

"Gates said Donald Trump Jr. would ask where the emails were in family meetings. Michael Flynn, [Jared] Kushner, [Paul] Manafort, [Redacted] [Corey] Lewandowski, Jeff Sessions, and Sam Clovis expressed interest in obtaining the emails as well.


So the whole family were engaged in obtaining stolen documents to help Trump's campaign.

These revelations should constitute another article of impeachment.

Meanwhile Bill Barr is obstructing justice by refusing to release the grand jury testimony relating to these crimes.
posted by JackFlash at 5:01 PM on November 2, 2019 [29 favorites]


one should be careful their own posterior doesn't spontaneously combust

dunno about the posterior, but his pants, at least, have been on fire for decades.
posted by 20 year lurk at 6:37 PM on November 2, 2019 [3 favorites]


I wish you wouldn’t spell my name right. I wish I had one of my colleague's cards to give you instead. Lord.

2019 has been pretty horrible, but I'm kinda liking this last month. Despite the continuing horrors and the uncertainty of victory, I do enjoy watching them squirm. Squirm harder, assholes.
posted by ryanrs at 7:32 PM on November 2, 2019 [30 favorites]


Trump gets deluge of boos upon entering MSG prior to UFC 244 (The Hill)
President Trump was welcomed into Madison Square Garden Saturday night with heavy booing from the crowd.

The president is at the arena to watch the main fight of UFC 244.
President Trump getting massively booed as he entered the Garden for #UFC244 pic.twitter.com/ZwmSxlQ4uL
— Rob Taub (@RTaub_) November 3, 2019
This is the second time in six days that the president has been heavily booed during a public appearance.
posted by katra at 10:44 PM on November 2, 2019 [34 favorites]


"Uh, no... they're saying boo-urns." (CBS News)
Trump Jr. disputed they were booed at the event. In a tweet that was later retweeted by Mr. Trump, Trump Jr. wrote "when we walked into the arena it was overwhelmingly positive."
posted by katra at 11:07 PM on November 2, 2019 [5 favorites]


but either way he [Flynn] was attempting to use government assistance to help the Trump campaign. That is a crime

That’s one of the reasons why Flynn is almost in jail.

and Trump okayed it.

Trump is President, so those rules don’t apply. See Michael Cohen.
posted by notyou at 11:10 PM on November 2, 2019


“when we walked into the arena it was overwhelmingly positive."

Haha. That guy is such a duck. Imagine the privileged, secret service approved gate they walked through.
posted by notyou at 11:13 PM on November 2, 2019 [1 favorite]


Trump is President, so those rules don’t apply.

Feds release Flynn interview notes (Politico)
The disclosure came as a new defense team led by a prominent critic of former special counsel Robert Mueller’s office, Sidney Powell, has mounted an extraordinarily broad attack on Mueller’s team and the FBI, accusing them of altering key evidence in the case and essentially tricking Flynn into the guilty plea he offered in December 2017 and reaffirmed a year later.

In a court filing Friday that included the notes and other records, prosecutors roundly rejected the defense’s new tack. [...]

In a separate filing late Friday, Flynn’s attorneys continued to press their demand for access to data from mobile phones used by Malta-born professor Joseph Mifsud, who is suspected of playing a role in U.S. government efforts directed at Trump campaign advisers in 2016. Attorney General Bill Barr reportedly persuaded Italian officials to turn over the phones after traveling to that country on two occasions earlier this year seeking cooperation in a Justice Department inquiry into the origins of the Trump-Russia investigation. [...]

Even if the maneuvering by Flynn’s defense amounts to naught in the courts, the lawyers’ efforts to surface complaints about the Trump-Russia probe and the Mueller investigation could improve chances of Flynn receiving a pardon or commutation from President Donald Trump. Trump has already offered praise for Flynn’s new lead lawyer, Powell, calling her a “GREAT LAWYER” in a June tweet.
posted by katra at 11:31 PM on November 2, 2019 [8 favorites]


I frequently find myself wondering who is paying for all of these lawyers, especially for figures like Flynn.
posted by Nerd of the North at 11:54 PM on November 2, 2019 [1 favorite]


The RNC has covered some. Flynn has sold his Va house, and has a legal defense fund for donations.
posted by Harry Caul at 2:37 AM on November 3, 2019 [1 favorite]


Trump Jr. disputed they were booed at the event. In a tweet that was later retweeted by Mr. Trump, Trump Jr. wrote "when we walked into the arena it was overwhelmingly positive."

Something something party something something reject evidence something something own eyes and ears.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 5:38 AM on November 3, 2019 [7 favorites]


Something something definitely not so bright. I think we can be excused here if we don't discuss Trump Jr.
Better to focus on Mr. Stable Genius and the true enablers, those who put some actual brain power towards shielding him.
posted by Namlit at 6:49 AM on November 3, 2019 [1 favorite]


More importantly... a UFC crowd isn’t exactly gonna be stacked with lefties, you know what I mean? It’s like the toxic masculinity hive mind, a sea of Rogans.
posted by schadenfrau at 6:55 AM on November 3, 2019 [16 favorites]


a UFC crowd ...a sea of Rogans.

Imagine having a piece of the nutritional supplement concession!
posted by thelonius at 7:01 AM on November 3, 2019 [8 favorites]


Have people actually watched the clips? It's not at all like the Nationals game. There is booing but there is just as much if not more cheering.

I wish that it was nothing but boos but we are just are blind as the Trump loyalists if we ignore the cheering and support that he does receive.
posted by nolnacs at 7:01 AM on November 3, 2019 [18 favorites]


I'm pretty sure Trump was thinking he would find an event where he would be cheered instead of booed. I'm sure he was told that the world series is attended by elites only. It's got me thinking though - can Trump go to any city event and not be booed? His support is in rural areas.
posted by xammerboy at 7:03 AM on November 3, 2019


The UFC story is a tabula rasa.

Fox News went with 'Trump Cheered (and Booed) at UFC match in New York City,' while NBC went with the subtly-different 'Trump Booed, Cheered at UFC fight in New York City,' and CNN opted for 'Trump met with loud boos, some cheers at UFC fight in New York.'

Dana White, president of UFC (and longtime Trump supporter) said it was the most electrifying entrance he's seen in 25 years. Vince McMahon uses 'electrifying' a lot too, and in the same way--in the fight business, boos and cheers are both loud noises.
posted by box at 7:20 AM on November 3, 2019 [4 favorites]


>but either way he [Flynn] was attempting to use government assistance to help the Trump campaign. That is a crime

>That’s one of the reasons why Flynn is almost in jail.


No, Flynn was convicted of lying to the FBI about his contacts with the Russian ambassador regarding sanctions. He was not convicted or charged with using US or Russian government assistance to help the Trump campaign get stolen documents. This is an entirely new crime.

Bill Barr has been concealing this information from congress and the public. This new information was revealed by a Freedom of Information lawsuit filed by CNN to get Mueller investigation interview notes.
posted by JackFlash at 7:42 AM on November 3, 2019 [21 favorites]


Mueller interview notes obtained by CNN show Trump's push for stolen emails (CNN)
CNN sued the Justice Department for access to Mueller's witness interview notes, and this weekend's release marks the first publicly available behind-the-scenes look at Mueller's investigative work outside of court proceedings and the report itself. Per a judge's order, the Justice Department will continue to release new tranches of the Mueller investigative notes monthly to CNN and Buzzfeed News, which also sued for them. [...]

Read the interview notes
posted by katra at 8:00 AM on November 3, 2019 [5 favorites]


To Beat Trump, Focus on His Corruption (David Leonhardt, NYT Opinion)
Trump’s supporters seem to take his personality as a given and aren’t moved by complaints about it. Some fraction of them, however, can evidently be swayed by his failure to live up to his policy promises. [...] The most promising version of that argument revolves around corruption: The Ukraine quid pro quo matters because it shows how Trump has reneged on his promise to fight for ordinary Americans and is using the power of the presidency to benefit himself. [...] Casting Trump as a reprobate is tempting because, well, he is. He is a “pathological liar,” as Ted Cruz said during the 2016 Republican primaries, as well as a “con artist” (Marco Rubio’s description) and a “race-baiting, xenophobic, religious bigot” (Lindsey Graham’s). Mick Mulvaney, then a Republican congressman, had the simplest summary: “He’s a terrible human being.”

But none of these descriptions has proved to be an effective political tactic against Trump. [...] The contrast between 2016 and 2018 fits a global pattern. Demagogues like Trump typically rise to power when people have come to distrust a country’s elites, as Luigi Zingales of the University of Chicago has pointed out. Demagogues “don’t exist in a vacuum,” Zingales has said. “The more the elite go after him, the more people think, ‘He’s one of us.’” The better strategy — one that defeated Italy’s Silvio Berlusconi, for example — is to treat demagogues like normal politicians who have failed to deliver.

The Ukraine scandal offers Democrats a chance to do so. As a candidate, Trump promised to fix the country and make it great again. But he didn’t really mean it. From the beginning — like the secret negotiations to build a Trump Tower in Moscow during the 2016 campaign — he has tried to help himself, not the country. [...] Of course, he will still use his flamboyant style to present himself as an outsider and cast the Democratic nominee as an elitist insider. But this same style leaves him open to a second message that can fit comfortably with anti-corruption. It’s the chaos argument.

Trump has turned American politics into an exhausting circus. “The best argument against Trump is simply this: We can’t tolerate another four years like these,” Axelrod said. “We can’t wake up to crazy tweets and gratuitous taunts. That gets in the way of solving problems that affect people’s lives.” [...] With Trump on the ballot, the chaos argument can be even sharper: Trump deliberately creates chaos to distract from his failures as president. Democrats don’t need to litigate the details of every false statement. The more effective response may instead be a version of Ronald Reagan’s knowing line: There he goes again. [...] And Democrats will need to avoid the long-winded, disorganized speechifying that characterize most congressional hearings. They will need to make a clear, convincing case — not that Donald Trump is a bad person, but that he has failed the country.
posted by katra at 8:43 AM on November 3, 2019 [16 favorites]


For all our heavy breathing about the NY Times' many failings and awful op-ed page regulars, Paul Krugman and David Leonhardt are two of the clearest, most astute, most correct commentators in the punditocracy.
posted by PhineasGage at 8:49 AM on November 3, 2019 [11 favorites]


Trump getting booed at public sporting events will now be used as a distraction tactic - it’s total reality show feud style bullshit, and maintains the us-vs-them persecution complex of his base. It shouldn’t be surprising that his team trotted him out for another round just as evidence of a fresh batch of crimes comes to light with the Mueller notes dump.
posted by aiglet at 9:05 AM on November 3, 2019 [6 favorites]


That’s the silliest defense of Trump, well, since the last one (Jennifer Rubin, WaPo Opinion)
[...] even the best articulation of the “Oh, what’s a little quid pro quo?" sounds daft. The Post reports, “Inside the lunch, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.), who ran against Trump in 2016, said a quid pro quo is not illegal unless there is ‘corrupt intent’ and echoed [Sen. John Neely] Kennedy’s argument that such conditions are a tool of foreign policy.”

There is a little problem: This is the textbook definition of corrupt intent. Trump used military aid as a lever for his own political purposes, not the country’s national security, for reelection assistance. It is bad enough that Trump does not understand the difference between national interests and his own interests; watching the Republican Party obliterate that line essentially makes it the pro-corruption party.
Republicans say that Trump’s quid pro quos were normal. Here’s why they’re wrong. (WaPo)
Political scientist Paul Poast explained that leaders commonly deal in some foreign policy behaviors we might call quid pro quos, such as side payments or issue linkages, i.e., trading policy concessions or linking progress on one issue to another.

But Trump asking a foreign leader for help investigating a political rival crossed the line into using secret government communications and relations for personal gain. [...] Political history makes it clear that the claims that Republicans are now making are factually incorrect. The kind of quid pro quo that Trump apparently requested is not the kind of quid pro quo that is typical of previous presidential administrations, because it had nothing to do with American national interests but rather the president’s personal gain. Furthermore, the channels through which it was offered were highly irregular, and plausibly structured so as to circumvent the ordinary mechanisms of foreign policy decision making.
posted by katra at 9:13 AM on November 3, 2019 [10 favorites]


Trump getting booed at public sporting events will now be used as a distraction tactic

That may be true but it will a) seriously degrade his own morale to be boo'd and b)make it more difficult for the Cheeto to riff on how some group loves him. Not because he's adverse to lying but because he'll remember and so it won't flow. The Cheeto ain't going to say squat about his world series appearance and you can bet baseball would have been his go to topic for weeks if his reception had even been neutral.
posted by Mitheral at 9:20 AM on November 3, 2019 [6 favorites]


Martha McSally was talking with reporters yesterday and was asked a question about the impeachment inquiry. She ended the Q&A session right there and left.

They're nervous. This isn't going to kick Trump out but vulnerable GOPers are scared of being dragged down.
posted by azpenguin at 9:21 AM on November 3, 2019 [8 favorites]


So now we're parsing out different varieties of quid pro quo? This would all be a lot simpler if everyone stopped saying "quid pro quo" and instead said "bribery." One's an fancy Latin phrase that sounds like Trump's just driving a hard bargain, the other is a common English word that foregrounds the central point that his demands were illegitimate and for personal gain.
posted by skymt at 9:23 AM on November 3, 2019 [18 favorites]


Or "extortion".
posted by bink at 9:26 AM on November 3, 2019 [23 favorites]


It is bad enough that Trump does not understand the difference between national interests and his own interests; watching the Republican Party obliterate that line essentially makes it the pro-corruption party.

But for Republicans, Trump's interest in getting re-elected is the national interest. There is no difference.

L'état, C'est Moi
posted by JackFlash at 9:38 AM on November 3, 2019 [4 favorites]


Top Democrats vow to release details from closed-door impeachment probe (Politico)
“Starting this week, we are going to release these transcripts for people to see and read for themselves,” House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn said on CNN’s “State of the Union.” “We will get to the bottom of this, and then we’ll be able to make a determination at that time whether or not something happened that was treasonous.”

Clyburn (D-S.C.) added that the House would begin holding televised hearings in the next two weeks, signaling that Democratic investigators have secured enough evidence against Trump to proceed with a public rollout — even with the fate of certain witnesses’ testimony this week still uncertain.

[...] “This week we'll have the last of the witnesses come in. Then it will be released, the transcripts will be released. Everything is transparent,” Engel said. Rep. Jackie Speier (D-Calif.), who sits on the House Intelligence panel, said she expected all of the transcripts to be released within the next five days. "They're going to be very telling to the American people," Speier said on CBS' "Face the Nation. "There is no question now whether there was a quid pro quo, and now the question the Republicans are trying to throw out is, 'Well, was there corrupt intent?'"

[...] Republicans, meanwhile, struggled to defend Trump on the substance of the allegations — whether there was a “quid-pro-quo” holding up military aid to Ukraine in exchange for dirt on former Vice President Joe Biden.

House Minority Whip Steve Scalise said Trump’s call “was not talking about the 2020 election or political opponents,” though the administration's partial call record specifically shows that Trump brought up Biden’s son.
Rep. Speier: Transcripts will ‘probably’ be released in next 5 days (Politico)
posted by katra at 10:00 AM on November 3, 2019 [5 favorites]


Whistleblower offers Republicans testimony as Trump seeks to unmask (Reuters)
The U.S. official whose whistleblower complaint led to the impeachment inquiry against President Donald Trump offered to answer questions directly to Republicans on the intelligence committee leading the inquiry, one of his lawyers said on Sunday. Mark Zaid said the action was taken to counter Republican efforts, led by Trump, to unmask the whistleblower, a member of the U.S. intelligence community whose identity has not been released.

News of the offer came as Trump on Sunday called on the whistleblower to come forward, in a stark departure from norms in such cases. Republicans have “sought to expose our client’s identity which could jeopardize their safety, as well as that of their family,” Zaid wrote on Twitter. [...]

The whistleblower initially offered to answer questions in writing if submitted by the House Intelligence Committee as a whole. Zaid said the new offer, made on Saturday to top intelligence panel Republican Devin Nunes, reflected the client’s desire to have the complaint handled in a nonpartisan way. Longstanding Intelligence Committee policy has been to protect whistleblowers’ anonymity, Zaid said.
posted by katra at 10:25 AM on November 3, 2019 [2 favorites]


Vindman’s Twin May Testify About Call Memo And Classified Server (TPM)
Army Lt. Col. Yevgeny Vindman, an NSC lawyer specializing in ethics, may be asked to testify in the wake of his twin brother’s, Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman’s, bombshell hearing this week.

According to the Wall Street Journal, Yevgeny Vindman witnessed the decision to move the call memo of President Donald Trump’s conversation with Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky to the secure server. [...] House committees have contacted Yevgeny Vindman’s lawyer, but no decision has yet been made.
posted by katra at 10:38 AM on November 3, 2019 [4 favorites]


The thing is, this kind of quid pro quo — where a US President is pressuring a foreign power to do something illegal in order to help him win an election — actually HAS been done before.

Reagan, then candidate, almost certainly pushed Iran to keep holding Americans hostage until after his inauguration to deny President Carter a victory that could have affected the Presidential election. Iran inexplicably shut down talks with the Carter Admin less than a week after a meeting occurred between Iranian representatives and the Reagan campaign. Then the hostages were released only minutes after Reagan was inaugurated.

In exchange, Reagan agreed to sell Iran arms, violating the illegal embargo on arms sales. In so doing, Reagan committed a clear act of treason.

How do the Republicans view this? Reagan is now one of their patron saints, and Marine Colonel North — who subsequently illegally used the proceeds from the sale to back the Nicaraguan Contras — is today considered one of their heroes.

Fifteen people were indicted, 11 convicted, and all were pardoned by Bush the Elder, who probably was a co-conspirator.

So, for the morally bankrupt Republicans, the kind of highly illegal, election-manipulating, quid pro quo that Trump engaged in with Ukraine is very much par for the course for their side.
posted by darkstar at 10:46 AM on November 3, 2019 [77 favorites]


Trump getting booed at public sporting events will now be used as a distraction tactic

I favorited this, but I do think it's pretty significant that the "events" were the World Series and a very prominent UFC match.
posted by rhizome at 10:49 AM on November 3, 2019


So, for the morally bankrupt Republicans, the kind of highly illegal, election-manipulating, quid pro quo that Trump engaged in with Ukraine is very much par for the course for their side.
darkstar, that's a very good point.
But maybe this time, where everyone is saying and doing the quiet parts out loud, will make a change
posted by mumimor at 10:50 AM on November 3, 2019 [1 favorite]


Lawyer: Whistleblower willing to take written questions (AP)
The surprise offer, made to Rep. Devin Nunes, the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, would allow Republicans to ask questions of the whistleblower, who spurred the Democratic-led impeachment inquiry, without having to go through the committee’s chairman, Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif.

Attorney Mark Zaid tweeted that the whistleblower would answer questions directly from Republican members “in writing, under oath & penalty of perjury,” part of a bid to stem efforts by Trump and his GOP allies to unmask the person’s identity. Only queries seeking the person’s identity won’t be answered, he said. “Being a whistleblower is not a partisan job nor is impeachment an objective. That is not our role,” Zaid tweeted. “So we have offered to @DevinNunes.”

“We will ensure timely answers,” he said. [...] “Let me be absolutely clear: Our willingness to cooperate has not changed,” tweeted Andrew P. Bakaj, another attorney representing the whistleblower. “What we object to and find offensive, however, is the effort to uncover the identity of the whistleblower.”

Bakaj wrote on Saturday that “their fixation on exposing the whistleblower’s identity is simply because they’re at a loss as to how to address the investigations the underlying disclosure prompted.”
posted by katra at 10:59 AM on November 3, 2019 [3 favorites]




I favorited this, but I do think it's pretty significant that the "events" were the World Series and a very prominent UFC match.
It's been happening for a while...
posted by bink at 11:01 AM on November 3, 2019 [1 favorite]


Re: the booing or not booing

On Halloween somebody on my town's FB page put a picture of jack-o-lanterns spelling "Impeach" and people just went wild with fighting.

The thing had me seriously wondering how much I am in my bubble. Somebody posted a meme about Trump winning the election in 2020 because Democrats wore vagina hats to protest. And I just do a puzzled dog head tilt at that because first of all, they weren't vaginas, yes, there was a vagina connection but only because of some word play and also do none of you have daughters? Do you not care about the whole grabbing by the pussy thing? Okay? No? Is anything offensive to you? Like, no? You really want to die on the vagina hat hill?

It's just a small thing, but it's just like, these are people who either can't see a color I can or can see a color I can't.

But mostly I was just taken aback by how gleeful people were in anticipating his reelection. It's just, I don't understand any part of that. It's like somebody celebrating the latest in tasty shit sandwiches. It's like, don't eat that?

I made an idle comment to my shrink about how we anticipating fleeing if the worst happened and my shrink, an almost ninety-year-old Jewish man, went to town on the idea, talking for a good I don't know how long about how he was a renegade Jew and the history of his people fleeing made him angry and how he was going to stay and fight.

And I was like, 'We decided we'd have to stay because fleeing with three cats is impractical' and then it was a horrible little moment because clearly we're both thinking about what happens if he's re-elected and we're both Having Issues over it.

Meanwhile others are like: YEEEAAAAAAAHHHHH and I wish I understood
posted by angrycat at 11:05 AM on November 3, 2019 [35 favorites]


I think it involves seeing the color white as a special color.
posted by benzenedream at 11:08 AM on November 3, 2019 [33 favorites]


I mentioned over in the Syria thread that I was at an event about the situation there on Thursday. One of the speakers compared our situation now to that of the thirties, which was very reasonable in the context. And it is just incredible how similar our times are to theirs. I know plenty of mefites have already pointed at it, but man...

The first thing I thought about was how long it took for the world to recover, and how terrible things they had to go through. If you say the beginning was the crash of -29, the beginning of the end wasn't before -45. 16 years. And then some. Maybe our beginning was the crash of 08 and WW3 is happening in the Middle East. I don't know, there are many interpretations of history, and it never repeats itself exactly.

The second thing I thought about was how the WW2 has impacted three generations, for better and worse. What we do now will effect the policies and private lives of our grandchildren, because that is how trauma works. I know a dairy farmer in Idaho isn't traumatized by the genocide in Syria, but the effects on people he doesn't know at all will shape the world. Just like the Holocaust shaped the world.

I want to hug everyone, but I can't, and I feel helpless. One thing I feel would help is an American president who at the very least acknowledges the realities of our present condition. I'm not hoping for more.
posted by mumimor at 11:49 AM on November 3, 2019 [13 favorites]


It's very interesting to see Clyburn using the word "treasonous." Although I and most of us here of course agree, I hope that's a good move with the larger public.
posted by PhineasGage at 11:55 AM on November 3, 2019 [3 favorites]


Mulvaney allies to lead stonewall against Democrats’ impeachment inquiry (Rachael Bade, Josh Dawsey and Erica Werner; WaPo)
Budget chief and other top aides will attempt to create firewall after other senior officials gave testimony that questioned Trump’s motivations. [...]

The anticipated defiance of impeachment investigators comes as Trump has grown enraged that so many of “his employees,” as he refers to them, are going to Capitol Hill and testifying, a person who regularly talks with him said. The president has asked for copies of witness statements so he can decide how to criticize them, complained that his lawyers are not doing enough to stop people from talking, and even encouraged members of Congress to question the credibility of people working in his own administration, current and former officials said.

“He is the war room,” said Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham.
posted by ZeusHumms at 12:28 PM on November 3, 2019 [6 favorites]




... can he do that?!
posted by affectionateborg at 1:33 PM on November 3, 2019 [1 favorite]


Of course he can do that, he's the president*. If he wants, he could condition the signing of any budget bill on the dropping of the impeachment inquiry. Considering how well his hissy-fit shutdown worked last time, it might not be the best of political ideas. It's also arguably yet another impeachable offense, as it would be obstructing the function of a co-equal branch of government for his own political gain.

But yes, he can. He remains, unfortunately, physically able to veto bills.
posted by mrgoat at 1:45 PM on November 3, 2019 [4 favorites]


Not in the general sense -- presidents can't just shut the government down on their sayso. This would violate a few laws.

In this instance, the current funding for the US government runs out towards the end of the month, so he can trigger another government shutdown like we've seen a few times by not coming to an agreement about the next funding bill, or by vetoing whatever comes his way from Congress. That's what the punditsphere is talking about here.
posted by GCU Sweet and Full of Grace at 1:46 PM on November 3, 2019 [5 favorites]


It didn't go well for him last time. He blinked, he didn't get his stupid wall funding, and most people seemed to see it as a pointless stunt that most hurt the people who didn't get their paychecks for weeks. I don't want to see people suffer again, but if he's dumb enough to force another shutdown (Ron Howard narrator voice: He is), I think even more people will see it as even more pointless, and definitely chalk it up to his covering up his own guilt.
posted by Rykey at 1:55 PM on November 3, 2019 [8 favorites]


the current funding for the US government runs out towards the end of the month, so he can trigger another government shutdown like we've seen a few times by not coming to an agreement about the next funding bill, or by vetoing whatever comes his way from Congress. That's what the punditsphere is talking about here.

The elephant in the room being the question of sending Trump a veto-proof budget.
posted by rhizome at 2:00 PM on November 3, 2019 [1 favorite]


Inside the Republican Plan to Deep-Six the Trump Impeachment Hearings (Sam Brodey, Daily Beast)
Trump allies plan to call for witnesses who could bolster their narrative and hammer away at the anonymous whistleblower whose account launched the inquiry in the first place. [...]

[...] They’re also holding out the possibility of more tactics to disrupt impeachment—like last week’s stunt to shut down the inquiry’s secure hearing room. Lawmakers are also likely to release a report when the probe is concluded to counter the report the Democratic majority will release to form the basis for impeachment.

That game plan—particularly its emphasis on outing the whistleblower—is already getting some pushback. On Sunday, Mark Zaid, the lawyer representing the whistleblower, wrote on Twitter that they had offered Republican lawmakers a “direct opportunity to ask written questions of the whistleblower” without compromising his or her identity. Zaid added that the GOP has “sought to expose our client’s identity which could jeopardize their safety, as well as that of their family.”
posted by ZeusHumms at 2:29 PM on November 3, 2019 [3 favorites]


Paul Krugman and David Leonhardt are two of the...most correct commentators...
We know it, and they know it. Why won't they find a better forum? Worth asking.

Extortion, bribery, or quid pro quo? Imho, the messaging needs to change to 'bribery' because it's explicit in the Constitution and *anyone* - with the least political savvy or experience - already knows what it means.

And after careful thought, another message that really needs to be echoed everywhere is: the president is not in charge of running the country - they are in charge of running the executive branch within the laws passed by Congress (elementary civics, but I say keep it in the conversation). I don't care which party is in charge, this unitary-executive/monarchy bullshit gotta get shit-canned.

Finally...treason. It's getting tossed around lighty by everyone including itmfa. But as someone in a lost-to-me comment noted - if the aumf is a stand-in for declaration of war for the purpose of 'slaughtering young people for profit', it can sure do that for the purpose of 'fuck this criminal bastard'.

Uh...what do pols say? My thinking has evolved. Let's get Flynn and Manafort and Papadopoulos for treason. Taint itmfa by association.

Wow. /rant
posted by j_curiouser at 2:33 PM on November 3, 2019 [11 favorites]


Trump's impeachment inbox (Politico)
President Trump doesn’t think House Democrats’ impeachment inquiry should get any media coverage.

Meanwhile, he’s ravenously consuming news about the subject — primarily through a friendly lens. From the Oval Office to the White House residence to Air Force One, he’s closely tracking how Republican members of Congress are digesting the latest revelations on his handling of Ukraine, and monitoring their statements for any sign of hesitation or perceived disloyalty.

“We’re getting fucking killed,” Trump often gripes — a complaint about media coverage that is escalating in volume and frequency amid the impeachment probe, according to a Republican close to the White House. “He does make that comment literally every day.” [...]

But the president is also frustrated that more of his allies aren’t defending him and his governing record every day on TV. “Why aren’t there more surrogates talking about the achievements that have been taking place?” he has told people, according to a Republican who has discussed the matter with him. “He feels that maybe only he can do it himself, or gets frustrated at previous staff or previous surrogates at not being out there enough.”
posted by katra at 3:10 PM on November 3, 2019 [7 favorites]


yes, yes trump. fight with the republicans about the impeachment.

excellent.
posted by ryanrs at 3:44 PM on November 3, 2019 [23 favorites]


How Trump Will Try to Derail Impeachment (David Cay Johnston, DCReport)
He sees a different pattern to Trump's behaviors, consistent with past behaviors.
In fighting impeachment and conviction Trump will rely on the Roy Cohn playbook.

The notorious lawyer, whom Trump has said he regarded as a second father, taught that when law enforcement and other government officials suggest anything is amiss, you turn the tables and attack their integrity and legitimacy.
posted by ZeusHumms at 3:55 PM on November 3, 2019 [2 favorites]


mrburns.gif
posted by j_curiouser at 4:00 PM on November 3, 2019 [1 favorite]


In exchange, Reagan agreed to sell Iran arms, violating the illegal embargo on arms sales. In so doing, Reagan committed a clear act of treason.

How do the Republicans view this? Reagan is now one of their patron saints, and Marine Colonel North — who subsequently illegally used the proceeds from the sale to back the Nicaraguan Contras — is today considered one of their heroes.


You skipped the part about the cocaine smuggling that has gotten so normalized that there have been something like 5 major motion pictures about it.
posted by srboisvert at 4:02 PM on November 3, 2019 [29 favorites]


you turn the tables and attack their integrity and legitimacy

This is perhaps the most galling thing about this whole mess, in a dumpster fire fueled by gall.

The people who are in the (ethical) right having their integrity attacked by the hyper hypocritical.

And the media (even non-US media, although less bad) is just amplifying bad faith arguments by quoting these bad actors.

An older much more conservative and bro-dude toxic masculinity coworker who isn't known for his thoughtfulness or insight (Canadian) even mentioned to me recently that, sure all politicians lie, but what's going on in the US has been cranked up to 13 and is just unbelievable how people "let them get away with it." This is a senior management guy, so maybe the bottom line - the economy - might actually matter. But that's why the Repubs make laws to make sure that this class of persons aren't going to be hurting too much personally, if they can pass the hurt on to their workers.

This is the fruit of a sabotaged public primary and secondary education program starting after desegregation (allowing obvious disinfo like Fox "News" to thrive and poison discourse with the "we (biasedly) report, you decide" "both sides" bullshit, not to mention de-facto segregation post-desegregation and it's knock-on effects).

Public education should be Federally funded.

But it probably wouldn't matter anyway since the oligarchists aspiring for complete control would find another underhanded way to keep enough people stressed out enough day-to-day to even think about, much less engage in, politics.
posted by porpoise at 5:18 PM on November 3, 2019 [9 favorites]


Democrats don’t need to litigate the details of every false statement. The more effective response may instead be a version of Ronald Reagan’s knowing line: There he goes again. [...] And Democrats will need to avoid the long-winded, disorganized speechifying that characterize most congressional hearings.

So, basically the OK Boomer strategy.
posted by triggerfinger at 5:39 PM on November 3, 2019 [16 favorites]


So, for the morally bankrupt Republicans, the kind of highly illegal, election-manipulating, quid pro quo that Trump engaged in with Ukraine is very much par for the course for their side.

See also Nixon, Kissinger, and the peace talks in Vietnam. It is a family tradition!
posted by Meatbomb at 5:46 PM on November 3, 2019 [8 favorites]


darkstar How do the Republicans view this? Reagan is now one of their patron saints, and Marine Colonel North — who subsequently illegally used the proceeds from the sale to back the Nicaraguan Contras — is today considered one of their heroes.

Which is why I expect the Republicans, in 20 years, will be swearing fealty to the ghost of Trump just as today they swear to the ghost of Reagan.

There's a comparison to be drawn here with Hollywood rushing to the defense of, and if defense is impossible to the later "rehabilitation" of, rapists. Look at Woody Allen, look at Roman Polanski, and look at how Harvey Weinstein is, like Woody Allen, is skipping the brief exile and going straight on continuing to being a big part of Hollywood without even a blip in his career or influence.

The crimes of Trump, like the crimes of Reagan, will be normalized and turned into points of pride. He did what he had to, it was illegal but it was the right thing to do, he had to protect America even if the law was in the way, it was bold manly and macho for him to break the law for a good cause! Etc.

If you associate with Republicans you'll have already heard that starting. Crooked Hillary would have wrecked America, so **OF COURSE** Trump had no choice but to take any help he could get. Trump was just trying to fight corruption in Ukraine, Obama did the same thing so it's all just the angry Democrats trying to undo the 2016 election.

A great many Republicans see Nixon's biggest failure as stepping down instead of trying to normalize his crimes as Reagan did and Trump is trying to. No Republican will concede that Reagan did anything wrong at all, at the most they will (very reluctantly) concede that Reagan may have technically broken some bad and foolish laws but they'll argue that the laws were bad and circumventing them was the path of righteousness. That's the approach they'll try with Trump. The only question is if they can get away with it.

I'm increasingly convinced the Democrats will actually impeach Trump. I'm also increasingly worried that the Democrats won't be able to control the message well enough to get a PR boost out of it. The way they're not calling out the Republicans for trying to get the whistleblower assassinated is an indicator that they still aren't really trying to play hardball.
posted by sotonohito at 5:47 PM on November 3, 2019 [14 favorites]


The most powerful players in Trump’s impeachment inquiry
We plotted the Democrats, Republicans and nonpartisan figures in the headlines and shadows to show who matters in the impeachment inquiry.

With a steady stream of new witnesses and allegations, some are rising, while others are already sliding from view. We explain why some people on TV don’t actually have that much power, while lesser known people may have considerable authority.
posted by kirkaracha at 6:19 PM on November 3, 2019 [2 favorites]


Why is Trump's view of the world so different to everyone else's? His language, diplomatic skills and understanding of issues are so juvenile.

He grew up in a world where everything was provided for him and the only explanation was a very simplistic view of business.

And he applies that view to everything. The presidency doesn’t represent stewardship of the USA to him. It means America is his business and it’s supposed to profit him.

The easiest way to increase profit is cutting cost. Alliances and agreements, for instance, are costs. Allies should be paying for protection instead of entering into defence agreements.

Prosperity for the people is nothing but cost. Education, healthcare, social reform. It’s all cost for no profit.

He treats power the same way as he treats money. You’re supposed to garner more of it. That’s why he admires dictators and tyrants who have no limits placed on their power. That’s the goal. And he resents the people, the parties and the laws that limit his power.

His statecraft is no different. Right from the start he tried to trade individually with European nations because that’s a power exchange that favours him. He hates the EU because bloc trading does not favour him. He resolves trade disputes with punitive measures. Since the cost of trade sanctions is born by others, he sees it as a pure power move. Let’s see who starves first, China or America but it won’t be Trump.
posted by growabrain at 7:15 PM on November 3, 2019 [32 favorites]


I really like 'ok boomer' for its concise correctness and casual dismissal of all the rationalizations that fucked the economy and the planet.
posted by j_curiouser at 7:42 PM on November 3, 2019 [10 favorites]


What Are The Numbers Telling Us? (Josh Marshall, TPM)
Initial polls in the wake of the Democrats initiating an impeachment inquiry mainly focused on the inquiry itself. Or, again, that was the main focus of press attention. They are now focusing more and more on the core question of removal from office. Not surprisingly, the decision to remove a President from office is a significant steeper hill for most voters than merely investigating the grounds for doing so.
posted by ZeusHumms at 8:12 PM on November 3, 2019


Something named "Jesse Wegman" actually put his name on this pile of shit in the NYT Opinion section:

Nancy Pelosi Should Not Be President — The law of presidential succession is broken, and it ought to be fixed immediately.

@tomscocca: Every word of this is ridiculous but the most ridiculous word of them all is probably "ought"

If you are concerned about the conflict of interest of the Speaker running impeachment while being third in line for president, the obvious good-government reform is to change the rules in the middle of an active impeachment inquiry, bingo, no conflicts

Nothing says "legitimacy" like opening up an extraconstitutional struggle over who would become the next president while an impeachment inquiry is underway. Just an ethical, political, AND practical masterstroke from @nytopinion

posted by tonycpsu at 9:59 PM on November 3, 2019 [11 favorites]


Journalist Kurt Eichenwald published a scary twitter thread, which starts with
For those who don’t understand the fragility of American democracy in the hands of an unscrupulous autocrat - a scenario never imagined possible by the Founders under our Constitution - the cancellation of elections is quite simple and arguably legal. Which is why I fear for 2020. It all comes down to presidential emergency powers. They are poorly defined in the Constitution and under law. They are enormous and Trump clearly has been told that - remember how trump keeps saying he can do *anything* under the Constitution...
posted by growabrain at 1:17 AM on November 4, 2019 [12 favorites]


Nancy Pelosi Should Not Be President — The law of presidential succession is broken, and it ought to be fixed immediately.
That's just the Times trolling its readers. No one in the world fears a President Pelosi. Either they like the fantasy, knowing well it will never happen, or they are calculating when they have to ask Pence to step down and let Romney have the job. (Which is: when the internal polling consistently shows the Republicans losing their Senate majority or Mitch McConnell loosing his seat).

the cancellation of elections is quite simple and arguably legal.
Which is why it won't work for Trump, who neither does simple or legal
posted by mumimor at 1:44 AM on November 4, 2019 [2 favorites]


Journalist Kurt Eichenwald published a scary twitter thread, which starts with "For those who don’t understand the fragility of American democracy in the hands of an unscrupulous autocrat"

Here it is.
posted by Too-Ticky at 1:48 AM on November 4, 2019 [6 favorites]


What we are seeing now from the whistleblower and at the hearings is that career officials are beginning to say stop to the criminality. Trump cannot cancel elections or imprison the opposition without wide-spread assistance from local authorities. Ain't gonna happen. Or, maybe he can shut down elections in South Carolina, but not in California. How would that help him?

Another thing: there's this paradox that most of the people who benefit from Trump's regime live in blue or swing states, just like Trump himself. At some point the middle class people who voted for him will realize that they have been had. I'm thinking it will be when the next recession comes, and I'm thinking that will be in about 7 months. Why do I think that? Well, because the construction industry is overheated. Because of the low interests, trade-wars and general disruption, the only quasi-solid place to place money is in real estate, just like Trump likes it. But there is a limit to that, always. Happily, it doesn't look like poor people will be hit as directly this time round (I hope), but when real-estate and construction crash, the economy crashes. Always.
posted by mumimor at 2:06 AM on November 4, 2019 [4 favorites]


When the economy crashes, they will blame the non-whites. This is the advantage Trump has; the misery his actions in trashing the economy and wrecking international relations create only make him stronger at home.
posted by Scattercat at 3:55 AM on November 4, 2019 [6 favorites]


Allies should be paying for protection instead of entering into defence agreements.

Agreements between countries are agreements between peers, and Trump cannot have peers. Same thing with not recognizing the co-equal branches of government.
posted by kirkaracha at 6:25 AM on November 4, 2019 [5 favorites]


Not surprisingly, the decision to remove a President from office is a significant steeper hill for most voters than merely investigating the grounds for doing so.

Polls showed that support for an impeachment inquiry went up after the inquiry actually started. Support for removal will likely rise as evidence is presented publicly and people start paying more attention because it's on TV.
posted by kirkaracha at 6:28 AM on November 4, 2019 [6 favorites]


Mod note: A few deleted; bad source. Also, might be better as a post on it's own if you find reputable reports? Not sure the Kushner thing is related to current impeachment inquiry, but if so maybe make that clear.
posted by taz (staff) at 6:38 AM on November 4, 2019 [4 favorites]


Democrats pivot from private inquiry of Trump to public case for impeachment (Mike DeBonis, WaPo)
As House Democrats embark on a new stage of their impeachment investigation of President Trump, they are pivoting from fact-finding to a campaign of persuasion — privately sketching out how they plan to use a series of blockbuster hearings with these witnesses to make the public case for Trump’s removal from office.
posted by ZeusHumms at 7:22 AM on November 4, 2019 [5 favorites]


Democrats Have to Fight Harder to Win Because the Liberal Media Doesn'Tt Like Democrats
A despotic, ignorant president trashes American laws and norms every day, and what does the editorial page of America's Newspaper of Record believe is the most vital issue to highlight on a Monday morning? The extremely remote possibility that the Speaker of the House might become president, as a result of an impeachment process that's quite likely to end with not a single Republican in the Senate voting to convict, at a time when no attention whatsoever has been devoted in Congress to the possibility of impeaching the vice president. [...]

Why is this running in the paper every right-winger believes is the most important liberal media outlet? Because the liberal media has internalized the hatred of Democrats it has absorbed from right-wingers as they've worked the refs for the past forty years.

Unsurprisingly, this editorial is accompanied by a photo of Nancy Pelosi's shoes -- a reminder that if its preposterous scenario ever were to come to pass, the presidency would fall into the clutches of -- omigod -- a pantsuit-wearing older woman with coastal values! What will retired white men in blue-collar diners think?

How would this issue be discussed if the parties were reversed? If a Republican House were impeaching President Hillary Clinton and there was a belief that Vice President Tim Kaine was next? I'll grant that the Times might take the same position on succession, as might some Democratic politicians. But the discussion would be dominated by right-wing voices who would insist that critics of the line of succession were seeking to subvert hallowed traditions, all in an effort to deprive Kevin McCarthy of what should be soon be rightfully his, as our patriotic ancestors intended. That's because right-wingers know how to take their own side in an argument.

posted by tonycpsu at 8:31 AM on November 4, 2019 [37 favorites]


Blackout Brett to the courtesy phone, please...

NYT: Appeals Court Rules President Must Turn Over 8 Years of Tax Returns
A federal appeals panel said on Monday that President Trump’s accounting firm must turn over eight years of his personal and corporate tax returns to Manhattan prosecutors, a setback for the president’s attempt to keep his financial records private. … the case appears headed to the United States Supreme Court.
posted by RedOrGreen at 8:36 AM on November 4, 2019 [27 favorites]


The whole President Pelosi thing is a huge red herring anyway. If Trump is removed from office Pence will become President. It's not as if impeaching and removing Trump is just going to hand the keys to the Oval Office over to Pelosi.
posted by sotonohito at 8:53 AM on November 4, 2019 [5 favorites]


How would this issue be discussed if the parties were reversed?

Well, we know exactly. In 1998 during the Clinton impeachment, Republicans first thought next in line should be Newt Gingrich. But he had to resign because of 84 ethics violations and tax fraud.

So then they thought Bob Livingston should be next in line. But then it was discovered that even as he was excoriating Bill Clinton for his behavior he was participating in multiple extra-marital affairs of his own.

So Republicans thought and thought about it some more and finally settled on their next in line for the presidency to be serial child molester Dennis Hastert.

And that is where they left it for the next eight years until Nancy Pelosi took over. And now they are upset.
posted by JackFlash at 8:59 AM on November 4, 2019 [61 favorites]


Part of Trump’s success has been because of his brazenness. Aside from the asshole racist misogynists who are visibly gratified by his open depravity, many people who aren’t attuned to politics assume that because something is done and the president is saying he’s doing it, it must be legal.

This is how he beat the Mueller Report — he admitted to trying to get dirt from the Russians a year ahead of the final report. He used that time to normalize his actions in the eyes of the public, so when the final report didn’t have any bombshell new allegations, the nation shrugged its shoulders and said, “And?”

The Democrats need to show how Trump is covering up what he did. How he went to extreme lengths to keep this out of normal government channels. How he lied to Congress last summer about why the funds weren’t released. About how he continues to withhold documents and testimony.

The GOP is trying to argue that this is normal diplomacy done in an irregular manner. It is not. It is illegal behavior by a president who doesn’t care about legality and is trying to avoid accountability because he is unable to distinguish his needs from those of the office.
posted by Big Al 8000 at 9:00 AM on November 4, 2019 [8 favorites]


I... don’t know that it’s that terrible of an idea to offer to change the Presidential Succession Act. We all know President Pelosi is not going to happen. But the idea is out there, and has currency on the right, that Democrats are only interested in impeaching Trump (plus or minus Pence) in order to steal the presidency. It would cost nothing for Pelosi to publicly rule herself out of the line of succession. All it would do is emphasize how serious the charges against the current White House are. It creates a narrative that impeachment and removal is a thing that is actually happening.
posted by saturday_morning at 9:03 AM on November 4, 2019 [1 favorite]


"Well, we know exactly. In 1998 during the Clinton impeachment, Republicans first thought next in line should be Newt Gingrich. But he had to resign because of 84 ethics violations and tax fraud."

They thought the VP should certainly resign because the president perjured himself?
posted by Selena777 at 9:04 AM on November 4, 2019 [2 favorites]


house releases yovanovitch, mckinley transcripts. tpm.
posted by 20 year lurk at 9:14 AM on November 4, 2019 [10 favorites]


On the other hand, incumbent Republican Senators could find it easier to fundraise against a President Pelosi than with a President Trump or President Pence.
posted by ZeusHumms at 9:16 AM on November 4, 2019


I don't think there'll be a President Pence. It's not possible to have impeachment hearings based on the Ukraine affair without Pence being incriminated too. But the House won't start new impeachment hearings any closer to the election and the Republicans will force him to step down to make way for someone who hasn't been involved at all. If that is possible.
posted by mumimor at 9:23 AM on November 4, 2019 [2 favorites]


> I... don’t know that it’s that terrible of an idea to offer to change the Presidential Succession Act. We all know President Pelosi is not going to happen. But the idea is out there, and has currency on the right, that Democrats are only interested in impeaching Trump (plus or minus Pence) in order to steal the presidency.

There is a steep cost associated with allowing something so silly to be admitted into evidence, even if the intent is to refute it. Dignifying this conspiracy theory with a formal response would do immense damage to the impeachment effort, and reward Republican ratfuckers for their bad behavior. Fuuuuuck that.
posted by tonycpsu at 9:23 AM on November 4, 2019 [34 favorites]


Trump’s awful new ‘transcript’ tweets demonstrate how his propaganda works
President Trump is now openly calling on his Republican allies to produce doctored transcripts of witness testimony that will exonerate him.
Trump did not put it quite that directly, of course. But given all the known facts — and given everything we’ve seen from Trump over the past few years — there is simply no other way to read them.
It’s hard to imagine that even Trump’s GOP allies would attempt something so spectacularly absurd, and if they did, it’s even harder to imagine it would be successful.
But this episode nonetheless provides an occasion to deconstruct one of the most insidious lines of propaganda coming from Trump’s Republican loyalists right now — and, more broadly, to look at how this kind of bad-faith deception is supposed to function.
posted by mumimor at 9:50 AM on November 4, 2019 [9 favorites]


What Rights Does Trump Have In the Impeachment Process? (Amelia Thomson-DeVeaux, FiveThirtyEight)

The Constitution guarantees no rights at all. Congress has to explicitly grant rights to the subject of an impeachment process. In virtually all cases, including Trump's, it has done so. (Said rights are almost always less than what the subject wanted).
It’s easy to see a presidential impeachment as something akin to a criminal prosecution — evidence is marshaled, a trial is held, and the president’s fate hangs in the balance. But impeachment is a political process, not a legal one. As a result, it has entirely different rules that make certain protections that are reserved for criminal defendants — like due process — irrelevant. “As a matter of law, a president has essentially no claim to any kind of participation in the impeachment process,” said Frank Bowman, a law professor at the University of Missouri and the author of “High Crimes and Misdemeanors: A History of Impeachment for the Age of Trump.”
posted by ZeusHumms at 10:01 AM on November 4, 2019 [5 favorites]


The fact remains that the GOP can't defend Trump on its merits, otherwise, they'd be doing it. We'd hear leaks from the closed door committee meetings, witnesses stepping up, etc. It's bad no matter how they look at it. All they can do is give their base some way to rationalize supporting not impeaching and removing, and run out the clock.

The first line of defense is attacking the process. Describe meetings as "closed door" or that Trump is being denied "due process." Trump won the presidency on a technicality; using that to stay in office seems On Brand.

The line of succession is the second line of defense. Call out that Pelosi is third in line, and #2 was mentioned in some of the phone calls (i.e. "They'll go for Pence next"). It plays into the "reverse an election" narrative, and creates a juicy, wonky thing to write what-if editorials about. Spin on that for a few months, until they are in range to say Let the Voters Decide(TM).

When someone upthread floated having Pelosi take her name out of contention, I thought it was a BS idea. Pence has been discussed as guilty as well, but he's not exactly at the top of the list of co-conspirators, and everyone can turn a blind eye to what could be spun as all Trump's idea. However, if she took her name out of the running (with the proviso that the President pro Tempore of the Senate not pass it on to an appointee), it would disarm that pretty quick.

I don't think there'll be a President Pence. It's not possible to have impeachment hearings based on the Ukraine affair without Pence being incriminated too. But the House won't start new impeachment hearings any closer to the election and the Republicans will force him to step down to make way for someone who hasn't been involved at all. If that is possible.

At some point, it may be such that public opinion and the shear nature of Trump's crimes are such that the senate can't not remove him. But it would be hard to accept handing the White House to Pelosi. So, it may be the deal they make: Trump needs removing, but he's the bad apple. We keep Pence, then, in 2020, we Let the Voters Decide(TM).
posted by MrGuilt at 10:02 AM on November 4, 2019 [2 favorites]


the discussion would be dominated by right-wing voices who would insist that critics of the line of succession were seeking to subvert hallowed traditions, all in an effort to deprive Kevin McCarthy of what should be soon be rightfully his, as our patriotic ancestors intended. That's because right-wingers know how to take their own side in an argument.

More precisely, they do not know how to do anything else. Their victory and/or status is the principle. There isn't any other principle or law in the world that stacks up against that. They want to win, the ends justifies the means, and if you look closely, you can see that it isn't even a consideration much of the time -- many clearly consider time spent examining principle and working through the implications of it to some kind of personal code beyond victory as time wasted.

Meanwhile, thoughtful liberals are still trying to work out a system that's fair for everybody, in discourse, in business, in government, where you can win if your argument is thoughtful, or you contribute in your work, or you can persuade a majority.

That's the world I want too, but it has to start with the recognition that the Republican party is utterly amoral in its politics and considers that vision anathema, and journalists who can't see and tell that story are not only not doing their jobs, they're helpless against becoming tools for advancing the Republican vision, which boils down to status for themselves and theirs over anyone else.
posted by wildblueyonder at 10:08 AM on November 4, 2019 [27 favorites]


> However, if she took her name out of the running (with the proviso that the President pro Tempore of the Senate not pass it on to an appointee), it would disarm that pretty quick.

Again: Republicans are never disarmed by their conspiracy theories being proven false, because the facts don't matter to them, their audience, or the media. Eleven hours of Hillary Clinton delivering the most locked-in, hyper-competent Capitol Hill testimony ever seen hardly made a dent in the GOP's relentless Benghazi ratfucking. President Obama Releasing any number of official documents proving he was born in the U.S. did almost nothing to undermine the birther nonsense. Hell, Brett Kavanaugh wouldn't be a Supreme Court justice today were it not for his pursuit of the crackpot Vince Foster bullshit.

The only thing they understand is power. The only way to disarm them is to take their power away from them.
posted by tonycpsu at 11:29 AM on November 4, 2019 [67 favorites]




I need a refresher for this scandal: the Trump admin, going all the way back to Manafort, believes there are emails incriminating Joe Biden and his son in regard to “corruption”? And the main crux of the scandal is that Trump asked the Ukrainian president to dig up the dirt or else aid would be withheld, correct? But the “corruption” angle is a conspiracy theory, there’s no evidence of corruption. So do these guys actually believe the conspiracy theory, or were they trying to get Ukraine/Russia to MANUFACTURE evidence?
posted by gucci mane at 12:52 PM on November 4, 2019 [3 favorites]


So do these guys actually believe the conspiracy theory, or were they trying to get Ukraine/Russia to MANUFACTURE evidence?

Those are not mutually exclusive options. They can believe, and I think some do but probably not many, and still be entirely comfortable with manufactured evidence produced under duress (apparently all of them).

Also the Trump show has never been terribly unified. There are lots of people and factions with different motivations and beliefs and perhaps not even a unitary goal other than getting Trump and themselves into office/power and to remain in office/power so they can pursue their own agendas.
posted by srboisvert at 12:58 PM on November 4, 2019 [4 favorites]


If your way of knowing is not reality-based it is entirely possible to both believe a conspiracy theory and be fine with manufacturing evidence to prove it.
posted by mcstayinskool at 12:59 PM on November 4, 2019 [9 favorites]


It's pretty clear that Manafort doesn't believe it. He was literally paid tens of millions of dollars by Putin to manufacture disinformation propaganda on behalf of Russia. He's the original paid source for much of the conspiracy theories.

And it is useful for Trump and his minions to believe it or else it means his election was a fraud.

And Bill Barr is just a loyal hired gun who also happens to be tied to Opus Dei. Who knows what crazy shit he believes.
posted by JackFlash at 1:39 PM on November 4, 2019 [19 favorites]


I agree with JackFlash. It's unlikely Manafort actually believed the conspiracy theories he was peddling. Remember, he was working with Trump to make himself "whole" to the Russians he was indebted to. Remember, Ukraine believes Manafort partnered with Russia to commit war crimes. Manafort's own daughters believe him responsible for mass slaughter.

I'm not sure what Bill Barr or Giuliani believe. I am somewhat of the opinion that they are capable of believing something and knowing it to be false at the same time. Regardless, both of them would have recognized the political value of stirring the pot. The truth for these two, like with Cheney, exists only in theory until manufactured.

Trump and the rest of them are utter fools, entirely capable of believing any theory that aligns with their own interests. At some point, this needs to stop being a valid defense of their actions. If someone sincerely believes their actions to be legal despite all the world's lawyers telling them it is not, that's on them. If someone refuses to believe in global warming, despite what every climatologist says, that's on them. Trump wants to push for evidence to a conspiracy theory the entire intelligence community says is hoax, that's on him.
posted by xammerboy at 1:58 PM on November 4, 2019 [4 favorites]


The angle I don't see much in the news is that Trump's actions put the entire Ukraine people at risk. I keep seeing people say "I don't think it's that big a deal to ask for dirt on Biden", missing the part of the story where Trump was withholding aid needed to prevent the entire democratic country from being overrun by a brutal dictator.
posted by xammerboy at 2:08 PM on November 4, 2019 [40 favorites]


Reuters, Giuliani associate now willing to comply with Trump impeachment inquiry - lawyer:

"Lev Parnas, an indicted Ukrainian-American businessman who has ties to President Donald Trump’s personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, is now prepared to comply with requests for records and testimony from congressional impeachment investigators, his lawyer told Reuters on Monday."
[...]
"His apparent decision to now work with the congressional committees represents a change of heart. Parnas rebuffed a request from three House of Representatives committees last month to provide documents and testimony."
posted by jocelmeow at 2:39 PM on November 4, 2019 [10 favorites]


Lev Parnas is still in jail, right? It's quite a motivator.
posted by rhizome at 2:50 PM on November 4, 2019 [5 favorites]


The angle I don't see much in the news is that Trump's actions put the entire Ukraine people at risk

The way I understand it, they're already "at risk" and have been for years, and that's what a bunch of the sanctions against Russia are about. It's the water that all of we fish are swimming in.

However, that page showed me something that was not a part of my permanent memory: there was a Russian financial crisis during Obama's second term. This seems germane!
posted by rhizome at 2:57 PM on November 4, 2019 [7 favorites]


(Where can I read more about Manafort’s work with Putin and all that stuff that was just mentioned w/r/t being paid millions by Putin to create disinformation and being responsible for deaths?)
posted by gucci mane at 3:56 PM on November 4, 2019 [2 favorites]


More general than your specific ask and not a read but a listen, but I found this Behind the Bastards podcast "No Matter How Much You Hate Paul Manafort, You Should Hate Him More (And Here’s Why)" particularly enlightening. He is a black coal of evil.
posted by mcstayinskool at 4:00 PM on November 4, 2019 [17 favorites]


Reuters, Giuliani associate now willing to comply with Trump impeachment inquiry - lawyer

The rapid swings between optimism on news like this and dreading that the clock runs out on democracy in less than a year makes it hard to not drink on school nights.
posted by kirkaracha at 4:33 PM on November 4, 2019 [17 favorites]


it may be the deal they make: Trump needs removing, but he's the bad apple. We keep Pence, then, in 2020, we Let the Voters Decide(TM).

If Pence gets to be President there's certainly a risk that he'd continue to make improper appointments and regulatory rollback he'll have a cloud hanging over him and his legislative program will still be stymied by the House. Also, you never know: he may subsequently turn out to be guiltier than he seems, justifying a second impeachment.

In contrast, there's a very good Constitutional argument that Pelosi's position as Speaker does not qualify her for the line of Presidential succession, so she'd be hamstrung by court cases from the outset. The US would avoid the regulatory rollback, and it might have the benefit of better appointments, but the Senate would probably obstruct the appointment of any officer whose appointment requires their consent. The one advantage of President Pelosi, which is not inconsiderable, is that she wouldn't appoint some clerical fascist to the Supreme Court in the event of a vacancy. None the less, at this point I think it would be better for the Democrats to wait for the 2020 election rather than rely on One Weird Trick that would be politically costly and practically ineffective.
posted by Joe in Australia at 4:53 PM on November 4, 2019 [1 favorite]


In contrast, there's a very good Constitutional argument that Pelosi's position as Speaker does not qualify her for the line of Presidential succession

Could someone spell out exactly what this “very good Constitutional argument” is?
posted by a box and a stick and a string and a bear at 5:18 PM on November 4, 2019 [2 favorites]


there's a very good Constitutional argument that Pelosi's position as Speaker does not qualify her for the line of Presidential succession

No, the constitutional argument is quite clear that the Speaker is next in line. Article II, Section 1, Clause 6 of the Constitution says:

"In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected."

Note "the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly."

And Congress has done so by law, the 1947 Succession Act which clearly states that Speaker of the House is next in line for succession after the president and vice-president. There is no ambiguity about it.

The 25th amendment provides a mechanism for replacing the vice-president, by a majority vote of both houses of congress, but until that time, the Speaker of the House becomes the acting president.
posted by JackFlash at 5:21 PM on November 4, 2019 [17 favorites]


There is literally no scenario in which 2/3 of the Senate will vote to remove Mike Pence for Nancy Pelosi. Plus, it’d take too long, and he’d appoint and probably get a VP confirmed by then.
posted by Huffy Puffy at 5:21 PM on November 4, 2019 [12 favorites]


there's a very good Constitutional argument that Pelosi's position as Speaker does not qualify her for the line of Presidential succession

The argument is that the 1947 Succession Act is unconstitutional. It depends upon what the meaning of the word "officer" is.

The Constitution's Succession Clause says that only an "Officer" may be designated as a Presidential successor, and some constitutional scholars starting with James Madison say that "the term 'Officer' refers to an 'Officer of the United States,' a term of art that excludes members of Congress." The Ineligibility Clause says that "no Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States."

During a September 2003 joint hearing before the U.S. Senate's Committee on Rules and Administration and Committee on the Judiciary M. Miller Baker said:
The 1947 Act is probably unconstitutional because it appears that the Speaker of the House and the President pro tempore of the Senate are not "Officers" eligible to act as President within the meaning of the Succession Clause. This is because in referring to an "Officer", the Succession Clause, taken in its context in Section 1 of Article II, probably refers to an "Officer of the United States", a term of art under the Constitution, rather than any officer, which would include legislative and state officers referred to in the Constitution (e.g., the reference to state militia officers found in Article I, Section 8). In the very next section of Article II, the President is empowered to "require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments" and to appoint, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, "Officers of the United States". These are the "Officers" to whom the Succession Clause probably refers. This contextual reading is confirmed by Madison's notes from the Constitutional Convention, which reveal that the Convention's Committee of Style, which had no authority to make substantive changes, substituted "Officer" in the Succession Clause in place of "Officer of the United States," probably because the Committee considered the full phrase redundant.
posted by kirkaracha at 5:36 PM on November 4, 2019 [8 favorites]


Could someone spell out exactly what this “very good Constitutional argument” is?

As I understand it, the argument is that the Speaker of the House is not an "officer", in the sense required by Article II, Section 1. They're not appointed with "the advice and consent" of the Senate, or indeed by the Executive branch at all.
posted by Joe in Australia at 5:47 PM on November 4, 2019


Or yeah, what Kirkaracha just said.
posted by Joe in Australia at 5:47 PM on November 4, 2019


...and that is how we get President Ben Carson.
posted by Big Al 8000 at 5:58 PM on November 4, 2019 [6 favorites]


Could someone spell out exactly what this “very good Constitutional argument” is?

Well, all sorts of cranks can make constitutional arguments, but that doesn't make them good.

Cripes, the very first Succession Act of 1792 declared that the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House were the two qualified and designated "officers" to replace the president and vice-president. The law was passed by both houses and signed into law by President George effing Washington himself.

Don't let someone buffalo you with "original intent" bullshit. George Washington, also president of the constitutional convention, was pretty original.
posted by JackFlash at 6:00 PM on November 4, 2019 [39 favorites]


It seems that Pompeo has some explainin' to do.

The transcript released today of Michael McKinley, senior advisor to Pompeo, directly contradicts statements Pompeo made to the press recently.

Pompeo: "From the time that Ambassador Yovanovitch departed Ukraine until the time that (McKinley) came to tell me that he was departing, I never heard him say a single thing about his concerns with respect to the decision that was made," Pompeo said of McKinley. "Not once ... did Ambassador McKinley say something to me during that entire time period."

McKinley testified under oath that he directly brought up the issue of supporting Ambassador Yovanovitch three separate times and specifically said that he told Pompeo that this was one of the reasons he was resigning.

It's pretty clear he is calling Pompeo a liar. Pompeo is trying to distance himself from the Trump dumpster fire, saying he had nothing to do with the quid pro quo, but this testimony is dragging him right back in.
posted by JackFlash at 6:39 PM on November 4, 2019 [16 favorites]


Nahal Toosi (nahaltoosi): P. 117: Yovanovitch was told Pompeo or aide would call “Mr. Hannity on FOX News to say, you know, what is going on? I mean, do you have proof of these kinds of allegations or not? & if you have proof, you know, telI me, and if not, stop. & I understand that that call was made.”


Nahal Toosi (nahaltoosi): Schiff’s reply: “Does that seem extraordinary to you that the Secretary of State or some other high-ranking official would call a talk show host to figure out whether you should be retained as ambassador?”
posted by christopherious at 7:42 PM on November 4, 2019 [29 favorites]


The GOP’s New Impeachment Defense: Yeah, the Call Was Bad, but Not That Bad (Cameron Joseph, Vice)
Democrats used essentially the same strategy with President Clinton, with one key difference. [...]

Clinton, however, made it a lot easier on his party by publicly admitting he was at fault and apologizing for his actions. Trump isn’t making it any easier for Republicans to find that nuance.
Also of note:
Tim Morrison [previously], a member of Trump’s own National Security Council, attempted to square that circle on Thursday. Even as he confirmed a bevy of damaging details about Trump, including the quid pro quo with Ukraine Democrats are investigating the president over, he said he was “not concerned that anything illegal was discussed” on Trump’s infamous call.

That was the claim Republicans decided to push forward. And it may have paid off. Notably, a number of nonpartisan publications led their stories with Morrison’s characterization of the call rather than focus on the fact that he’d confirmed others’ damning testimony.
posted by ZeusHumms at 10:10 PM on November 4, 2019 [2 favorites]


So if anything illegal was discussed, he's not concerned about it. Also, "was discussed?" How about "was committed?" Subtle but important difference there.
posted by rhizome at 10:21 PM on November 4, 2019 [6 favorites]


...and that is how we get President Ben Carson.
So... new furniture in the oval office and, instead of a wall, pyramids in Nebraska?
posted by Horkus at 10:21 PM on November 4, 2019 [5 favorites]


Seriously, if these professionals are reduced to excuses with holes big enough for me to walk through, they are truly fucked and Kavanaugh just might be their only hope.
posted by rhizome at 10:23 PM on November 4, 2019 [2 favorites]


he said he was “not concerned that anything illegal was discussed” on Trump’s infamous call.

Sadly, I don't see enough pushback along the lines of, "If the call wasn't illegal, why did Trump try to hide it by illegally misclassifying it?"
posted by mikelieman at 2:00 AM on November 5, 2019 [10 favorites]


(Where can I read more about Manafort’s work with Putin and all that stuff that was just mentioned w/r/t being paid millions by Putin to create disinformation and being responsible for deaths?)

I have a bunch of links here And a few more here.

The story probably being mentioned here is this one...

Jeff Horwitz and Chad Day, AP 3/22/2017

AP Exclusive: Before Trump job, Manafort worked to aid Putin
Before signing up with Donald Trump, former campaign manager Paul Manafort secretly worked for a Russian billionaire with a plan to “greatly benefit the Putin Government,” The Associated Press has learned. The White House attempted to brush the report aside Wednesday, but it quickly raised fresh alarms in Congress about Russian links to Trump associates.

Manafort proposed in a confidential strategy plan as early as June 2005 that he would influence politics, business dealings and news coverage inside the United States, Europe and former Soviet republics to benefit President Vladimir Putin’s government, even as U.S.-Russia relations under Republican President George W. Bush grew worse.

Manafort pitched the plans to aluminum magnate Oleg Deripaska, a close Putin ally with whom Manafort eventually signed a $10 million annual contract beginning in 2006, according to interviews with several people familiar with payments to Manafort and business records obtained by the AP. Manafort and Deripaska maintained a business relationship until at least 2009, according to one person familiar with the work.

“We are now of the belief that this model can greatly benefit the Putin Government if employed at the correct levels with the appropriate commitment to success,” Manafort wrote in the 2005 memo to Deripaska. The effort, Manafort wrote, “will be offering a great service that can re-focus, both internally and externally, the policies of the Putin government.”
posted by OnceUponATime at 3:03 AM on November 5, 2019 [9 favorites]


Oh, and the part aboit Manafort being responsible for deaths comes from his daughter's text messages, which were hacked. So honestly I don't think the media should have run this story because it's messed up to play along with hackers and blackmailers, but in this case I feel slightly less sorry for the victims...
In a series of texts reviewed by Business Insider that appear to have been sent by Andrea to her sister, Jessica, in March 2015, Andrea said their father had "no moral or legal compass."

"Don't fool yourself," Andrea wrote to her sister, according to the texts. "That money we have is blood money."

"You know he has killed people in Ukraine? Knowingly," she continued, according to the reviewed texts. "As a tactic to outrage the world and get focus on Ukraine. Remember when there were all those deaths taking place. A while back. About a year ago. Revolts and what not. Do you know whose strategy that was to cause that, to send those people out and get them slaughtered."
posted by OnceUponATime at 3:31 AM on November 5, 2019 [12 favorites]


Sadly, I don't see enough pushback along the lines of, "If the call wasn't illegal, why did Trump try to hide it by illegally misclassifying it?"

There's also not enough pushback on the fact that Trump and his defenders have essentially already conceded the facts of the case; Republican Senators seem to be going with "it was wrong but not impeachable," which is weak tea. Democrats and honest media need to emphasize how much the Republicans seem to agree on the facts of the case, and the ongoing efforts to obstruct points to the fact that they know something stinks.

Also, the focus on whether the call was illegal as opposed to a blatant abuse of power is misdirection. Congress is as within its rights to impeach for the latter as for the former, to say nothing of the aforementioned obstruction, for which they could impeach him all on its own.
posted by Gelatin at 4:10 AM on November 5, 2019 [4 favorites]


Renato Mariotti:
Democrats, You’re About to Go to Trial. This Is How You Win.
Any hope of getting Republicans to break ranks depends on persuading the public first.
posted by growabrain at 6:21 AM on November 5, 2019 [5 favorites]


From above:
Manafort pitched the plans to aluminum magnate Oleg Deripaska, a close Putin ally with whom Manafort eventually signed a $10 million annual contract beginning in 2006, according to interviews with several people familiar with payments to Manafort and business records obtained by the AP. Manafort and Deripaska maintained a business relationship until at least 2009, according to one person familiar with the work.

From a 7 October Slate article about the ongoing corruption of the administration, particularly in this case Steven Mnuchin:

Mnuchin managed to entangle himself in perhaps the most convoluted scandal of the Trump presidency: the Russia affair. As lawmakers left town for the winter holidays last year, Mnuchin announced a decision to undo sanctions against Oleg Deripaska, a Vladimir Putin–aligned Russian oligarch at the center of the Mueller investigation. Special counsel Robert Mueller would find that Deripaska had been promised “private briefings” and had likely been provided Trump internal polling data by former Trump campaign chairman and current federal prison inmate Paul Manafort. But Mnuchin determined that congressionally approved sanctions against Deripaska should be significantly lessened. Mnuchin also reportedly misled Congress about the terms of the deal the Treasury Department struck with Deripaska to cut those sanctions. Mnuchin also failed to address his own conflict of interest revolving around a direct business connection to a top shareholder at Deripaska’s firm. No collusion, though!
posted by mcstayinskool at 7:03 AM on November 5, 2019 [15 favorites]


Thanks, growabrain, for linking that Renato Mariotti article. I mostly agree with his trial points, except the part about limiting the impeachment trial to Ukraine. I think there needs to be at least some significant background on the Russia connection (even if there aren't any Russia-based impeachment articles), because it provides the *why* for just about everything trump has done. To the extent the public is like a jury, it will want to know why the particular quid was withholding arms shipments. Who benefits? Putin.
posted by mabelstreet at 8:30 AM on November 5, 2019 [3 favorites]


Schiff: Trump betrayed America. Soon the public will hear from patriots who defended it. (Rep. Adam Schiff, USA Today Opinion)
From the call record alone, we have stark evidence that President Trump sought Ukraine’s help in the 2020 election by pressing that country to investigate a political opponent. Ukraine, which lies on the front line of Russian aggression, is financially, militarily and diplomatically dependent on the United States. The president’s corrupt pressure to secure its interference in our election betrayed our national security and his oath of office. [...]

What we have found, and what the American people will soon learn through the release of additional testimony transcripts and in public hearings, is that this is about more than just one call. From closed door interviews of current and former administration officials, text messages we have obtained, and public admissions by acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney and President Trump himself, we now know that the call was just one piece of a larger operation to redirect our foreign policy to benefit Donald Trump’s personal and political interests, not the national interest.

The interviews we have conducted have been thorough, professional and fair, with over one hundred members from both parties eligible to attend — including nearly 50 Republicans — and equal time allotted for questioning to both Democratic and Republican members of Congress and staff. In line with best investigative practices first passed in Congress by the Republicans who now decry them, we have held these interviews in private to ensure that witnesses are not able to tailor their testimony to align with others at the expense of the truth. [...]

While temperatures might run high and the temptation to turn this solemn process into a political circus could be irresistible to some, I hope that all members of Congress and the public will focus on the facts and the substance of the testimony, not on politics or partisanship.
posted by katra at 8:49 AM on November 5, 2019 [37 favorites]


And, lest we forget, not long after having sanctions released on him, Deripaska then invested millions in an aluminum mine in Kentucky, via his company Rusal, just in case Mitch McVenal was getting cold feet.
posted by eclectist at 8:57 AM on November 5, 2019 [15 favorites]


So this is why Trump doesn’t want officials to testify (Dana Milbank, WaPo Opinion)
Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) released the first batch of transcripts Monday from the closed-door depositions, including that of Marie Yovanovitch, the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine removed from her post by President Trump at the urging of his lawyer, Rudy Giuliani.

If this is a sign of what’s to come, Republicans will soon regret forcing Democrats to make impeachment proceedings public. Over 10 hours, the transcript shows, they stumbled about in search of a counter-narrative to her damning account. [...]

They ate up a good chunk of time merely complaining that Yovanovitch’s opening statement had been made public (which under the rules was allowed).

[...] She testified that wary Ukrainian officials knew as early as January or February that Giuliani was seeking damaging information on the Bidens and the Democrats — perhaps in exchange for Trump’s endorsement of the then-president’s reelection.
posted by katra at 8:59 AM on November 5, 2019 [12 favorites]


Any media outlet that airs Republican complaints about making the testimony public without also noting that the Republicans previously complained about secrecy is serving someone, but it isn't their listeners/viewers/readers.
posted by Gelatin at 9:04 AM on November 5, 2019 [56 favorites]


On Ukraine, Trump Is a Con Man, but He’s Also a Mark (Michelle Goldberg, NYT Opinion)
[Parnas and Fruman] first appeared on the American political scene in 2015 as enthusiastic supporters of Donald Trump. [...] “All of a sudden they started going around Ukraine telling anybody who would listen, particularly with the government, that they have been advised by a high-level, mysterious unnamed source, that in fact the D.N.C. servers had been hidden in Ukraine, that Russia was not the origin,” [Kenneth McCallion, a New York lawyer who previously brought a civil racketeering lawsuit against Paul Manafort and the Ukrainian oligarch Dmitry Firtash] told me. This claim, which echoed Russian propaganda, contradicts the findings of the F.B.I., the C.I.A. and the Republican-controlled Senate Intelligence Committee. Nevertheless, it soon came to shape American foreign policy. [...]

Trump used the power of his office to try to force Ukraine to substantiate conspiracy theories. But the president was fed those conspiracy theories by people with their own agendas, who surely understood that he is insecure about Russia’s role in his election, and he will believe whatever serves his ego in the moment. The main reason Trump should be removed from office is that he has subverted American foreign policy for corrupt personal ends. But this scandal is the latest reminder of how easy sinister forces find it to pull his strings. [...]

At first glance it might seem as if Parnas and Fruman were just doing Giuliani’s bidding when, in 2019, they started pushing the same disinformation. But Giuliani wasn’t paying them — they were paying Giuliani. Parnas, in turn, was being paid by Firtash, who is, according to the Justice Department, an “upper echelon” associate of Russian organized crime. Firtash is also close to the Kremlin; a Ukrainian official once described him as “representing Russia’s interests in Ukraine.” [...]

In court last month, a lawyer for Parnas said that some evidence against him could be subject to executive privilege, apparently because his work with Giuliani overlapped with Giuliani’s work for Trump. If that’s true, then Firtash is directly linked to America’s president. The two men may have used each other, but there’s no reason to believe that Trump was the one in control. There was a time when Republicans would be mortified by an American president being manipulated by a figure like Firtash. Lucky for them, they’ve lost the ability to feel shame.
posted by katra at 9:17 AM on November 5, 2019 [12 favorites]


Any media outlet that airs Republican complaints about making the testimony public without also noting that the Republicans previously complained about secrecy is serving someone, but it isn't their listeners/viewers/readers.

To be fair, media outlets have always served their advertisers, not their listeners/viewers/readers.
posted by Rykey at 9:20 AM on November 5, 2019 [5 favorites]


Lev Parnas, Giuliani Associate, Opens Talks With Impeachment Investigators (NYT)
“We are willing to comply with the subpoena to the extent that it does not violate any appropriate privilege that Mr. Parnas may properly invoke,” said Joseph A. Bondy, who along with Edward B. MacMahon, Jr. now represents Mr. Parnas.

Mr. Bondy said that given the federal criminal charges, his client may invoke his right under the Fifth Amendment not to incriminate himself.

The turnabout occurred after Mr. Trump denied knowing Mr. Parnas when he was arrested.

“Mr. Parnas was very upset by President Trump’s plainly false statement that he did not know him,” said Mr. Bondy, whose client has maintained that he has had extensive dealings with the president.
posted by katra at 9:21 AM on November 5, 2019 [17 favorites]


Vox has published a nice, all in one place, guide to impeachment.
posted by octothorpe at 10:12 AM on November 5, 2019 [7 favorites]


BREAKING from the NY Times: US Ambassador to the EU Gordon Sondland updated his testimony to acknowledge delivering a quid-pro-quo message to Ukraine
posted by octothorpe at 10:43 AM on November 5, 2019 [55 favorites]


Whooooah.
posted by saturday_morning at 10:54 AM on November 5, 2019 [5 favorites]


there's been a lot of reporting lately that the R senators are weighing a strategy of "yes, there was a quid-pro-quo, but that's not impeachable" - is there anything about this latest development that undermines that strategy? in other words, does this updated testimony impact those living in the FOX news bubble at all?
posted by fingers_of_fire at 10:58 AM on November 5, 2019 [1 favorite]


What would be interesting/important is if in the new revised testimony -- or in his eventual testimony in open hearings -- Sondland explains *why* he changed his tune, or why it was false in the first go-round.

Seems like forever ago, but recall he's the one who stalled for hours before responding to Ambassador Taylor's text with the strangely lawyered-sounding message that "President Trump has repeatedly said there is no quid pro quo" or something close to that.
posted by martin q blank at 11:03 AM on November 5, 2019 [6 favorites]


What would be interesting/important is if in the new revised testimony -- or in his eventual testimony in open hearings -- Sondland explains *why* he changed his tune, or why it was false in the first go-round.

Sondland Updates Impeachment Testimony, Describing Ukraine Quid Pro Quo (NYT)
In the addendum, Mr. Sondland said he had “refreshed my recollection” after reading the testimony given by Mr. Taylor and Timothy Morrison, the senior director for Europe and Russia at the National Security Council. [...]

Mr. Morrison, the National Security Council official, testified last week that it was Mr. Sondland who first indicated in a conversation with him and Mr. Taylor on Sept. 1 that the release of the military aid for Ukraine might be contingent on the announcement of the investigations, and that he hoped “that Ambassador Sondland’s strategy was exclusively his own.”

The new testimony appeared in part to be an attempt by Mr. Sondland to argue that the quid pro quo was not his idea, and explain why he believed the aid and the investigations were linked. He said it “would have been natural for me to have voiced what I presumed” about what was standing in the way of releasing the military assistance.
posted by katra at 11:11 AM on November 5, 2019 [14 favorites]


Quid pro whoa!
posted by kirkaracha at 11:12 AM on November 5, 2019 [4 favorites]


hpsci transcript "excerpts": volker, sondland.
posted by 20 year lurk at 11:17 AM on November 5, 2019


refreshed my recollection

. . . probably best practice to hit F5 before you submit to congressional subpoena in the future.
posted by Think_Long at 11:18 AM on November 5, 2019 [7 favorites]


Here's the full Sondland transcript. (379 page pdf!) The "update" is attached to the end.
posted by theodolite at 11:19 AM on November 5, 2019 [2 favorites]




full Volker transcript.
sorry 'bout "excerpts"; i was misled by democracy dying in amazon ads; the hpsci press release is here. [would not object to "excerpts" post being removed.]
posted by 20 year lurk at 11:28 AM on November 5, 2019 [2 favorites]


Impeachment inquiry issues summons for acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney (Mark Sumner, Daily Kos)
A summons has been issued [PDF] to acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney instructing him to appear before the House impeachment inquiry to provide his deposition on Friday. However, it is very unlikely that Mulvaney will appear, even if that voluntary summons is given an update to a congressional subpoena.
posted by ZeusHumms at 11:35 AM on November 5, 2019 [7 favorites]


The RNC paid for more than 10,000 phone calls to House Democrats as part of its anti-impeachment push.

"The calls seem to have focused on these talking points; the RNC said it hired a survey firm to conduct outreach and that that firm connected respondents who indicated they were not in favor of the impeachment inquiry with congressional offices. Beyond survey participants, the campaign also reportedly rallied Republicans through robocalls and automated texts that encouraged voters to call the offices, and through call sheets handed out at Trump rallies that contained a script to be read to lawmakers’ offices."
posted by Harry Caul at 12:07 PM on November 5, 2019 [3 favorites]


there's been a lot of reporting lately that the R senators are weighing a strategy of "yes, there was a quid-pro-quo, but that's not impeachable"

That's moving the goalposts. Trump asking a foreign government -- again! -- to interfere in the US election by getting dirt on one of his political rivals is an impeachable offense all by itself, quid pro quo or no quid pro quo. The quid pro quo is another impeachable offense, as is the cover-up, as is the ongoing obstruction.

Speaking of cover-up, it looks like Sondland feels he's at risk of perjury charges. The more exposed to actual consequences these crooks feel, the more they'll be incline to turn on Trump to save their own skins.
posted by Gelatin at 12:31 PM on November 5, 2019 [18 favorites]


i understand that it's moving the goalposts - all reality-based people understand that. unfortunately, the majority of people represented by the R senators who are needed to flip in order to convict the President in a possible impeachment trial are not reality-based. so any developments need to be drastic enough that they actually pierce the non-reality-based bubble. I'm curious to know if this development meets that standard. I suspect that it doesn't.
posted by fingers_of_fire at 12:35 PM on November 5, 2019


Sondland paid millions of dollars to the Trump campaign to get this plum assignment that may well put him in jail.
posted by octothorpe at 12:46 PM on November 5, 2019 [27 favorites]


'It kept getting more insidious': What Sondland and Volker told Trump impeachment investigators (Politico)
Sondland testified that Trump and Giuliani’s positions “kept getting more insidious,” evolving from a general interest in fighting corruption to an interest in Burisma and finally to an investigation of the Bidens. The EU envoy noted he was not a lawyer but said he “assumed” an effort to pressure Ukraine to do so, as pursued by Giuliani with Trump’s support, would be illegal.

Trump’s allies have recently begun to embrace a new defense: that Trump might have sought a quid pro quo, but that doing so is neither improper nor impeachable. In a criminal trial, a witness's legal opinion is considered irrelevant. But impeachment is a political process — and with Sondland's testimony, that talking point has now been complicated by Trump’s own appointee. [...]

Volker’s testimony indicates that there were so many different events happening that he didn’t always make the links that can seem obvious in retrospect. For instance, he says he was fine with the idea that Ukraine’s government would release a statement that mentions the gas company Burisma and the 2016 election as matters they would investigate as part of an anti-corruption effort, and that he even helped propose language.

But, although he admits he knew that Hunter Biden was on the board of Burisma, he didn’t quite think through the implications. Those implications later became clear when the White House released a transcript of a July 25 call in which Trump urged Zelensky to investigate the Bidens.
posted by katra at 12:46 PM on November 5, 2019 [2 favorites]


Apparently, the plan was to get Zelensky to go on Tucker Carlson's show.
posted by octothorpe at 1:13 PM on November 5, 2019 [10 favorites]


Sondland paid millions of dollars to the Trump campaign to get this plum assignment that may well put him in jail.

Good. In any other context that would be scandalous bribery, but somehow it's normal for ambassadorships.
posted by ryanrs at 1:15 PM on November 5, 2019 [3 favorites]


How Did Gordon Sondland Think This Was Going to End?

You could ask the same thing about anyone in the Trump administration or its orbit. It's never been clear to me what their endgame is, and I'm increasingly convinced they don't have one. They're flying by the seat of their pants, except they're naked and the plane is on fire and it's actually not a plane at all, it's just a cardboard box with stars painted on it, or something.

Also, it's becoming clear that there are two kinds of people left in Trumpville: cowards and morons. Cowards are people like Sondland, who were in it for themselves from the beginning, but have enough of a sense of self-preservation to cut a deal once they start to feel cornered. Most of Trump's rich, fair-weather friends probably fall into this category. But then there are a certain number of true believers—the morons—who will stick with him no matter what, even when it's not in their best interest to do so. They have in common that they have little to lose, materially or financially, and have tied themselves up with Team Trump on such a fundamental ideological level that they can't conceive of leaving. Unfortunately, they're not good for very much, particularly not for actually governing a major superpower nation. As the impeachment proceedings gradually cleave away the cowards and get them to turn on Trump, we're going to be left with just the moron brigade running the show. So, I expect things will get more erratic and generally crazier between now and the election.

Interesting times, indeed.
posted by Kadin2048 at 1:18 PM on November 5, 2019 [23 favorites]


It's getting difficult to parse those two separate kinds of people. I'm thinking Gowdy, Nunes, Gaetz, Graham are in the moron category.
posted by archimago at 1:21 PM on November 5, 2019 [1 favorite]


NEW: Sondland has revised his testimony to include a new 4 page sworn statement that admits there was a quid pro quo, that Pence was aware of the arrangements and that he was a key player in getting Ukraine to play ball.
posted by octothorpe at 1:21 PM on November 5, 2019 [20 favorites]


i understand that it's moving the goalposts - all reality-based people understand that.

I disagree. By taking the bait, predictably, and talking about the quid pro quo, the media doesn't talk about the fact that just asking Zelensky to investigate Biden the Younger was an impeachable act.

Instead, they relay the message that there's some question as to whether Trump committed an impeachable act at all, rather than the fact that he has committed several that we have public records of. They also act as if Executive Branch officials' defying Congressional subpoenas was somehow justified, just because the Republicans say it is and in their lazy he-said-she-said framework that's all she wrote.

And by taking their eyes off the ball, the media is failing to influence the very voters you're talking about with the concept that Trump's offenses are cumulative, and we keep uncovering more, and he keeps committing more with his obstruction.
posted by Gelatin at 1:30 PM on November 5, 2019 [15 favorites]


and that he was a key player in getting Ukraine to play ball.

"key player" refers to Sondland, not Pence.
posted by TWinbrook8 at 1:36 PM on November 5, 2019 [9 favorites]


how disappointing :(
posted by ryanrs at 1:38 PM on November 5, 2019 [7 favorites]


As far an impeachment goes. As far as I can see, everyone related to Trump can be impeached or convicted. Every single one. Does anyone know of an honest member of the administration?
posted by baegucb at 2:02 PM on November 5, 2019 [2 favorites]


hey is anybody else going tharn with the latest polling putting Trump against Warren in battleground states?
posted by angrycat at 2:11 PM on November 5, 2019 [2 favorites]


Sondland is setting himself up to be the fall guy and the Senate GOP will happily oblige. My guess is some sort of “misinterpreted the president’s instructions” defense.
posted by Big Al 8000 at 2:17 PM on November 5, 2019 [1 favorite]


hey is anybody else going tharn with the latest polling putting Trump against Warren in battleground states?

To link this on-topic with impeachment, I think it might be reasonable to not pay any attention at all to this until we get a clear impression of how damaging this meta-scandal becomes to Doofus's poll numbers. Maybe THEN it becomes reasonable to go down the electability rabbit hole with Warren.
posted by mcstayinskool at 2:19 PM on November 5, 2019 [7 favorites]


The rats are fleeing the sinking ship today aren't they...?

Tomorrow morning's tweets may be something. Schiff's framing was excellent. True, and, appeals to country and real patriotism.
posted by Windopaene at 2:37 PM on November 5, 2019


I think the link is this: when the Senate sees Trumps numbers crashing, removal becomes a possibility. Their own power base is the same pool of voters, and even if they know their whole party is tainted, they will make an attempt to throw Trump out of the boat and bail--but only once they're REALLY sure the ship is sinking.
posted by rikschell at 2:37 PM on November 5, 2019


It's getting difficult to parse those two separate kinds of people. I'm thinking Gowdy, Nunes, Gaetz, Graham are in the moron category.

I think whatever Graham's real deal is will be much more complex and weird. I don't buy that he just wants to be relevant.
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 2:40 PM on November 5, 2019 [15 favorites]


Graham's real deal

Occam's Razor suggests kompromat, my guess is of the gay sex worker type.
posted by tivalasvegas at 3:21 PM on November 5, 2019 [12 favorites]


Lindsay something something Blavatnik, oligarchs, the usual suspects.
posted by Harry Caul at 3:32 PM on November 5, 2019


Oh, speaking of Graham, this just in from NY Mag, "Lindsey Graham Won’t Read Impeachment Hearing Transcripts Because ‘This Is All B.S.’":
Some senators are trying not to comment on evidence in the House impeachment inquiry because they may sit in judgment of that evidence and its implications for the president if the House does impeach Trump. But then you have the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, who says he will ignore it because he doesn’t want to hear it: [link to this tweet]
Lindsey Graham, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, says he won't read any of the transcripts, and dismissed Sondland's reversal.

"I've written the whole process off ... I think this is a bunch of B.S."

Per @alanhe
[...]

In that respect, Graham is reminiscent of the infamous Indiana Republican congressman Earl Landgrebe, who had this to say the day before Richard Nixon resigned the presidency in 1974:
Don’t confuse me with the facts. I’ve got a closed mind. I will not vote for impeachment. I’m going to stick with my president even if he and I have to be taken out of this building and shot.
posted by mhum at 3:37 PM on November 5, 2019 [23 favorites]


May history remember Lindsay Graham as well as it does... Earl Landgrebe
posted by Kelrichen at 3:41 PM on November 5, 2019 [57 favorites]



How Did Gordon Sondland Think This Was Going to End?


He didn't. He thought he just had to cut the cheque and rim 45 and he'd get his reward, and that would be that. This is corrupt but not criminally so. He almost certainly didn't think of it as criminally so at first, but then as Ukraine QPQ developed he must have realised he was going to have to go in deeper. Then at one point he had to decide whether to perjure himself as part of the service package - he knew that was wrong but didn't think he'd get caught.

Then he realised - or probably his lawyer had a chat - and changed his mind. This wasn't going away, he'd lost the ability to cover his ass and 45 wasn't going to help him, and so he caved. To the best of his recollection, Senator, suddenly got better.

This question - what were you thinking - is a simple one. When you go into politics in order to get the power to stop the state using the law against your crimes, or if you find yourself using your power to further new crimes, one of two things will happen. Either you run out of power or they run out of law.

This was the exact reason the fascists got going in rural Germany between the wars, to cover up their crimes, once they worked out that blaming the Jews and the elites went down very with with the locals. And once you start going down that road, if you don't bale quickly per Sondland, you can only keep upping the ante.

Either you run out of power or we run out of law.

Ball's still in play for now.
posted by Devonian at 4:40 PM on November 5, 2019 [48 favorites]


Graham's real deal

Remember how over the top Trump is when kissing Putin's ass? Like, to the point where any double agent would be saying shhhh tone it down? Graham and several others act exactly the same way in regard to Trump.

I don't agree with all of this analysis but it's a nice recap of Graham's weird behavior and reversal of most of his stances:
Hidden Motives Behind GOP Leaders Cooperation With Trump
posted by benzenedream at 4:41 PM on November 5, 2019 [3 favorites]


If you’re looking for a circumstance where the president of the United States was threatening the Ukraine with cutting off aid unless they investigated his political opponent, you’d be very disappointed. That does not exist.
-- Lindsey Graham, September 25
posted by kirkaracha at 4:51 PM on November 5, 2019 [15 favorites]


Graham and several others act exactly the same way in regard to Trump.

Like if the senate finds that using government funding as a lever for extorting dirt on political opponents is not sufficient grounds for removal from office, it would be political malpractice for a notional future democratic president not to do the same thing to every last republican senator and representative in d.c.

...so of course all the democratic candidates will loudly avow that they would never do such a thing and promise a return to normalcy...
posted by logicpunk at 5:07 PM on November 5, 2019 [2 favorites]


I think it's long past time we all accept this is who Lindsey Graham is.
No kompromat. No fear of being outed. This is who he is, and who he has always been. He used to follow McCain because there was apparent benefit, and so he tried to imitate that image. Now without McCain--who was also far less than the hype--all he's got left is Trump.
This is who Lindsey Graham has always been.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 5:08 PM on November 5, 2019 [18 favorites]


It's getting difficult to parse those two separate kinds of people. I'm thinking Gowdy, Nunes, Gaetz, Graham are in the moron category.

I would not be very surprised if it turns out that there is kompromat on Graham, but my take has mostly just been that he is craven. Nunes, on the other hand, comes off as corrupt as hell.
posted by ActingTheGoat at 6:01 PM on November 5, 2019 [1 favorite]


Jennifer Hansler (CNN): "Former special representative for Ukraine Kurt Volker testified that he texted from his personal phone because he couldn't figure out how to get into his government phone."

(But her emails!)
posted by mbrubeck at 7:13 PM on November 5, 2019 [28 favorites]


Graham's real deal

Occam's Razor suggests kompromat


At this point it’s approaching “probable humiliation kink”
posted by schadenfrau at 7:23 PM on November 5, 2019 [20 favorites]


Lindsey Graham is up to his nose in it. Back when the Mueller report was released, we surmised that his name was one of the ones redacted due to "Harm to ongoing matter". I wouldn't be surprised if he were right in the thick of all of this.
posted by Gray Duck at 7:45 PM on November 5, 2019 [5 favorites]


Volker...texted from his personal phone

Any reps want to stand up for truth and justice? Forward a goddam criminal referral to the FBI.

a) danger to national security? yep.
b) knowledge of applicable laws? yep.
c) 'convenience' is not a mitigating factor by statute.
posted by j_curiouser at 8:01 PM on November 5, 2019 [16 favorites]


I was also not down with the private email server but it's been proven that no classified information came or went. Not relitigating.

State needs a reinvestigation on all their clearances and classification training at the political appointee level.

SEAD-4 Adjudicative Guidelines (PDF) include:

GUIDELINE E: Personal Conduct
GUIDELINE K: Handling Protected Information
GUIDELINE M: Use of Information Technology

Fucking rich people and consequences 🙄
posted by j_curiouser at 8:33 PM on November 5, 2019 [5 favorites]


Just for the record, it is not illegal to use personal devices for non-classified communications. It is illegal if you don't turn over copies for archival within 20 days.

It's unclear whether the texts should be classified. Some clerk in the basement of the State Department perhaps will make a decision a few years from now to retroactively classify it.
posted by JackFlash at 8:42 PM on November 5, 2019 [4 favorites]


What I'm suggesting is that since there's a clear admission, let's have investigators take a look. Just frustrated at lame congress inaction. / security rant
posted by j_curiouser at 9:06 PM on November 5, 2019


I realize it's just tea leaves at this point, but I have to think that Bevin losing KY Gov has to make McConnell a bit nervous. Their profiles of being personally unpopular despite KY remaining firmly red in general are similar enough to matter. Having Mitch, personally, fearing for his seat is probably the biggest sine qua non for any hope of a conviction in the Senate.
posted by bcd at 9:23 PM on November 5, 2019 [29 favorites]


Yep. Best news I've heard in a while. Mitch is so craven, this has to have gotten his attention. And Bevin is trumpish garbage.
posted by Windopaene at 10:55 PM on November 5, 2019 [6 favorites]


At this point it’s approaching “probable humiliation kink”

Senator Subservient Chicken.
posted by acb at 2:05 AM on November 6, 2019 [7 favorites]


Sondland just remembered now that he had been pressuring Ukraine for many weeks? He just now connected Burisma with Biden? Does this "the dog ate my homework" level of lying really pass muster? This is enough to evade charges of perjury?
posted by xammerboy at 4:07 AM on November 6, 2019 [12 favorites]


I realize it's just tea leaves at this point, but I have to think that Bevin losing KY Gov has to make McConnell a bit nervous.

I’n skeptical of that given how unpopular Bevin was and how handily republicans won every other race on the ballot.
posted by C'est la D.C. at 4:17 AM on November 6, 2019 [1 favorite]


I’n skeptical of that given how unpopular Bevin was and how handily republicans won every other race on the ballot.

McConnell is about as unpopular as Bevin in KY, and has relied on the state's conservative bent to save him.

He just got a message that this time, that might not be enough.
posted by NoxAeternum at 4:50 AM on November 6, 2019 [11 favorites]


Only if there’s a credible opponent to run against him, though.

Grimes ain’t it.
posted by darkstar at 5:29 AM on November 6, 2019


Grimes ain’t it.

There should probably be an off-year election thread because this is not really impeachment-inquiry stuff, but FWIW I got the impression the sacrificial lamb for next year is Amy McGrath. I am on the record as not super-excited about her most recent positioning, but I'll give her credit for not being one of the five or six doomed candidates we regularly dredge up out of the establishment-party slates to lose haplessly.

(OTOH, Beshear is one of those old-boy establishment types, and he won, so make of that what you will.)
posted by jackbishop at 5:40 AM on November 6, 2019 [3 favorites]


There is an off year election thread.
(I only brought this particular detail up here because of the Mitch implications.)
posted by bcd at 5:44 AM on November 6, 2019 [4 favorites]


I realize it's just tea leaves at this point, but I have to think that Bevin losing KY Gov has to make McConnell a bit nervous.

I’n skeptical of that given how unpopular Bevin was and how handily republicans won every other race on the ballot.


Yeah, Bevin was just uniquely unpopular and that's all that's behind Beshear's win. I mean the guy was fantastically bad at politics. If he wasn't both vain and stupid he would've resigned a while ago and the GOP would probably have held the Governor's mansion.
posted by dis_integration at 5:46 AM on November 6, 2019


Some senators are trying not to comment on evidence in the House impeachment inquiry because they may sit in judgment of that evidence and its implications for the president if the House does impeach Trump.

This might seem reasonable except there is absolutely no basis for them to do this. There are no other judges that can be brought in. Bias or no bias they are all there is. I mean if we are going to use this kind of "legalishtic" standard then the republican senators should all recuse themselves for clear and obvious conflicts of interest simply based on party affiliation and prior ties.

They are just trying cover up their cowering with some bogus people's court level sounding justification.
posted by srboisvert at 6:02 AM on November 6, 2019 [6 favorites]


I mean if we are going to use this kind of "legalishtic" standard then the republican senators should all recuse themselves for clear and obvious conflicts of interest simply based on party affiliation and prior ties.

US Constitution
The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.
"Members present". It they want to go with moon-law, I say disqualify as many (R) "jurors" that you can.
posted by mikelieman at 6:08 AM on November 6, 2019 [5 favorites]


are you saying that Present ought to be interpreted to mean "in the room for the whole process, not just the vote"? Something else?
posted by j_curiouser at 6:23 AM on November 6, 2019


are you saying that Present ought to be interpreted to mean "in the room for the whole process, not just the vote"? Something else?

I'm saying that if the (R)s really want "due process", then we give it to them by conducting voir-dire for each and every Senator-Juror, disqualifying for-cause anyone who is demonstrably biased.
posted by mikelieman at 7:21 AM on November 6, 2019 [10 favorites]


Republicans on Sondland impeachment bombshell: Who cares? (Politico)
Despite some senators’ vow of silence on impeachment, many Republicans dismiss the notion of trying to remain a neutral juror.

“I’ve talked to the president about this,” said Sen. Roy Blunt of Missouri, the No. 4 Senate GOP leader. “This is a political process. So, you’re not going to remove the political elements from this process. So, you’ve got to be realistic about that.”

“Technically, I think we are the jury,” said Cornyn, who lunched at the White House last week. “But I wouldn’t call it an impartial jury.”
posted by katra at 7:34 AM on November 6, 2019 [5 favorites]


disqualifying for-cause anyone who is demonstrably biased

this is a charming idea and what many of the craven republican senators deserve, but could cut both ways. which democratic senators would not be demonstrably biased, a) objectively, or b) on fox? hell, in what i have observed of the trumpist talking points, democratic party affiliation is bias per se.
posted by 20 year lurk at 7:46 AM on November 6, 2019


“Technically, I think we are the jury,” said Cornyn, who lunched at the White House last week. “But I wouldn’t call it an impartial jury.”

This frank admission that Republican senators will vote in Trump's favor regardless of the evidence should be taken up by every Democratic politician and every news outlet. Of course it's confirmation of what we already knew, but Cornyn has now confirmed it aloud, and Republicans should be held accountable not only for their failure to uphold their oaths, but their frank admission that their oaths aren't worth a bucket of spit in the first place.
posted by Gelatin at 7:53 AM on November 6, 2019 [31 favorites]


Strategery: Senate Republicans consider including Bidens in Trump impeachment trial (Rachael Bade and Robert Costa, WaPo)
The back-and-forth [over including the Bidens] sets up a looming clash between Trump loyalists and more traditional-minded Senate Republicans who are uncomfortable with Trump’s no-holds-barred tactics in defending himself. Many Senate Republicans, for example, also have little interest in outing the whistleblower, even as the president and his allies have argued that the person should be named and targeted with a subpoena.

But [Rand Paul’s] position on the Bidens has been echoed by Trump’s loyalists in the conservative news media, ramping up the pressure campaign on Senate Republicans to be more aggressive in defending the president.
posted by ZeusHumms at 8:16 AM on November 6, 2019 [5 favorites]


Trump makes falsehoods central to impeachment defense as incriminating evidence mounts (Toluse Olorunnipa and Philip Rucker, WaPo)
Trump’s repetitive use of false claims represents an attempt to immunize himself from impeachment by seeding favorable information in the minds of the public, even when that information is incorrect, said Kathleen Hall Jamieson, director of the University of Pennsylvania’s Annenberg Public Policy Center.

“We know from work in social psychology that repeated exposure to a claim increases the likelihood that you think it’s accurate,” she said. “As you hear or read something repeatedly, you are more likely to think it’s accurate even if faced with evidence that it’s not.” […]

Trump has claimed without evidence that [officials testifying against him] were “Never Trumpers” peddling false accusations.

It’s part of a strategy to paint all incriminating information as emanating from biased sources, said Jamieson.

“If you can construct the world that anybody who says anything negative about the president is a venal partisan, you never have to get into any of the evidence because you distort the evidence and discredit the source of it,” she said. “That’s what Donald Trump does.”
posted by ZeusHumms at 8:30 AM on November 6, 2019 [7 favorites]


“If you can construct the world that anybody who says anything negative about the president is a venal partisan, you never have to get into any of the evidence because you distort the evidence and discredit the source of it,” she said. “That’s what Donald Trump does.”

It's also what Trump has to do, because the material facts are not in his favor. In this Trump acts more like a typical Republican rather than bending the party to himself.
posted by Gelatin at 8:36 AM on November 6, 2019 [3 favorites]


Public impeachment hearings will begin next week (Guardian)
Open impeachment hearings will begin on Wednesday November 13, Adam Schiff has announced. Bill Taylor, the US’s top diplomat in Ukraine, and George Kent, deputy assistant secretary of state, will testify first.

Ukraine ambassador Marie Yovanovitch is due to appear on Friday November 15.
posted by katra at 8:43 AM on November 6, 2019 [7 favorites]


Media outlets reject Rand Paul’s demand that they identify Trump’s whistleblower (Politico)
USA Today’s editorial board argued Monday against revealing the name, writing that “nothing chills truth-telling in the halls of power like the risk of retribution, and no risk is more harrowing than unmasking potentially impeachable offenses by a president.” The whistleblower may not need to testify, they noted, because “so much of the person's complaint has been independently verified.”
posted by katra at 8:46 AM on November 6, 2019 [15 favorites]


Little Fredo, Trump Jr tweet out the name of an alleged whistleblower. Whether that name is correct or not, their life is about to become complete shit.
posted by JackFlash at 9:02 AM on November 6, 2019 [10 favorites]


Is revealing the name of a whistleblower a crime in itself?
posted by PhineasGage at 9:04 AM on November 6, 2019 [2 favorites]


Not according to the legal experts NPR talked to, Can Trump Legally Out The Whistleblower? Experts Say It Would Not Violate Any Laws:
A member of Congress who reveals the whistleblower's identity could be removed from committees or face other legislative sanctions; a member of the public risks a civil lawsuit from the whistleblower's legal team, which has threatened to hold anyone who reveals the name personally liable if the disclosure results in harm to the whistleblower or the person's family.

Workplace retaliation against the whistleblower following disclosure would constitute a federal crime. But the act of unmasking itself is not unlawful, unless the person is a covert agent.
posted by peeedro at 9:08 AM on November 6, 2019


Of course, if Trump outed the whistleblower, the House could simply add it to the list of particulars in an impeachment referral. So he gets Rand Paul to do it while hiding behind the Speech and Debate clause. For shame.
posted by Gelatin at 9:19 AM on November 6, 2019


"It was incoherent," Sen @LindseyGrahamSC
says of Trump's Ukraine policy.


"They seem to be *incapable* of forming a quid pro quo."


So now we're onto the "they were too incompetent to break the law" defense. Anyone keeping track of how many different excuses they've gone through so far?
posted by octothorpe at 9:55 AM on November 6, 2019 [16 favorites]


Anyone keeping track of how many different excuses they've gone through so far?

Not the media, because to do so would be to communicate clearly that Trump is trying to hide his guilt, and such a definitive statement wouldn't be balanced.
posted by Gelatin at 10:04 AM on November 6, 2019 [10 favorites]


For those not following too closely, DC insiders know (with 90% certainty? a little less?) who the whistleblower is. Probably also the president knows. But the press—for as much as MeFi hates on them—refuses to run down the lead on principle. So it sits in this weird limbo. Today’s WaPo had a brief piece on the situation.
posted by whitewall at 10:07 AM on November 6, 2019 [7 favorites]




For those not following too closely, DC insiders know (with 90% certainty? a little less?) who the whistleblower is. Probably also the president knows.

Bolton or I don’t care

Also I don’t believe Trump would be physically capable of not blurting it out if he knew.
posted by From Bklyn at 10:38 AM on November 6, 2019 [11 favorites]


Thanks neroli. Yes, reflexive slamming of the media for inadequately covering the impeachment situation doesn't match with what is actually appearing throughout all the major mainstream broadcast, print, and digital news outlets. If the so-called MSM were NOT doing such a complete and accurate job, Trump and his enablers at Fox and elsewhere wouldn't be in such a frenzy.
posted by PhineasGage at 11:02 AM on November 6, 2019 [3 favorites]


The media notes a change from x to y, not that Trump's defense has changed from "I didn't do it" all the way thru the several steps of the Narcissist's Prayer to "it's okay that I did it." They connect two dots, but rarely the others that make a pattern.

That said, I'm sure the media is doing more than not following leads in identifying the whistleblower -- I'm sure they're being told his/her name and are flat refusing to run it, and they deserve credit for that.
posted by Gelatin at 11:22 AM on November 6, 2019 [9 favorites]


Trump Jr is claiming that two other media outlets, Drudge Report and something ominously called RealClearInvestigations had done the outing and he was merely parroting.
posted by stonepharisee at 11:24 AM on November 6, 2019


What purpose does outing the whistleblower serve at this point? Given the mountain of evidence they're facing? When crazy people start coming out of the weeds to try to kamikaze this person, doesn't it bolster the case for at least voting this nightmare out of office? Or is Jr. just hopped up on Adderrall and flailing.
posted by angrycat at 11:52 AM on November 6, 2019 [1 favorite]


Can't remember if I saw it here or on Twitter, and I'm paraphrasing, but outing the whistleblower is like dwelling on who called 911 while everyone else is focused on the house fire.
posted by emelenjr at 11:55 AM on November 6, 2019 [10 favorites]


What purpose does outing the whistleblower serve at this point

To deter other whistle blowers from coming forward. They're confident the Senate won't remove him unless even more stuff becomes known, so ruining the whistleblower's life is in their best interest. A few senators will hem and haw over it but it'll be as potent as their thoughts and prayers.
posted by Candleman at 11:56 AM on November 6, 2019 [39 favorites]


You make the issue of the day a referendum on the character of the whistleblower, just like they did with those FBI agents who were having the affair and also texting.

on preview, yes, also making an example of the rat.
posted by Sauce Trough at 11:57 AM on November 6, 2019 [5 favorites]


Trump et al. playbook is all personal attacks and demonization. No person to insult on Twitter? No death threats sent by my cult? Even if it's a bad strategy it's reflexive by this point. Otherwise the discussion turns towards Trump's character, which is a guaranteed failing strategy.
posted by benzenedream at 12:01 PM on November 6, 2019 [1 favorite]


To demonize the whistleblower and pretend that the whole thing is about whatever faults the whistleblower might have.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 12:02 PM on November 6, 2019 [7 favorites]


How Mike Pence’s Office Meddled in Foreign Aid to Reroute Money to Favored Christian Groups < ProPublica

"The email underscored what had become a stark reality under the Trump White House. Decisions about U.S. aid are often no longer being governed by career professionals applying a rigorous review of applicants and their capabilities. Over the last two years, political pressure, particularly from the office of Vice President Mike Pence, had seeped into aid deliberations and convinced key decision-makers that unless they fell in line, their jobs could be at stake.

Five months before Ferguson sent the email, his former boss had been ousted following a mandate from Pence’s chief of staff. Pence had grown displeased with USAID’s work in Iraq after Christian groups were turned down for aid."

"Officials at USAID warned that favoring Christian groups in Iraq could be unconstitutional and inflame religious tensions. When one colleague lost her job, they said she had been “Penced.”
posted by Harry Caul at 12:03 PM on November 6, 2019 [25 favorites]


Trump Jr is literally trying to get the whistleblower assassinated by a MAGA cultist turned "lone wolf". We're seeing stochastic terrorism from the Trump family in realtime here. That's got to be impeachable.
posted by sotonohito at 1:09 PM on November 6, 2019 [28 favorites]


How Mike Pence’s Office Meddled in Foreign Aid to Reroute Money to Favored Christian Groups < ProPublica

This is bad, but only on the same level as the Bush Administration's post-war "aid" in Iraq. Pence is just a normal Republican. Stupid and evil.
posted by mumimor at 1:23 PM on November 6, 2019 [5 favorites]


I'm so old that I can remember when Donald said he didn't have to divest from his businesses because Donny Jr would take over management and stay out of politics.
posted by JackFlash at 1:33 PM on November 6, 2019 [36 favorites]


From Dahlia Lithwick at Slate, "This Impeachment Won’t Be a Legal or Political Battle. It Will Be an Information War.":
Confusing and conflating the legal facts of impeachment with the political facts of impeachment is only the first step in the GOP effort to distort the impeachment process. The follow-up strategy is slowly emerging, and it’s as nihilistic as it is terrifying: The White House and Trump’s Republican defenders seem to understand that this is, at its heart, a messaging war. This is politics in the form of who dominates the airwaves. As such, the thrust of the new impeachment defiance will be to simply deny that any of it is happening in the first place. This isn’t an elaborate attempt to push back or to reframe or to counter the impeachment investigation; it’s a media tactic designed solely to deny its very existence. Wednesday’s revelation that Bill Taylor knew he was dealing with a quid pro quo should be the last nail in the bribery/abuse-of-power coffin. But it won’t be, because none of those concepts even figure in the Republican defense strategy.

Comparisons of the present moment to Watergate all turn on one fact: The Watergate hearings changed public opinion because Americans across the political and ideological divide came together to listen to the testimony and came to believe the truth of what they were hearing and seeing. As the Pew Research Center has chronicled, 71 percent of its respondents told Gallup they watched the hearings live. And as many as 21 percent reported watching 10 hours or more of the Sam Ervin proceedings. There will be no analogue in 2019. Fox News will not be showing gavel-to-gavel coverage of impeachment testimony; it often cannot be bothered to report basic headlines. Sean Hannity isn’t covering the quid pro quo testimony. He’s putting Hunter Biden in the imaginary docks for an imaginary criminal trial. For Americans who live inside the Benghazi Bubble, the twists and turns of Gordon Sondland and Bill Taylor will be irrelevant. And Rudy Giuliani is less the prime mover and Typhoid Mary of the dirt-for-aid Ukraine scandal than he is a jolly talking head, to be relied upon for hilarity and good sound bites.
It's not mentioned in this article, but I think it's well-known that Roger Ailes, former Nixon consultant, founded Fox News partly because of a (his?) theory that Nixon would have survived Watergate if he had a friendly media outlet propping him up and providing a counter-narrative to the mainstream media. Well, I guess we're all gonna see that theory put to the test, aren't we?
posted by mhum at 3:53 PM on November 6, 2019 [33 favorites]


Data point on impeachment and information war. I chanced to overhear some of my coworkers discussing impeachment today.

They knew absolutely nothing at all about the process, the reasons the Democrats were looking to either investigate or impeach Trump, or really anything else. They wondered among themselves whether the House or Senate acted first, and what role each played. They were vaguely aware that the Democrats had the House and the Republicans the Senate so they felt that this meant Trump would stay President and therefore the whole thing was stupid and a waste of everyone's time. They thought maybe it had something to do with Russia, but weren't sure.

There's your public Democrats, you've got one hell of a lot of work educating them.
posted by sotonohito at 4:43 PM on November 6, 2019 [50 favorites]


In that vein, I heard something I'm paraphrasing and perhaps getting wrong on either NPR or BBC this AM, that something like 70% of the people they polled couldn't identify the three branches of US government. Much less how they interrelate. They don't teach civics any more. It's not on the standardized test, so they don't teach it.

Most people under 50 have no idea how the government works, why it works, and why what Trump has done is impeachable, or what impeachment even means. Over 50, and you probably had civics classes, government classes, and possibly even an active student government.

Unfortunately, the boomers have proven to be unreliable travelers, and I say that as an old GenX. This is the direct result of gutting education, a thing which Republicans love almost as much as they love guns and corruption.
posted by SecretAgentSockpuppet at 6:42 PM on November 6, 2019 [24 favorites]


Apparently Ken Burns interviewed the Vindman twins when they were 10yo for a documentary about immigration called Statue of Liberty.

I remember the Vindman boys fondly. Theirs is the story of America at its best.

He retweeted the video - Here's a lovely clip of the Vindman twins as children.

It would be sweet if Trump was brought down by a patriotic immigrant.

I don't envy Ken's job when it comes time to document all this. His usual sober format is going to look like the Veepiest episode of Veep that ever Veeped.
posted by adept256 at 7:22 PM on November 6, 2019 [12 favorites]


Whistleblower Advocates Demand Obstruction Probe, Suggest Don Jr. Should Be ‘Immediately Arrested’ (Colin Kalmbacher, Law & Crime)
A law firm dedicated to protecting the rights and interests of whistleblowers is demanding a federal investigation into any leaks concerning the intelligence community whistleblower responsible for alerting the public to President Donald Trump‘s alleged attempts to extort Ukrainian officials via quid pro quo.

A letter authored by the namesake partners at Kohn, Kohn & Colapinto, LLP called on Attorney General William Barr to open a criminal investigation into any leaks of the whistleblower’s identity. Law&Crime obtained a copy of the letter on Wednesday afternoon.
posted by ZeusHumms at 7:25 PM on November 6, 2019 [13 favorites]


Boomers also would have taken that civics class 50 years ago. I'd be really leery of them having retained much in the way of details of a class they probably weren't much interested in in the first place. On impeachment they'll have the advantage of having lived through Nixon and Clinton but even there the former was 40+ years ago and the latter wasn't exactly a flawless unbiased execution of the impeachment process.
posted by Mitheral at 7:26 PM on November 6, 2019 [1 favorite]


As a boomer, I would like to tell you that I do know about the three branches of the government. But given the fact that the three branches of our government have devolved so much over the past forty years and that our current government is a constitutional fraud, knowing how government is supposed to work isn’t as important as knowing how it has been twisted into a one man show and all his sycophants, so we know what happened, so maybe we can not let it happen again. The old fashioned constitutional knowledge will come in handy once the disease has been eradicated and we can begin rebuilding what should have been there in the first place.
posted by njohnson23 at 7:46 PM on November 6, 2019 [17 favorites]


In that vein, I heard something I'm paraphrasing and perhaps getting wrong on either NPR or BBC this AM, that something like 70% of the people they polled couldn't identify the three branches of US government. Much less how they interrelate. They don't teach civics any more. It's not on the standardized test, so they don't teach it.

The connection to civics or age is very unlikely. I have a copy of the cumulative ANES through 2008 sitting around, so why not. It doesn't ask that question (that I could immediately locate) and I am not remotely about to start pulling the individual year samples, but the proportions of people who knew that the Republicans are the more conservative party and the proportion of respondents who knew the current majority party in the House don't have any discernible trend.

tl;dr: Lots of Americans have always been really ignorant about politics.
posted by GCU Sweet and Full of Grace at 7:48 PM on November 6, 2019 [6 favorites]


For what it's worth, 41 states and the District of Columbia require at least a half year of civics instruction of which 10 require a full year. Ten states do not have a civics requirement.
posted by JackFlash at 8:05 PM on November 6, 2019 [9 favorites]


I have a copy of the cumulative ANES through 2008 sitting around, so why not. It doesn't ask that question (that I could immediately locate) and I am not remotely about to start pulling the individual year samples, but the proportions of people who knew that the Republicans are the more conservative party and the proportion of respondents who knew the current majority party in the House don't have any discernible trend.

No need for your own ANES -- the internet shall provide.
posted by chortly at 8:16 PM on November 6, 2019


Trump wanted Barr to hold news conference saying the president broke no laws in call with Ukrainian leader (WaPo)
President Trump wanted Attorney General William P. Barr to hold a news conference declaring that the commander in chief had broken no laws during a phone call in which he pressed his Ukrainian counterpart to investigate a political rival, though Barr ultimately declined to do so, people familiar with the matter said.

The request from Trump traveled from the president to other White House officials and eventually to the Justice Department. The president has mentioned Barr’s demurral to associates in recent weeks, saying he wished Barr would have held the news conference, Trump advisers say. [...]

Unbeknown to the public, the department weighed whether to investigate a potential campaign finance crime, though ultimately concluded there was not sufficient basis to do so after an inquiry limited essentially to reviewing the rough transcript of the Trump-Zelensky call.
Attorney General Declined Trump Request to Declare Nothing Illegal in Ukraine Call (NYT)
President Trump asked that Attorney General William P. Barr hold a news conference to declare that he had broken no laws in a telephone call with Ukraine’s president that is now at the heart of the Democratic impeachment inquiry, but Mr. Barr declined, according to two people with knowledge of the matter. Mr. Trump’s request came shortly after the White House released a reconstructed transcript of a July 25 call in which the president pressed President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine to launch investigations into former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and other Democrats.

[...] The president wanted Mr. Barr to personally deliver the message to the news media that Mr. Trump had done nothing wrong, much as he did in a news conference he held shortly before the release of the report by Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel who investigated Russia’s interference in the 2016 elections, according to a person with knowledge of the events. [...] A Justice Department spokeswoman put out a statement after the release of the whistle-blower complaint about the call, saying that the criminal division had reviewed the official record of the conversation and determined that “there was no campaign finance violation and that no further action was warranted.” That satisfied Mr. Trump, according to one of the people with knowledge of what took place, and aides were able to redirect his concerns.
posted by katra at 8:22 PM on November 6, 2019 [9 favorites]


A Justice Department spokeswoman put out a statement...the criminal division had reviewed the official record of the conversation and determined that “there was no campaign finance violation and that no further action was warranted.”

hmmm...seems like someone should FOIA (cuz subpoenas apparently ain't shit, house majority) any review documentation and the determination. Press release alone is pretty sketchy.
posted by j_curiouser at 10:31 PM on November 6, 2019 [8 favorites]


This is apparently not a parody; there are links to the transcript and everything:
Ukraine crisis put on ice by Trump staff busy working out how to buy Greenland
After the White House cut off military aid to Ukraine, Donald Trump’s top officials scrambled to get it restored but were unable to organise a meeting with the president, in part because his staff were too busy pursuing his interest in buying Greenland, according to newly released congressional testimony.
[…]
The veteran ambassador told congressional investigators it was the “unanimous opinion of every level of inter-agency discussion” that the aid should be restored and that the secretaries of state and defence as well as the CIA director and the national security adviser work together to arrange an urgent meeting with Trump “to convince him to release the hold”.

However, no meeting could be arranged until September. Taylor said part of the reason was the cabinet secretaries involved went on work trips abroad during the period, but he added: “I think this was also about the time of the Greenland question, about purchasing Greenland, which took up a lot of energy in the NSC [National Security Council].”

On 20 August, Trump cancelled a trip to Denmark on the grounds that the Danish prime minister, Mette Frederiksen, had “no interest in discussing the purchase of Greenland”. Frederiksen had called the US president’s proposal to purchase the semi-autonomous Danish territory “an absurd discussion”.


Your country is literally being run by a crazy grandpa.
posted by Joe in Australia at 11:17 PM on November 6, 2019 [56 favorites]




Devonian: Either you run out of power or we run out of law.

If The Donald Devil is given any benefit of the doubt, and continues to publicly deny, divert, and obstruct, he might win this race by attrition. Better to throw legal hurdles in his path – and ultimately stop him – by repeatedly (and publicly) applying the benefits of Constitutional impeachment law.

From A Man for All Seasons (1960) by Robert Bolt:
Roper: So now you’d give the Devil benefit of law?

More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

Roper: I’d cut down every law in England to do that!

More: Oh? And, when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you – where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country’s planted thick with laws from coast to coast – man’s laws, not God’s – and, if you cut them down – and you’re just the man to do it – d’you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake.
The process is messy and imperfect, but he’ll run out of power long before the United States runs out of law.
posted by cenoxo at 4:31 AM on November 7, 2019 [22 favorites]


Sure. But that framing really sucks. The process might look messy and imperfect from a certain (privileged) perspective, but to many of us it could perhaps be more aptly described as fatally inadequate. By the time he runs out of power, how many more will have been murdered?
posted by lazaruslong at 5:28 AM on November 7, 2019 [6 favorites]


Sorry, not trying to be a jerk or anything. I just...messy and imperfect are about the most milquetoast adjectives I can think of to describe this impeachment process. Coupled with the simile appeal to a 1960s play by Robert Bolt makes that framing feel like An Intellectual Exercise and that Hurts To Read.
posted by lazaruslong at 5:43 AM on November 7, 2019 [3 favorites]


The process is messy and imperfect, but he’ll run out of power long before the United States runs out of law.

Good point, but there's a third factor in play here that's grown its own legs: the people who would enforce the laws. Trump may well run out of power before the country runs out of laws—IF the people who can enforce the laws choose to do so. If they choose not to, then all the laws in the universe won't matter. In fact, they may as well not be there in the first place, for the good they do absent their enforcers.

My apologies if A Man for All Seasons addresses this problem; I haven't read it.
posted by Rykey at 5:53 AM on November 7, 2019 [9 favorites]


I just called my Senator's office, Senator Schumer, and asked that Senator Schumer challenge Senator McConnell on the Senate floor to a duel upon the Field of Honor.

Because the Constitution is Very Poorly Written, and dueling was the out-of-band enforcement mechanism the Framers expected.

I was light hearted, and acknowledged that it was a crazy request, but I just had to speak my peace.
posted by mikelieman at 6:16 AM on November 7, 2019 [10 favorites]


Messy and imperfect describes when you have two sides with different views working to come to a common understanding. Or at least honest disagreement.

This is one side working hard to follow the rules and the other side constantly moving the goalposts and saying “I don’t wanna.”

As always, Democrats are trusting the process to come to the correct result and Republicans care only about the end result. Which is why all the screaming about secrecy and due process was such an obvious con. McConnell, in fact, derives great joy in shitting on process and then crowing about the results.

The GOP cares about power and only power because that is the only metric in their worldview that gets results. The Democrats need to convince the American people of the facts and that they (the voting public) must hold the GOP to account if they don’t approve impeachment.

The GOP is really in a bind — if they vote to impeach, their base will either revolt or abandon them at the polls for turning on Trump. And they won’t gain a single vote from outside the base because Democrats won’t forgive their complicity over the past three years and independent voters will view them as hypocritical and untrustworthy.
posted by Big Al 8000 at 6:21 AM on November 7, 2019 [12 favorites]


>Trump may well run out of power before the country runs out of laws—IF the people who can enforce the laws choose to do so. If they choose not to, then all the laws in the universe won't matter. In fact, they may as well not be there in the first place, for the good they do absent their enforcers.

this is reason #1 that that quote isn't as powerful as liberals think it is. you're performing a sort of materialist analysis of the idea of the law here — you're treating the law as the law as actually implemented in the world, as carried out through various human processes and various human institutions, rather than treating the law as an abstract ideal that somehow governs by itself.

reason #2 that that quote isn't as powerful as liberals think it is is that by positioning the law as being a windbreak, it doesn't take into account the possibility that the law might instead be the wind itself. consider the various laws explicitly or implicitly aimed at keeping black people subordinate that the united states has had throughout its history. these laws are not a windbreak that protects against the devil, but instead are the devil's own flatulence.

in the case of trump we are seeing both of these effects: first, there are no enforcement mechanisms against criminal behavior committed by a president, or even grand guignol atrocities committed by a president. trump is right when he says he could shoot someone on fifth avenue and get away with it. and he's right to think that he can order the genocide of the kurds against the national interest of the united states and in the personal interests of both trump himself and of vladimir putin.

second, trumpist interpretations of law might not even be incorrect, — perhaps the laws of the united states as established through convention over the past 200 years actually do implicitly specify that a president with a political party backing him in the legislative branch is effectively a caesar.

i have longstanding beef with that quote, largely because the view of the world that social media grants me has a statistically improbably large number of center-right liberal lawyers who absolutely positively think that that specific quote from man for all seasons automatically wins any argument.
posted by Reclusive Novelist Thomas Pynchon at 6:47 AM on November 7, 2019 [29 favorites]


The GOP is really in a bind — if they vote to impeach, their base will either revolt or abandon them at the polls for turning on Trump. And they won’t gain a single vote from outside the base because Democrats won’t forgive their complicity over the past three years and independent voters will view them as hypocritical and untrustworthy.

Are they really? The American electorate has shown time and time again that it has both the memory of a goldfish and really hates to vote to better themselves if the wrong people also benefit. Not to mention the Democrats, wanting to unilaterally appeal to bipartisanship, will reliably let Republicans throw any spanner in the works for 40 votes in the Senate.

McConnell doesn't need to be majority leader. He can just stand on the sidelines and put a hold on any and every Democratic bill that comes across. A regional white supremacist Republican minority in the Senate can effectively become bomb throwers. At that point, what do Democrats do. You can't win every election pointing at 40-50 intransigent Senators over and over. When the electorate tires of Democratic ineptness due to progressive goals being stalled, where do they turn? They vote in Republicans to "shake things up" or "because we need a change" and then the really evil shit happens again.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 6:51 AM on November 7, 2019 [16 favorites]



I don't agree with all of this analysis but it's a nice recap of Graham's weird behavior and reversal of most of his stances:
Hidden Motives Behind GOP Leaders Cooperation With Trump
posted by benzenedream at 4:41 PM on November 5 [5 favorites +] [!]


I had put this on a tab for future reading, and now the future was here and I strongly recommend it. It's a year old, and some of their predictions have come to fruit (yes, the NRA are a Russian asset), some haven't (no, while we don't really know what's in the Mueller report, it does not seem to contain an unraveling of the the whole Republican Party).
Lindsey Graham is also on our roster of Congress members behaving in an unreasonable fashion. Most striking is the senator’s dramatic reversal in tone and words regarding the president, coupled with his unprecedented characterologic shift. Graham’s remarkable pivot is especially noteworthy, because the senator has been long known for his predictable, principled and independent character style; these traits were all on display in his May 2016 remarks, when he stated that he would not be voting for Trump in the general election, asserting that the Republican Party had been “conned.” For many years, Graham was one of Donald Trump’s harshest critics. In 2015, he described Donald Trump as a “race-baiting xenophobic bigot.” In 2016, Graham said of Trump: “I think he’s a kook. I think he’s crazy. I think he’s unfit for office.” During the first eight months of Trump’s presidency, Graham continued to criticize Trump: On July 27th, 2017, Graham stated that there would be “holy hell to pay” if Trump were to fire Jeff Sessions; the senator added that if the president fired Sessions in order to thwart Robert Mueller’s investigation, this act would mark the “beginning of the end of the Trump presidency.”
Graham’s striking U-turn took place later in 2017, when he suddenly became one of the president’s staunchest allies and almost overnight. In October of 2017, Graham played golf with Trump for the first time — and twice in the same week. During their week of golf dates, the LA Times reports that “…other senators have said Trump and Graham now talk so frequently it’s as if they are on speed-dial with one another.” Based upon the timing of his dramatic shift and their golf games, we assume that the conversations Senator Graham had with Trump on the golf course played a role in his sharp reversal.
Following their October 2017 tête-à-tête, Graham began to contradict himself in a way that was totally out of character for him. In November of 2017, the senator repudiated his earlier remarks on Trump’s character, stating: “What concerns me about the American press is this endless, endless attempt to label [Trump] as some kind of kook, not fit to be President.” And Graham now claims that he has “never heard him (Trump) make a single racist statement.” And in August of 2018, Senator Graham defended Trump’s desire to fire Jeff Sessions, insisting that the president is “entitled to an attorney general he has faith in.”
posted by mumimor at 6:58 AM on November 7, 2019 [14 favorites]


Not sure Thomas More is somebody you want to invoke as someone whose determined preservation of the law kept himself safe.
posted by Huffy Puffy at 7:34 AM on November 7, 2019 [20 favorites]


Ukrainian President Was Booked to Announce Biden Investigation on CNN, Says Report Daily Beast

"Trump wanted the Ukrainian president to speak on CNN, and Zelensky’s staff planned for him to make an announcement on September 13 in an interview with the network's Fareed Zakaria. However, two days before the scheduled interview, news of the military aid delay leaked and Congress was furious."

So close it's terrifying me.
posted by Harry Caul at 7:53 AM on November 7, 2019 [37 favorites]


Impeachment probe turns to Pence adviser who heard Trump’s call with Ukrainian leader < WaPo
posted by Harry Caul at 7:55 AM on November 7, 2019 [8 favorites]


For everyone lamenting the state of civics in this country, I wanted to share that my mom's a Boomer. She's 66 years old. When I brought up impeachment with her, the response I got was:
No president has ever been impeached. Can you imagine? We can't let that happen! There would be rioting in the streets, Unicorn. It's never happened before, the government would just fall apart. We wouldn't know how to function as a society if the president was removed from office. What they really need to do is investigate Obama, and Hillary for ordering all those Benghazi murders.
My mom, everybody. Who lived through the Clinton impeachment. Who lived through Nixon. Who remains blissfully unaware that there were YEARS of Benghazi hearings covered live on C-SPAN... during a 3-year period in which she was 100% unemployed and did nothing at all but watch TV at home by herself. Sadly, we share an Amazon Prime account and I can see she's also an avid fan of Dinesh D'Souza.

I absolutely do not have faith in the general public's ability to grok impeachment as a civics concept taught in our schools, much less how it's supposed to work in actual practice.

If anyone has a coherent strategy on how to get through to people like my mother, who both have lived through and been taught the facts but somehow cannot remember or pay attention to them, please let me know. I'm all out of patience at this point.
posted by Unicorn on the cob at 8:33 AM on November 7, 2019 [43 favorites]


Guardian:
Trump is still rage-tweeting about the Washington Post scoop that attorney general William Barr refused a Trump request to go on TV and say a call between Trump and the Ukrainian president definitely, positively did not rise to the level of criminal conduct.

“We both deny this story, which they knew before they wrote it,” Trump tweeted.

Barr appears not to have denied the story, except in the dreamscape of Trump’s Twitter, where anything truly is possible.
posted by katra at 8:40 AM on November 7, 2019 [15 favorites]


If anyone has a coherent strategy on how to get through to people like my mother, who both have lived through and been taught the facts but somehow cannot remember or pay attention to them, please let me know. I'm all out of patience at this point.

I just try to remind myself that polls find roughly 50% support for impeaching Trump even before public hearings and that people like this are clearly not part of the 50%. Not everyone is going to be reachable -- Murdoch and Ailes have made maximizing that number their lives' work. We need to keep in mind that "not everyone" is still a pretty big number, instead of chasing people who've walled themselves off in Fox-land.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 8:47 AM on November 7, 2019 [7 favorites]


If anyone has a coherent strategy on how to get through to people like my mother, who both have lived through and been taught the facts but somehow cannot remember or pay attention to them, please let me know.

Your mom is telling you that she does not and will not care about facts. She cares about grievance, power, and hierarchical dominance. Stop wasting your energy on her and put it somewhere that can help nullify or remove her own political power in support of fascism.
posted by Rust Moranis at 8:49 AM on November 7, 2019 [44 favorites]


We're talking about people who looked at pictures of an empty Washington Mall but still believed Trump when he says that he had the biggest inaugural ever. I don't think that there's any reaching them.
posted by octothorpe at 8:59 AM on November 7, 2019 [15 favorites]


Bolton willing to defy White House and testify if court clears the way, according to people familiar with his views (WaPo)
Former national security adviser John Bolton is willing to defy the White House and testify in the House impeachment inquiry about his alarm at the Ukraine pressure campaign if a federal court clears the way, according to people familiar with his views.

Bolton could be a powerful witness for Democrats: Top State Department and national security officials have already testified that he was deeply concerned about efforts by Trump and his allies to push Ukraine to open investigations into the president’s political rivals while the Trump administration held up military aid to that country. The former national security adviser, who abruptly left his post in September, is expected to confirm their statements and describe his conversations with Trump, according to the people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the ongoing inquiry.

However, Bolton, a longtime GOP foreign policy adviser, does not want to comply with the Democratic inquiry without a court ruling on the ongoing constitutional dispute between the Trump administration and Congress, the people said. It remains unclear how quickly that could happen — and whether it would be in time for Bolton to be called as a witness in the public House impeachment hearings, which are scheduled to begin next week. On Wednesday, House Democrats said they are awaiting a key test case involving former White House counsel Donald McGahn, in which a district-court decision could come by the end of this month. [...]

His testimony is expected to be “damaging” to Trump, according to a person familiar with the matter.
posted by katra at 9:04 AM on November 7, 2019 [4 favorites]


Impeachment probe turns to Pence adviser who heard Trump’s call with Ukrainian leader (WaPo)
Pence did meet with Zelensky in Warsaw on the sidelines of a World War II commemoration Sept. 1, after Trump pulled out to monitor a hurricane barreling toward Florida. The meeting came just days after the Ukrainians learned Trump had frozen $391 million in military aid earmarked for the country. [...] At the time, the Ukrainians were crestfallen that they were not going to be able to make their case for the aid directly to the president. [...] In his meeting with the Ukrainians, Pence was evasive regarding the reasons for the hold on aid, telling Zelensky and his team that Trump was eager to see them do more to tackle corruption and that he was frustrated that the European allies weren’t providing more support. He promised he’d raise the issue of the frozen aid with the president that evening when he got back to Washington.

[...] Williams likely would have briefed Pence ahead of his meeting with Zelensky. She also was one of a handful of U.S. officials on Trump’s controversial July 25 call with Zelensky in which Trump asked the Ukrainian leader to open an investigation into former vice president Joe Biden and his son Hunter [...] Officials close to Pence said he wasn’t aware of the demands Trump made of Zelensky on the call even though Pence likely received a rough transcript of the conversation in his nightly briefing book. As Pence’s top adviser on Ukraine matters, Williams would have been responsible for ensuring that Pence knew what happened on the call.
Guardian: Pence aide arrives for impeachment testimony
Pence, who of course would prefer not to be linked to what John Bolton called a “drug deal,” has dodged questions about the quid pro quo. What will Williams, a career foreign service officer who also listened to the 25 July phone call between Trump and Zelenskiy, have to say?
Eric Columbus (@EricColumbus) The day after Sondland’s pull-aside with Ukraine, PENCE wouldn’t answer this: 🤔

“Can you assure Ukraine that the hold-up of that money has absolutely nothing to do with efforts, including by Rudy Giuliani, to try to dig up dirt on the Biden family?” https://t.co/EsygQiAuo8 pic.twitter.com/bDR8yC0Ies
November 5, 2019
posted by katra at 9:26 AM on November 7, 2019 [4 favorites]


Former national security adviser John Bolton is willing to defy the White House and testify in the House impeachment inquiry about his alarm at the Ukraine pressure campaign if a federal court clears the way

That's a strange way to word it. He's not defying the White House. He is dutifully complying with the White House to defy a legal subpoena. He's not waiting for a federal court to "clear the way." The court is going to tell him to stop defying a legal subpoena and to haul his ass to congress.
posted by JackFlash at 9:27 AM on November 7, 2019 [19 favorites]


That's a strange way to word it.

Or, he's saying that he's not going to sit in jail, i.e. continue to comply with White House demands to defy a subpoena, after a court determines that a subpoena is lawful and enforceable. Per WaPo, Bolton has not been issued a subpoena, at least, not yet.
posted by katra at 9:39 AM on November 7, 2019 [4 favorites]


Fun fact: Nothing is enforceable unless someone actually enforces it.
posted by FakeFreyja at 9:42 AM on November 7, 2019 [30 favorites]


Before he became President, Trump would threaten people with lawsuits they couldn't afford to deal with. He's probably found some "presidential" version of that.
posted by mumimor at 9:43 AM on November 7, 2019 [6 favorites]


If anyone has a coherent strategy on how to get through to people like my mother, who both have lived through and been taught the facts but somehow cannot remember or pay attention to them, please let me know.
Your mom is telling you that she does not and will not care about facts. She cares about grievance, power, and hierarchical dominance. Stop wasting your energy on her and put it somewhere that can help nullify or remove her own political power in support of fascism.


One interesting thing is how this process has changed since Nixon. In those days, those on the right similarly didn't care about facts very much, but were also utterly ignorant of almost everything, including false information. These days they similarly don't care about the facts but also have a large number of very specific and very false opinions that they've gathered from cable news and social media. In the old days, they were essentially trapped in an information desert: their options were ignorance, or paying attention to a small number of news sources that were essentially all centrist (the networks, most major newspapers). They mainly retained ignorance, mostly because they didn't care, partially because the information there was to be had largely undercut their preferred beliefs. But occasionally circumstances would force them to consume news info from the centrist establishment, and that would in fact sway the opinion of quite a few people: eg, the Nixon hearings, when nearly half of all Republicans switched from pro- to anti-Nixon.

That would never happen today though: there is nothing forcing these people to consume centrist news any more if they want to follow a big national event, and instead they will just consume more fake, far-right news. So it's possible that if anything, Republican and Republican-leaning independents may become more, rather than less, pro-Trump as they consume more right-wing news about impeachment as it rises in prominence. There is a slight silver lining though if one wants a glimmer of optimism: the picture painted here is one where media and information does make a difference, and people's opinions aren't truly immovable and can shift a bit on specific issues, such as millions of Republicans turning agains Nixon. The problem is that the past mechanisms for this -- basically forcing them to consume hundreds of hours of hearings and centrist commentary on them -- are now impossible. And the effects of Fox news and (possibly) social media confirm that the only way these media diets actually affect (instead of just reflect) opinion is when they are consumed by the hundreds of hours. So that's a tall order for anyone to do to another person, let alone one's mom. But if we ever can think of some way to change people's information diet on the order of hundreds of hours, it could have a real effect. A slim silver lining, I know!
posted by chortly at 9:45 AM on November 7, 2019 [10 favorites]


Schiff has set out three core questions that any impeachment witness must be able to address:

1) Whether Trump asked foreign leaders/governments to initiate investigations for his personal political benefit, including an investigation of his potential 2020 opponent(s).

2) Whether Trump himself or "through agents" attempted to use government powers to pressure Ukraine to advance his political interests, including withholding military aid or conditioning an Oval Office meeting on agreeing to his demands.

3) Whether Trump and the administration as a whole sought to "obstruct, suppress or cover up information" on his "actions and conduct."
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 9:46 AM on November 7, 2019 [10 favorites]


Per WaPo, Bolton has not been issued a subpoena, at least, not yet.

Thanks. My mistake.
posted by JackFlash at 9:49 AM on November 7, 2019 [2 favorites]


Schiff has set out three core questions that any impeachment witness must be able to address

Drop the "whether" from each of these, which one can do because much corroborating information is in the public domain anyway, and there you have the articles of impeachment.
posted by Gelatin at 9:54 AM on November 7, 2019 [7 favorites]


I'd still like to include obstruction of justice (the 10 examples from the Mueller report) and emoluments (in progress).
posted by kirkaracha at 10:03 AM on November 7, 2019 [7 favorites]


Impeachment transcripts reveal a consistent, damaging narrative for Trump (Politico)
The witness testimonies released so far are all aligned, offering Democrats a powerful political weapon in public hearings next week.
House investigators have stitched together a uniquely Trumpian narrative — one of retribution against perceived enemies, defiance of diplomatic norms and a pervasive fear that Russia would benefit from the disarray, all to help Trump fend off his top 2020 rival.

And while the storyline could develop further as the transcripts of the half-dozen other witness interviews are released, Democrats have emphasized that the basic foundation of their case to impeach the president for an extraordinary abuse of power remains unchanged — and has only been strengthened by the transcripts that are being released to the public.

In fact, Democrats have argued for weeks that sufficient evidence exists in plain sight to believe that Trump committed impeachable offenses, most notably in the rough transcript of his July 25 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. [...]

In interviews, GOP lawmakers are picking apart the diplomats’ testimony and echoing Trump’s denials of a quid pro quo, essentially arguing that Trump’s denials are more powerful than a cadre of diplomats’ consistent testimony. [...] Trump’s allies have also questioned whether Giuliani’s push for an investigation of Biden was done in tandem with Trump. But Giuliani re-asserted Wednesday that all of his actions were done on behalf of his client, the president — further undercutting the argument that the former New York mayor was a rogue actor.

Democrats believe there is only one Ukraine story to tell, supported by mountains of corroborating evidence and testimony from witnesses whose recollections buttress each other. The public will soon hear it in broad daylight.
posted by katra at 10:13 AM on November 7, 2019 [9 favorites]


In interviews, GOP lawmakers are picking apart the diplomats’ testimony and echoing Trump’s denials of a quid pro quo

And Democrats should remind the media, which seems to have swallowed the Republican framing -- surprise, surprise! -- that quid pro quo is really the issue, that Trump having asked foreign governments to interfere in the US election is an impeachable abuse of power all by itself, even if Trump offered or delivered nothing in return.
posted by Gelatin at 10:21 AM on November 7, 2019 [5 favorites]


If anyone has a coherent strategy on how to get through to people like my mother, who both have lived through and been taught the facts but somehow cannot remember or pay attention to them, please let me know.

Hi, I'm a certificated social studies teacher, and I'm here to tell you that civics is the easiest thing to teach in the whole subject field, if not the easiest "academic" thing of all at the high school level. It's just some rules. The Constitution isn't even dense writing, and there are buckets of videos out there to make it all easy to understand. People working toward their citizenship in this country have to learn the system as written--and a lot of them pull it off with limited fluency in English, but we apparently give a pass to people who were born here many decades ago.

The issue isn't the difficulty of the subject. Rust Moranis is correct; this isn't ignorance or inability, it's a choice. Many people prefer their preconceptions and conspiracy theories to evidence and reality. This is a big portion of where "OK, Boomer" comes from.
And I would also point out that despite the devaluing of social studies over the last couple of decades thanks to NCLB and standardized testing and the rest, it's not younger people who have landed us in this mess. Someone pointed that out to me here on the blue a while back and it's absolutely true. Yes, our system is a mess, and no, the kids aren't fooled anyway.

I would suggest confronting people with their ignorance and asking them if they really want to understand--with the understanding that many will say no.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 10:22 AM on November 7, 2019 [49 favorites]


The Daily 202: The high price of loyalty in Trump’s ‘snake pit’ (James Hohmann, WaPo paywall)
THE BIG IDEA: President Trump expects unflinching loyalty from those who work for him. The price of that loyalty can be quite high. So, too, can the costs of perceived disloyalty.
posted by ZeusHumms at 10:32 AM on November 7, 2019 [1 favorite]


Someday, maybe in an Errol Morris interview, Bill Barr will claim his refusal to hold a press conference stating the Ukraine call wasn't criminal was his own act of resistance.
posted by PhineasGage at 10:36 AM on November 7, 2019 [12 favorites]


Your mom is telling you that she does not and will not care about facts. She cares about grievance, power, and hierarchical dominance.

Precisely. This is the in-group/out-group conservative mantra stated plainly. This election (and many others, frankly) haven't been about issues or values or qualifications to many Americans; they have been about restoring what they view as a rightful order to America, one in which the Republican base considers itself a privileged class and demands candidates who will keep them that way. One in which, as one Republican constituent so fittingly put it, "he'd be hurting the RIGHT people."

Likewise, the _vast_ majority of Republican Senators know that Trump and his cronies are filthy as hell with fraud, graft and impeachable offenses, crimes for which any Democratic President would be crucified on the White House lawn. They're not fully stupid individuals. It's right there in front of them. (I wish that I could say the same about the Republican House, but, well... Louie Gohmert and Matt Gaetz exist.)

But this trial, should it actually arrive, isn't about guilt; it's about optics. It's about simple electoral calculus by each Senate member; am I more damaged _with_ or _without_ Trump? Will I pay a bigger price for standing by Trump and quoting the party line, choosing to deny everything that doesn't have absolute hard and undeniable evidence backing it up, keeping in mind that a solid chunk of Republican voters _do not care at all_ about evidence? Or is his collapse inevitable and, when it happens, will he take me down with him?

In the short term, the answer is obvious: voting against Trump is individual political suicide for GOP Senators. A sudden mass defection might actually prove better for the _party_; imagine a Thanksgiving-ish removal, then some new candidate emerging in the spring running on AVENGING TRUMP!, winning primaries by appealing to Trumpoids' anger but not being _quite_ as demonstrably compromised or clueless about how modern politics actually work. But that still requires those individual senators to bite the bullet, metaphorically speaking, and each take one for the team.

Don't hold your breath waiting for that.
posted by delfin at 10:47 AM on November 7, 2019 [13 favorites]


My guess right now is that the Democrats will fairly and openly present absolute hard and undeniable evidence backing up the impeachment counts, the Senate will acquit along mostly party lines, and voters will punish Trump and the Republicans in November. (Again, assuming the Democrats present a solid case.) I believe people are eager to vote Trump out of office, and some people will turn on Republicans if they blatantly ignore solid evidence.

If removal from office goes up in the polls, it will shock you how few Senate Republicans ever supported Trump.
posted by kirkaracha at 11:02 AM on November 7, 2019 [7 favorites]


The Simplest Explanation Is That William Barr Sees the Writing on the Wall
The most obvious one is to speculate that Barr knows that the president* is as guilty as all the evidence clearly indicates he is. Perhaps Barr is seeking somehow to rehabilitate himself as a respectable establishment figure within the government, the reputation he had before he put his integrity on layaway down at Camp Runamuck. (Not that anything he’s done since has been at odds with the image of a Republican Winston Wolf that Barr built in the extended denouement of the Iran-Contra scandal.) It merely could be one more rodent down the ratline.
posted by kirkaracha at 11:19 AM on November 7, 2019 [4 favorites]


Trump: "I won't settle this case."

Narrator: Trump settles the case -- by paying a penalty of $2 million.

This is the New York civil case against Trump and his children for cheating and self-dealing from the Trump Foundation charity.

According to the lawsuit, the Trumps allowed the foundation to be used "as little more than a checkbook to serve Mr. Trump's business and political interests."
posted by JackFlash at 11:21 AM on November 7, 2019 [9 favorites]


Per WaPo, Bolton has not been issued a subpoena, at least, not yet.

Ok, so wait, Bolton is saying that he will comply with a subpoena, that doesn't exist, as long as the courts order him to, possibly many months from now?
Nancy Pelosi: "Oh honey, you don't need to go fishing for a subpoena...we've got tons of testimony against you already! Why would we need your story when we've already got your number? We're just going to leave you over here in the big pile marked "Bad Guys."
posted by sexyrobot at 11:28 AM on November 7, 2019 [9 favorites]


I believe people are eager to vote Trump out of office, and some people will turn on Republicans if they blatantly ignore solid evidence.

People in general? Sure. People in states that elect these GOP Senators? Well...

The Presidential election turned on a relatively small number of votes in particular states. But there aren't a whole lot of GOP senators up for reelection in 2020 who won by less than 10% the last time around, and they have watched the rise of Trump's cult of personality since then. If they defy Trump and turn on him, are they more likely to be punished enough at the general election to lose... or to be immediately primaried and defeated by some Trumpoid bomb-thrower?

It depends on just how solid "solid" evidence is, and whether the combination of general political apathy and the Mirror Universe Media fog cloud can obscure it from the faithful.
posted by delfin at 11:37 AM on November 7, 2019 [3 favorites]


Impeachment investigators pressing forward without John Bolton (Andrew Desiderio, Politico)
House impeachment investigators are moving on from John Bolton.

The former national security adviser refused to appear for his scheduled deposition Thursday morning, a House Intelligence Committee official said, and his lawyer informed the panel that Bolton would take the House to court if he is subpoenaed.

So instead of fighting a court battle that could take months, the official added, Bolton’s refusal to testify will be used as evidence of obstruction of Congress against President Donald Trump.

“We regret Mr. Bolton’s decision not to appear voluntarily, but we have no interest in allowing the administration to play rope-a-dope with us in the courts for months,” the official said. “Rather, the White House instruction that he not appear will add to the evidence of the president’s obstruction of Congress.”
Fair enough.
posted by ZeusHumms at 11:37 AM on November 7, 2019 [35 favorites]


House Withdraws Impeachment Subpoena To Ex-NSC Aide (Nicole Lafond, TPM)
House Democrats said in a new court filing Wednesday they had dropped their subpoena of former deputy national security adviser Charles Kupperman on Tuesday and did not intend to reissue it. They requested that the lawsuit that Kupperman filed to compel the courts to determine whether he should appear for impeachment testimony be dropped. […]

It’s unclear why Democrats dropped the Kupperman subpoena, but most speculate that it’s a sign that Democrats don’t want to prolong proceedings with court battles and likely have enough evidence to more forward with their inquiry.
posted by ZeusHumms at 11:47 AM on November 7, 2019 [5 favorites]


Good to know I can just blow off a subpoena if I ever get one.
posted by kirkaracha at 11:50 AM on November 7, 2019 [12 favorites]


It’s unclear why Democrats dropped the Kupperman subpoena, but most speculate that it’s a sign that Democrats don’t want to prolong proceedings with court battles and likely have enough evidence to more forward with their inquiry.

Failure to comply is yet more evidence of obstruction.

https://fortune.com/2019/10/17/white-house-obstruction-subpoena-pence-giuliani/
"All the committees have made it very clear that they will treat a refusal to appear to comply with a lawfully-issued subpoena or to produce documents as evidence of obstruction of Congress, which in and of itself, can be a basis for impeachment of the president," said Rep. David Cicilline (D-R.I.), "It is my hope at least that we will not engage in a months-long litigation."
posted by mikelieman at 12:01 PM on November 7, 2019 [12 favorites]


The Democratic leadership is still operating under the assumptions that (1) the evidence as it currently exists will not be enough to convict in the Senate (likely true), (2) no major new evidence is likely to emerge from an extended impeachment process (unknown), and (3) an impeachment process that extends into the spring or summer will hurt either the primary process or Democrats more broadly (unknown). Assuming all three things, they really just want to get it over with -- deliver the hits they can, knock Trump down a couple points if possible, and then move on to the primary process and election season. Everything they are doing has been dedicated to either avoiding impeachment, or moving through it as quickly as possible. And if you believe (1) - (3), that's not unreasonable, though I myself doubt both (2) and (3).
posted by chortly at 12:03 PM on November 7, 2019 [2 favorites]


Curious to consider what will happen with all of the 'failed to comply' people in a Senate trial...
posted by kaibutsu at 12:13 PM on November 7, 2019


As per the Post story excerpt from katra upthread, it seems Democrats dropped the Kupperman subpoena and are holding off on Bolton's because we're getting closer to the court ruling on McGahn, which would be some sort of precedent.
House lawyers said that in the interest of speed, they would rely on another case that is further along in judicial proceedings — one involving a subpoena to McGahn, whose testimony was first sought in April after the release of special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s report.
...
U.S. District Judge Kentanji Brown Jackson in Washington heard oral arguments in the McGahn case last week and said she would probably issue an opinion before the end of November.
posted by martin q blank at 12:20 PM on November 7, 2019 [4 favorites]


I see the reasoning behind letting Bolton and Kupperman off the hook for the subpoenas, but I still feel like the "noncompliance will be considered evidence of obstruction" thing is a lame copout. The Dems seem dead set on getting through the whole impeachment process without ever enforcing a subpoena, thus ensuring that the administration's obstruction is effective in keeping a whole range of misconduct under wraps. Doing the minimum needed to bring this "focused" impeachment investigation to a conclusion, apparently by excluding a bunch of obviously impeachable behaviour--ranging from emoluments violations to the Stormy Daniels payoff to the obstruction detailed in the Mueller report to stuff we don't even know about--means the Democrats are effectively making this into a kind of show trial that weakens their credibility when they talk about "grave constitutional duties" and whatnot. What did I expect, I guess.
posted by Dr. Send at 12:29 PM on November 7, 2019 [3 favorites]


Anyone who thinks the House Democrats are trying to rush through the impeachment process and let it fail must be smoking something rather potent. Here's Adam Schiff's Impeachment Game Plan.
posted by PhineasGage at 12:37 PM on November 7, 2019 [6 favorites]


My fantasy is Robocop.
I do not advocate sitting back and waiting for a superhero to come and save us. We need to do the work.
Nevertheless, I wish there was a Gomer out there.
posted by MtDewd at 12:39 PM on November 7, 2019 [3 favorites]


As has been stated several times upthread and in the prior ITMFA thread, enforcing a subpoena would take many many many months as things wend their way through the courts, which effectively freezes the impeachment process in place until well into the 2020 campaign, which is exactly what Tr*mp and his henchmen would want.

By the time this process is over, Adam Schiff will deserve a Medal of Honor, an OBE, a Chevalier de la Legion d'Honneur, and some sweet snuggles from everyone here who still thinks the Democrats aren't deadly serious about ITMFA *and* CTMFA.
posted by PhineasGage at 12:48 PM on November 7, 2019 [14 favorites]


The tightrope I see them walking is making the case that these crimes are serious enough to warrant removal, while avoiding debates wide-ranging enough that Republicans can muddy the waters to their (hypothetical) hearts' content.

Even without trying to convert the unconvertable, it's a real challenge to communicate what happened, how we know it happened and why it's Extremely Bad when half the room involved in that discussion is willing to do anything up to and only probably not including actual murders to stop you from making your case, especially when you consider that the people who're paying close enough attention to easily grok it are for the most part already on their side.

The more this one extremely focused scandal plays out, the more I think trying to make that case over the constant, rising din of Republican disinformation would be like trying to fill a wine glass from an open fire hydrant.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 12:53 PM on November 7, 2019 [4 favorites]


Above the Law: Rudy Hires New Lawyers To Stand By Helplessly And Watch Him Admit To Crimes On Twitter
Hosanna! Rudy Giuliani, the world’s worst client, has finally gotten himself competent counsel. Which he celebrated by going online to declare once again that his entire Ukraine project was for the personal benefit of his beloved client, Donald J. Trump, not in service of America’s interest in rooting out corruption in Ukraine. He’s always helping!
[...]
There are a whole lot of white-collar attorneys in New York, and yet Rudy picked the guy whom the Mueller Report describes approaching Michael Cohen to be a “back channel” to Donald Trump’s legal team after Cohen had decided to flip? REALLY?
posted by jocelmeow at 1:44 PM on November 7, 2019 [26 favorites]


Yet again, Sondland has some more 'splaining to do.

"Gordon Sondland, a U.S. ambassador to the EU, previously testified he didn’t recall telling Yonovitch to tweet out her support of Trump. Yovanovitch said Sondland gave her the advice as she was looking for help in dealing with the false smears against her. Kent, in testimony, not only backed Yovanovitch’s account, but said Sondland proposed the idea in an email."

Where are the emails? Russia? Ukraine? Seriously, though, failure to archive official emails within 20 days is a federal crime.
posted by JackFlash at 1:53 PM on November 7, 2019 [10 favorites]


sondland testified (fwiw) that he provided all his coms (belatedly, at insistence & w/ assistance of counsel) to state department, and, in testimony prep (which he variously described as minimal & as consuming a lot of his attention) requested copies, which state declined to provide. … except for those he may have deleted before counsel helped him comply with the law.
posted by 20 year lurk at 2:00 PM on November 7, 2019 [4 favorites]


Mod note: Let's please let the Robocop etc. stuff drop.
posted by cortex (staff) at 2:11 PM on November 7, 2019 [1 favorite]


missed edit. that may be just text/whatsap coms, rather than email. see, testimony at 363 et seq. somewhere else (a few pages earlier?) he mentioned using personal email but usually trying to copy his state department address.
posted by 20 year lurk at 2:11 PM on November 7, 2019


House GOP looks to protect Trump by raising doubts about motives of his deputies
House Republicans’ latest plan to shield President Trump from impeachment is to focus on at least three deputies — U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland, Trump’s lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani, and possibly acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney — who they say could have acted on their own to influence Ukraine policy.
Therefore, send not to know
For whom the bus tolls,
It tolls for thee.
posted by kirkaracha at 7:08 PM on November 7, 2019 [22 favorites]


not in schiff, pelosi, or hoyer's district. their sites don't take comments from strangers. non-phone way to digitally rant to them re subpoenas? mods, del if this is properly an askmefi.
posted by j_curiouser at 7:48 PM on November 7, 2019 [1 favorite]


House Republicans’ latest plan to shield President Trump from impeachment is to focus on at least three deputies — U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland, Trump’s lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani, and possibly acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney — who they say could have acted on their own to influence Ukraine policy.

So, either he ordered them to do this, or else he's so incompetent that he's unaware of what his deputies are doing on his behalf. And isn't Rudy, as the personal lawyer, admitting to some level of professional malfeasance by saying that he's acting on his client's behalf without direction or instruction from his client?

I mean, I'm not sure it matters because nobody is ever held accountable for their role in this ongoing shitshow, but I feel it's important to note for the record.
posted by nubs at 8:05 PM on November 7, 2019 [4 favorites]


FTFY

Therefore, send not to know
For whom the bus trolls,
It trolls for thee.
posted by bardophile at 8:16 PM on November 7, 2019 [7 favorites]


House GOP looks to protect Trump by raising doubts about motives of his deputies

Whoops, forgot the money quote:
All three occupy a special place in the Ukraine narrative as the people in most direct contact with Trump. As Republicans argue that most of the testimony against Trump is based on faulty secondhand information, they are sowing doubts about whether Sondland, Giuliani and Mulvaney were actually representing the president or freelancing to pursue their own agendas. The GOP is effectively offering up the three to be fall guys.
posted by kirkaracha at 9:38 PM on November 7, 2019 [6 favorites]


The GOP is effectively offering up the three to be fall guys.

This is where rock starts to meet hard place for them, because this is a really ugly argument to have to make right before an election. Oh, for the days when they were only the best people.
posted by feloniousmonk at 9:47 PM on November 7, 2019 [4 favorites]


As Republicans argue that most of the testimony against Trump is based on faulty secondhand information, they are sowing doubts about whether Sondland, Giuliani and Mulvaney were actually representing the president or freelancing to pursue their own agendas. The GOP is effectively offering up the three to be fall guys.

How does that work when Trump has shared and promoted his perfect phone call in which he was repeatedly and clearly extorting the Ukrainian leader exactly as per the "secret" backchannel that Sondland, Giuliani and Mulvaney were pursuing behind his back without his knowledge?!?

Incredible synchronicity! Serendipity! Wow!!!1
posted by Meatbomb at 10:40 PM on November 7, 2019 [7 favorites]


The old "I'm the innocent one and I'm surrounded by criminals!" strategy.
posted by rhizome at 10:41 PM on November 7, 2019 [3 favorites]


Book by ‘Anonymous’ describes Trump as cruel, inept and a danger to the nation
The author portrays Trump as fearful of coups against him and suspicious of note-takers on his staff. According to the book, the president shouted at an aide who was scribbling in a notebook during a meeting, “What the [expletive] are you doing?” He added, “Are you [expletive] taking notes?” The aide apologized and closed the notebook.
"Is you taking notes on a criminal fucking conspiracy? What the fuck is you thinkin', man?"
posted by kirkaracha at 10:45 PM on November 7, 2019 [10 favorites]


As Republicans argue that most of the testimony against Trump is based on faulty secondhand information, they are sowing doubts about whether Sondland, Giuliani and Mulvaney were actually representing the president or freelancing to pursue their own agendas. The GOP is effectively offering up the three to be fall guys.

That strategy worked back with Reagan and Bush when "The Presidency" was a noble institution and there were (misguided) people who thought protecting it was an honorable thing to do. Now? Neither Sondland, Giuliani or Mulvaney are going to go to jail for Trump, if they can avoid it by telling the truth. What are the Republican leadership even thinking?
posted by mumimor at 11:33 PM on November 7, 2019 [1 favorite]


Trump’s Top Aides Clash Over Impeachment as House Probe Expands (Bloomberg/MSN)
Two of Donald Trump’s most senior aides, Acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney and White House Counsel Pat Cipollone, are clashing over who should direct the president’s response to the House impeachment inquiry, according to people familiar with the matter. [...] The animosity between two of the highest-ranking administration officials threatens to further muddle Trump’s impeachment defense as the White House struggles to respond to a torrent of revelations in the House probe. The White House’s strategy hinges on keeping congressional Republicans unified by portraying the probe as a partisan and illegitimate exercise. [...]

As the personal dispute escalates, Trump’s Republican allies in the Senate are growing concerned that the White House defense is inadequate as more damaging information is released about his efforts to get Ukraine’s president to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden and his son.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has privately expressed to the White House that he is dissatisfied with the administration’s strategy, one of the people said. McConnell’s office declined to comment.

McConnell has yet to offer a vigorous public defense of Trump’s conduct. The Kentucky Republican also allowed passage of a September resolution pushed by Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York urging the White House to let lawmakers see a whistle-blower’s complaint about the president’s actions.
posted by katra at 11:35 PM on November 7, 2019 [3 favorites]


Trump’s demands of Ukraine came down to three words: ‘Investigations, Biden and Clinton,’ official’s testimony states (WaPo/MSN)
A senior State Department official described in perhaps the starkest terms to date President Trump’s shadow efforts to force Ukraine’s leadership to open investigations that would benefit him politically, according to a transcript of his impeachment inquiry testimony released Thursday.

Deputy Assistant Secretary George Kent, who oversaw Ukraine policy, told lawmakers that Trump demanded that the country’s new president, Volodymyr Zelensky, announce investigations into the 2016 U.S. election, Trump’s former rival Hillary Clinton and former vice president Joe Biden, a possible 2020 challenger, in exchange for an Oval Office meeting.

Trump “wanted nothing less than President Zelensky to go to a microphone and say investigations, Biden and Clinton,” Kent told House impeachment investigators. [...]

By mid-August, Kent grew worried that the Trump administration was withholding a White House visit, and possibly the military aid, to force the Zelensky administration to dig up dirt on the Bidens. He detailed his concerns that such “politically motivated prosecutions were injurious to the rule of law, both in Ukraine and the U.S.” in an internal memo and informed a supervisor, he said.
posted by katra at 11:48 PM on November 7, 2019 [7 favorites]


Pence aide said Trump's July 25 call with Ukraine was political and not a normal diplomatic call (CNN)
Williams testified that she had limited information about why military aid was being withheld from Ukraine. She was puzzled about it, but was kept in the dark about the decision-making process. [...] However, Williams suggested to lawmakers she believed it could be tied to what she heard on the call: Trump's request that Ukraine open investigations into the Bidens and the 2016 election, a third source familiar with the testimony told CNN.
posted by katra at 12:03 AM on November 8, 2019 [13 favorites]


It’s too late to save yourself now, Bill Barr
By Dana Milbank, WaPo opinion
In my news colleagues’ latest scoop, The Post’s Matt Zapotosky, Josh Dawsey and Carol Leonnig report that the attorney general declined to fulfill President Trump’s request that he publicly exonerate Trump’s “perfect” call with Ukraine’s president — following several actions recently in which “the Justice Department has sought some distance from the White House.”
Right. Like a barnacle seeks distance from a whale.
Barr's devotion to Trump is a bit of a mystery. Milbank even mentions that he is hosting a big party at the Trump International Hotel, so he isn't just defending the indefensible for free, like Giuliani, he's paying to do it. But why? It's clear that he thinks Republican administrations should be able to do more or less what they like, and his politics are sick, but apart from that he seemed like a relatively straight-laced person till now. What's wrong with him?
posted by mumimor at 6:57 AM on November 8, 2019 [1 favorite]


Not to abuse the edit window: the other leading officials in the administration at this point in time were clearly corrupt and inept already at the time of their confirmation, and the Republican leaders in Congress are acting like cult members. To me, Barr seems different.
posted by mumimor at 7:00 AM on November 8, 2019


I think he was just doing a better job than most of keeping up appearances.
posted by contraption at 7:06 AM on November 8, 2019 [6 favorites]


Barr's devotion to Trump is a bit of a mystery.

Why do they all support him? Because they agree with him! They think he's getting their policies done! It's not really a mystery: Barr is a far-right "law and order" (racist policing) Republican ghoul, who as Attorney General wrote a position paper on why the incarceration rate is too low, and Trump is a far-right law and order Republican who would imprison everyone he dislikes if he could.
posted by dis_integration at 8:02 AM on November 8, 2019 [20 favorites]


To me, Barr seems different.

He's not. He's always been precisely as partisan and hacky as the political culture allowed him to be. He just disappeared for a little while so you couldn't trace a gradual descent from Bush I-era genteel racist to Trump-era shitty cultist. He's tlike that guy you went to junior high with, but then his family moved away, and now you wind up at the same college, and he seems so different even though you and everyone else have changed just as much.
posted by Etrigan at 8:12 AM on November 8, 2019 [12 favorites]


Barr was the architect of the Iran Contra pardons of HW Bush. He’s been corrupt and power hungry forever.
posted by rockindata at 8:17 AM on November 8, 2019 [23 favorites]


I don't think anyone would be surprised about Barr if he didn't look like the sleepytime tea bear
posted by theodolite at 8:44 AM on November 8, 2019 [31 favorites]


j_curiouser: "not in schiff, pelosi, or hoyer's district. their sites don't take comments from strangers. non-phone way to digitally rant to them re subpoenas?"

FaxZero lets you send free faxes to Representatives and Senators (and even your Governor!) - I think it's five free faxes a day. Pretty easy to throw together a quick .doc or .pdf file and fax it on over.
posted by kristi at 9:24 AM on November 8, 2019 [5 favorites]


nubs: "nobody is ever held accountable for their role in this ongoing shitshow"

There are lots of comments saying similar things, and I'd just like to remind everyone that Paul Manafort, Michael Cohen, George Papadopoulos, and Alex van der Zwaan all received jail time for their roles in the national catastrophe. Others are still awaiting sentencing.

I would have liked all of them to get harsher sentences, but I think it's important to remember that not everyone is getting off free and clear, and I'm sure Manafort and Cohen in particular never thought they'd spend a day in jail, and I'm happy to see them proven wrong.
posted by kristi at 9:38 AM on November 8, 2019 [38 favorites]


And Roger Stone is undergoing his trial right now, today. He's the direct link between Donald Trump and the Russians via Wikileaks.
posted by JackFlash at 9:50 AM on November 8, 2019 [8 favorites]


And Flynn is awaiting sentencing, too! Aside from the folks in jail, I also like to remember all those who thought they could ride the Trump wave and ended up losing their jobs and/or influence. Jeff Sessions quit the Senate (and his seat went to a Democrat!) just to get fired by Trump nine months later. Paul Ryan is out of the House. Steve Bannon is out of both the White House and Breitbart, and went on to advise the losing Republican campaign to keep Sessions' Senate seat. Sean Spicer is now the worst contestant on Dancing With the Stars. There's a pretty amazing list of people who would be better off if they had never associated themselves with Trump.
posted by mbrubeck at 9:53 AM on November 8, 2019 [19 favorites]


According to Errill Morris in his Preet Bharara interview, Bannon is again advising Trump.
posted by Mei's lost sandal at 9:57 AM on November 8, 2019 [1 favorite]


A second call begins to seep through the cracks. They have had plenty of time to edit this one, but who knows...
posted by feloniousmonk at 9:58 AM on November 8, 2019 [2 favorites]


In the Roger Stone Trial, Trump Is Also in the Dock (NYT Editorial Board)
“Roger Stone lied to the House Intelligence Committee because the truth looked bad for the Trump campaign, and the truth looked bad for Donald Trump,” the lead prosecutor, Aaron Zelinsky, said in his opening remarks to jurors on Wednesday.

The truth, according to texts and emails whose existence Mr. Stone had denied, is that he eagerly sought information about the emails from WikiLeaks, the anti-secrecy group that accepted thousands of messages from Russian hackers operating under the pseudonym Guccifer 2.0, and that he was in frequent contact with Mr. Trump and campaign officials during that time.

He bragged to Paul Manafort, Mr. Trump’s campaign chairman at the time, and Steve Bannon, a key strategist, that he had a way to help Mr. Trump win the election, telling Mr. Bannon in an email that “it ain’t pretty.” [...] the evidence that prosecutors have presented so far indicates that Mr. Stone was far more involved with outreach to WikiLeaks than the Mueller report revealed and that Mr. Trump was more directly connected to Mr. Stone’s email efforts than had been known.
posted by katra at 9:59 AM on November 8, 2019 [9 favorites]


'Second call' is the same as not-the-impeachable-July-call. Trump leading the compliant media circus is situation normal. This is pathetic.
posted by Harry Caul at 10:10 AM on November 8, 2019 [2 favorites]


Guardian: Key highlights from Hill and Vindman’s transcripts
The House committees released highlights of key passages in the transcripts (which combined are 786 pages long).

[...] Hill’s testimony highlights [are] here.

[...] Vindman’s testimony highlights [are] here.
Guardian: Hill’s transcript [is] here and Vindman’s here.
posted by katra at 10:19 AM on November 8, 2019 [5 favorites]


Vindman has an identical twin. Script writers missed a golden opportunity for comedy high jinks.
posted by JackFlash at 10:31 AM on November 8, 2019 [8 favorites]


why tf would you give them ideas
posted by schadenfrau at 10:39 AM on November 8, 2019 [5 favorites]


wait no on second thought that does sound funny, so why not

maybe people will actually watch the hearings themselves and not the right wing propaganda version if the real thing has got twin farce magic
posted by schadenfrau at 10:41 AM on November 8, 2019 [6 favorites]


Funny hah-hah or funny probably gonna happen?
From way up this thread, 5 days ago: Vindman's twin may be called to testify as he witnessed the decision to move the (actual) call transcript to the classified server
posted by mcstayinskool at 10:47 AM on November 8, 2019 [11 favorites]


I don't really know what to do or say about this but an artist named Carol Kitman has been photographing the Vindman twins since the 1980s. Article.
posted by theodolite at 10:51 AM on November 8, 2019 [13 favorites]


Mick Mulvaney: new testimony draws Trump chief of staff into Ukraine scandal (Guardian)
Gordon Sondland, the ambassador to the European Union, “blurted out” that Mulvaney had approved [a White House meeting with the president for the Ukrainian president] if the Ukrainians announced an investigation of Burisma, a gas company that formerly employed Hunter Biden, the former vice president’s son, said Fiona Hill, a national security council member who was deposed last month by the congressional committees pursuing an impeachment inquiry against Trump.

Hill’s account was corroborated by simultaneously released testimony by another firsthand witness to the conversation, Lt Col Alexander Vindman.

Previously released testimony has indicated a central role for Mulvaney in brokering an agreement in which Ukraine would intervene in the 2020 US election by announcing the Burisma investigation, but the Hill testimony released on Friday was the first to describe direct involvement in the plot by the acting chief of staff. [...]

More details soon…
posted by katra at 11:12 AM on November 8, 2019 [4 favorites]


Republicans are throwing Giuliani under the bus. But there’s a problem. (Greg Sargent, WaPo Opinion)
Their new argument is that Giuliani — along with acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney and Ambassador Gordon Sondland — were freelancing the organized campaign to extort Ukraine into carrying out Trump’s political bidding, and Trump had no input into it. But this argument requires one to pretend that numerous widely documented facts simply don’t exist — including repeated public statements by the president himself. [...] Sondland has repeatedly and explicitly testified that he was acting at the direction of Giuliani, with whom he conversed regularly throughout this affair — and, crucially, that Giuliani was carrying out Trump’s wishes. As Sondland put it: “Until Rudy was satisfied, the president wasn’t going to change his mind.”

What’s more, Giuliani and Trump have publicly been entirely clear, going back months, on what Trump wanted: Ukraine had to launch investigations that would validate the conspiracy theory absolving Russia of sabotaging the 2016 election for Trump and smear Joe Biden in advance of 2020. And Giuliani himself spent months publicly carrying out the whole scheme, repeatedly saying he was acting in the interests in and at the direction of his “client,” that is, Trump. [...] Trump himself flatly stated that Giuliani was his point man in carrying out his wishes with regard to Ukraine. On the July 25 call, right after Zelensky said Ukraine needs U.S. military help, Trump said, “I would like you to do us a favor though.” Trump then explicitly demanded Ukraine investigate the 2016 conspiracy theory and the Bidens. [...] Trump added: “I will have Mr. Giuliani give you a call.” [...]

One last point: Trump himself has told reporters to their faces that there’s nothing whatsoever wrong with any of this. Trump has said withholding the money to force Ukraine to fight “corruption” was absolutely correct, and he’s also flatly said that he damn well did want Ukraine to “start a major investigation into the Bidens,” thus admitting this is what he truly wanted, not an investigation of generic “corruption.” In so doing, Trump seemed to be signaling to Republicans that they should unabashedly defend what Trump actually did do as absolutely fine. And so, the hapless Mulvaney admitted and defended the quid pro quo directly to reporters before rapidly taking it back. But arguably, Mulvaney was just following Trump’s cues in doing so.
posted by katra at 11:26 AM on November 8, 2019 [10 favorites]


Their new argument is that Giuliani — along with acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney and Ambassador Gordon Sondland — were freelancing the organized campaign to extort Ukraine into carrying out Trump’s political bidding, and Trump had no input into it. But this argument requires one to pretend that numerous widely documented facts simply don’t exist

...including the fact that Trump asked Zelensky to investigate Hunter Biden in the infamous phone call, which is of course what all this is about. The substance of the whistleblower complaint has been largely verified, regardless of whatever freelance foreign policy the Three Stooges were supposedly running.
posted by Gelatin at 12:01 PM on November 8, 2019 [5 favorites]


I think the Sondland bus has been loaded up. Trump has moved on to “I hardly know the gentleman” re Sondland.
posted by lazaruslong at 1:51 PM on November 8, 2019 [3 favorites]


It does seem like Bolton wants to talk:
Bolton Knows About ‘Many Relevant Meetings’ on Ukraine, Lawyer Says (NYTimes)
posted by mumimor at 3:07 PM on November 8, 2019 [5 favorites]


Or that he's interested in suckering Democrats into a prolonged legal battle that slows the impeachment process while raising his public profile. Who knows? I do know that if you are sitting on important information relevant to an impeachment inquiry I would think it your patriotic duty to willingly testify.
posted by xammerboy at 3:28 PM on November 8, 2019 [8 favorites]


If Bolton wanted to talk, he would have already. There's literally nothing stopping him from popping in for a chat. He was invited to, and he declined.

What he wants is either to have his ass kissed in public and treated like a hero of the resistance or to bog down the process by running this whole "presidents can ignore subpoenas" BS through the courts.
posted by davros42 at 3:31 PM on November 8, 2019 [19 favorites]


The evidence that prosecutors have presented so far indicates that Mr. Stone was far more involved with outreach to WikiLeaks than the Mueller report revealed.

It's outrageous that the impeachment inquiry has uncovered more evidence than Mueller in a fraction of the time. Why would I ever put my trust or faith in the F.B.I again?
posted by xammerboy at 3:35 PM on November 8, 2019 [35 favorites]


you know what xammerboy, you are spot fucking on. like, wtf? big ass groaning leaky spotlight impeachment machine has outperformed Tight Ship Slow Methodical Mueller like whoa. wtf is the deal with that shit?
posted by lazaruslong at 3:44 PM on November 8, 2019 [13 favorites]


The Stone prosecution is not a part of the impeachment process. Stone was indicted as a result of the Mueller investigation.
posted by JimInLoganSquare at 3:56 PM on November 8, 2019 [8 favorites]


Not to abuse the edit window, here is the Stone Indictment, signed by Robert Mueller.
posted by JimInLoganSquare at 4:01 PM on November 8, 2019 [5 favorites]


And, to be clear, many of the Stone-related details in the Mueller report were redacted as "harm to ongoing matter", so it isn't that this is newly discovered at trial, just newly made public.
posted by bcd at 4:04 PM on November 8, 2019 [6 favorites]


And, to put the icing on this crapcake: Mueller specifically avoided investigating anything that might have led to uncovering Individual 1’s crimes, because of the bullshit DoJ policy that says the President is unindictable.

So of course the Schiff inquiry is finding out more about Dumbass’ crimes, because it’s actually looking at them.
posted by darkstar at 4:12 PM on November 8, 2019 [30 favorites]


The Stone prosecution is not a part of the impeachment process.

The question of whether or not Trump solicited Russia's help to interfere in the election was central to the Mueller investigation. If they were handing off or hiding key information or parts of the investigation related to this crucial question, again, I am outraged.

We waited years for that report, which revealed little more than a reporter could have found out in a month in a public library. Now we find out that Stone was bragging to everyone on Trump's campaign staff about selling out the Republic.
posted by xammerboy at 4:17 PM on November 8, 2019 [2 favorites]


I think the stated rationale behind redacting portions of the report leaves plenty of room for it to have been full of garbage like this that we have no idea about yet.
posted by feloniousmonk at 4:38 PM on November 8, 2019 [6 favorites]


Bill Barr has been withholding the information from the full Mueller report and fighting it in court. A federal judge finally ordered the release of the unredacted report to the House members just two weeks ago but Bill Barr then appealed so it is still on hold. He is also withholding all of the grand jury information and notes supporting the Mueller report.

For a report that completely exonerates Trump, Bill Barr sure seems stubbornly determined to keep anyone from seeing it.

I wonder why that is?
posted by JackFlash at 4:50 PM on November 8, 2019 [34 favorites]


Speaking of things hidden, I just wonder what else might be in that secure vault the Zelensky call transcript initially went into?

I mean, that vault is owned by the American people, right, and we own what's in it. I'd kind of like to see what might be in there.
posted by Dashy at 4:53 PM on November 8, 2019 [7 favorites]


this^^^ . Not all of what's in it, just all that's in it that is not supposed to be in it. Like, more phone calls was alluded to by...someone testifying recently?
posted by j_curiouser at 4:56 PM on November 8, 2019 [6 favorites]


From Just Security: Public Document Clearinghouse: Ukraine Impeachment Inquiry.

"Just Security has compiled and curated all publicly available documents in Congress’s impeachment inquiry concerning President Donald Trump in connection with Ukraine. This collection seeks to include significant original source material, including relevant legislation, letters, subpoenas, deposition transcripts, executive branch communications, and litigation documents."
posted by MonkeyToes at 5:05 PM on November 8, 2019 [15 favorites]


I don't understand why the House Democrats aren't making more of the apparent abuse of the White House secure transcript system. That seems just as likely to attract public attention and pressure as Nixon's secret tapes.
posted by PhineasGage at 5:06 PM on November 8, 2019 [13 favorites]


Tight Ship Slow Methodical Mueller

Mueller did some good, but the fact that Don Jr. is walking around as a free man shows he was scared to touch anyone in the Crime Family, because he knew he would get fired instantly. Whether that would have been a good thing is pure conjecture.
posted by benzenedream at 5:19 PM on November 8, 2019 [12 favorites]


I mean, that vault is owned by the American people, right, and we own what's in it. I'd kind of like to see what might be in there.

It is rather thoughtful of the White House to sort through all the hundreds or thousands of innocent phone calls and put just the ones with crimes in one convenient place for investigators.
posted by JackFlash at 5:25 PM on November 8, 2019 [32 favorites]


It would be emotionally satisfying in a Trump's Mirror sort of way if he were brought down by files hidden on a server.
posted by ActingTheGoat at 5:42 PM on November 8, 2019 [28 favorites]


Poll: 65% of Republicans say Trump’s Ukraine scheme was normal presidential behavior

Interestingly, the percentage of Republicans who support the concept of impeachment if the president does something illegal is very high, but Dear Leader clearly hasn't done anything illegal, so they support Dear Leader. It is some weird self-righteous, twisted logic.
posted by SecretAgentSockpuppet at 11:08 PM on November 8, 2019 [4 favorites]


Well, with Lindsey Graham basically telling Republican voters to not read the transcripts and not listen to/ see the hearings, it isn't that surprising. People are deliberately ignorant.
posted by mumimor at 2:06 AM on November 9, 2019 [3 favorites]


Trump says he might attend Russian military celebration
(This is perhaps on the edge of impeachment relevance, but IMO it is part of Trumps "strategy" of normalizing the extreme)
posted by mumimor at 2:35 AM on November 9, 2019 [7 favorites]


Their new argument is that Giuliani — along with acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney and Ambassador Gordon Sondland — were freelancing the organized campaign to extort Ukraine into carrying out Trump’s political bidding, and Trump had no input into it. But this argument requires one to pretend that numerous widely documented facts simply don’t exist

I wouldn't be surprised if this defense is substantially true in the way that Hillary Clinton pointed out so long ago during the debates. Trump is frankly a disinterested but willing puppet of whomever is willing to shove a hand up the presidential keister and seize a measure of control. I'm sure he authorizes broad strokes like getting out of bed and saying "Let's do some corruption" and then his minions come up with what specific corruption to do and the Trumppet tries his hardest (not very hard) between golf games and fox news sessions to play along with the parts that are required of him to get their plans half-assed done.
posted by srboisvert at 5:18 AM on November 9, 2019 [2 favorites]


Speaking of things hidden, I just wonder what else might be in that secure vault the Zelensky call transcript initially went into?

I mean, that vault is owned by the American people, right, and we own what's in it. I'd kind of like to see what might be in there.
posted by Dashy at 7:53 PM on November 8 [4 favorites +] [!]


this^^^ . Not all of what's in it, just all that's in it that is not supposed to be in it. Like, more phone calls was alluded to by...someone testifying recently?
posted by j_curiouser at 7:56 PM on November 8 [4 favorites −] Favorite added! [!]


Remember, the immediate reaction of White House lawyers to the Zelensky call was to try to bury it in the secure server meant for classified information (abuse of which is specifically against Federal regulations). Which means that they already had that process to use, so other incriminating evidence must have been in there already.
posted by Gelatin at 6:32 AM on November 9, 2019 [13 favorites]


Poll: 65% of Republicans say Trump’s Ukraine scheme was normal presidential behavior

That seems encouragingly low to me. In other words, 35% of the GOP's base think it's abnormal behaviour - and unity is everything to these people. It's not as if he can do anything to persuade them otherwise - every day that passes makes things look worse and worse - and this level of dissatisfaction means that every Republican voter who's still on-side will know another who's not. It's all very well for Graham to tell people to ignore what's going on, but every time the Dems bang the patriotism drum those ears are going to hear.

Wonder if the nabobs of GOP are making the same calculation.
posted by Devonian at 7:51 AM on November 9, 2019 [13 favorites]


I missed this. Apparently Rudy and his goons also asked the Ukraine President before Zelensky to announce an investigation into Biden.
As impeachment investigators on Capitol Hill hear testimony from witnesses amid claims the president improperly sought a quid pro quo during a July phone call to Ukraine leader, Volodymyr Zelensky, a report said that associates of Mr Trump’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani, made a similar request to his predecessor.

The Wall Street Journal said Edward MacMahon, a lawyer for one of two associates of Mr Giuliani who were arrested last month on campaign finance charges, said the men had made the request to Ukraine’s former leader, Petro Poroshenko, in February of this year.
It's crazy that all of this was happening repeatedly and openly.
posted by xammerboy at 8:17 AM on November 9, 2019 [9 favorites]


Daily Beast was starting in on this a week ago as well: Rudy Had a Secret Meeting With Zelensky’s Rival, Too
posted by Harry Caul at 8:25 AM on November 9, 2019 [2 favorites]


As more demonstration of the Republicans' utter lack of any coherent defense, they continue to throw dirt in the air like angry baboons (with my apologies to any baboon MeFites...): "Nunes demands Schiff testify in private as part of House impeachment inquiry."
posted by PhineasGage at 8:34 AM on November 9, 2019


Giuliani Associates Urged Ukraine’s Prior President to Open Biden, Election Probes (WSJ, via Politico)
Months before President Trump pressed Ukraine’s newly installed leader to investigate Joe Biden’s son and allegations of interference in the 2016 U.S. election, two associates of Rudy Giuliani urged the prior Ukrainian president to announce similar probes in exchange for a state visit to Washington, according to people familiar with the matter.

A late February meeting in Kyiv between Lev Parnas, Igor Fruman and then-Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko took place at the offices of Ukrainian general prosecutor Yuriy Lutsenko, the people said. It came soon after Messrs. Parnas and Fruman met with Mr. Giuliani, the president’s personal lawyer, and Mr. Lutsenko in New York in late January and again in Warsaw in mid-February, Mr. Giuliani has said. [...]

The meeting, which hasn’t previously been reported, shows associates of the U.S. president’s personal lawyer as early as February were pressing the president of Ukraine to open investigations that could benefit Mr. Trump politically in exchange for a White House visit.
posted by katra at 8:39 AM on November 9, 2019 [3 favorites]


And in further demonstration of the complete legal and constitutional idiocy Tr*ump's defenders are reduced to, I give you the co-founder and chairman of the board of directors of the Federalist Society (the folks busily stocking our judiciary with lunatics): "House Democrats Violate The 6th Amendment By Denying Trump A Public Trial" (CW: Daily Caller op-ed). I leave it to the reader to tally all of the lies about impeachment in this brief screed.
posted by PhineasGage at 9:47 AM on November 9, 2019 [5 favorites]


An oral history of how Trump allegedly tried to leverage a White House visit for an investigation into the Bidens
At the heart of the House’s impeachment inquiry into President Trump’s interactions with Ukraine are how and when administration officials may have pressured Ukraine. Below, compiled from testimony released by House investigators, is an articulation of one of those pressure points, told by the individuals involved in their own words.
posted by kirkaracha at 9:52 AM on November 9, 2019 [3 favorites]


PhineasGage: "And in further demonstration of the complete legal and constitutional idiocy Tr*ump's defenders are reduced to, I give you the co-founder and chairman of the board of directors of the Federalist Society (the folks busily stocking our judiciary with lunatics): "House Democrats Violate The 6th Amendment By Denying Trump A Public Trial" (CW: Daily Caller op-ed). I leave it to the reader to tally all of the lies about impeachment in this brief screed."

Nice to see that the comments are about 50-1 laughing at this lame-ass argument. I'm more than a little biased but it feels like Republicans are really struggling to come up with and then stick to talking points over this.
posted by octothorpe at 10:27 AM on November 9, 2019 [9 favorites]


"House Democrats Violate The 6th Amendment By Denying Trump A Public Trial"

From the Sixth Amendment: "In all criminal prosecutions ..."

Wait, the Trump lawyers have been arguing that the president has immunity from all criminal prosecutions while in office. But the geniuses of the Federalist Society are arguing that Trump can be criminally prosecuted!

Good to know.
posted by JackFlash at 10:35 AM on November 9, 2019 [22 favorites]


I'm more than a little biased but it feels like Republicans are really struggling to come up with and then stick to talking points over this.

I think it's a meta-disinformation strategy. They are carpet bombing the entire rhetorical space in the hope that either a particular argument hits home and persuades someone or that the sheer magnitude of non-stop bombardment is persuasive even while it is wildly inaccurate.
posted by srboisvert at 11:21 AM on November 9, 2019 [17 favorites]


As more demonstration of the Republicans' utter lack of any coherent defense, they continue to throw dirt in the air like angry baboons (with my apologies to any baboon MeFites...): "Nunes demands Schiff testify in private as part of House impeachment inquiry."

I know it would be a distraction and a waste of time but part of me wishes that Schiff would say "okay, I'll do it if you'll submit to questioning too, and we'll both do it publicly." I just want to see Nunes flailing trying to explain the incredibly shady deeds he's undertaken on behalf of this administration.
posted by jason_steakums at 11:32 AM on November 9, 2019 [5 favorites]


Nunes has absolutely no shame about the incredibly shady deeds he's undertaken on behalf of this administration. Nunes just wants to prove that Schiff and everyone else is just as corrupt as he is.
posted by 1970s Antihero at 12:48 PM on November 9, 2019 [4 favorites]


Pod Save America did an impeachment related poll, and found that Republicans in swing states who watch FOX News are 30% more likely to believe the impeachment charges against the president are false than other Republicans. It makes me wonder if Nunes and his ilk are just throwing junk rationalizations over the transom for FOX to peddle. Who cares if it makes sense? FOX will pick it up and run with it 24/7.

I didn't know this, but they also said that FOX was created, in part, because some of the founders believed Nixon wouldn't have been impeached if a Republican news outlet had existed.
posted by xammerboy at 12:56 PM on November 9, 2019 [2 favorites]


Schiff Whacks Nunes’ Witness Requests: Will Not Abet ‘Sham Investigations’ (tpm)
House Intelligence Committee chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA) responded to Rep. Devin Nunes’ (R-CA) witness requests Saturday, saying that he would not allow the impeachment inquiry to become a “vehicle” for more “sham investigations.”
Elections have consequences, and this is what flipping the house looks like.
posted by mikelieman at 2:11 PM on November 9, 2019 [31 favorites]


It's outrageous that the impeachment inquiry has uncovered more evidence than Mueller in a fraction of the time. Why would I ever put my trust or faith in the F.B.I again?

Aside from the very correct point made above that everything we are currently learning in the Roger Stone trial is in the Mueller report but redacted, the Mueller report also contains a whole bunch of shocking revelations even in the unredacted parts parts. Or at least people would be shocked if anyone ever bothered to read the damn thing before making pronouncements about it.

Here are about 50 key quotes, in meme form, that hit the highlights.

They include...
Trump’s campaign chairman discussed the campaign’s strategy for winning Democratic votes in midwestern states and continuously shared polling data with a Russian intelligence agent (Konstantin Kilimnik). (Vol I, p 7)

Rick Gates, who served as the Deputy Chairman of the Trump Campaign, believed that Konstantin Kilimnik was a “spy,” but the campaign continued to work with him. (Vol I, p 134)

Trump, in position to know that the WikiLeaks releases originated with Russia, asked Manafort to keep him “updated” on WikiLeaks, and predicted upcoming releases to Rick Gates. (Vol II, p 18)

The Trump Campaign developed a whole campaign plan based on their knowledge that more WikiLeaks releases were coming. (Vol I, p 54)

Russian intelligence gave Roger Stone the Democrats’ turnout model for the “entire presidential campaign” (by directing him to a blog post featuring data hacked from the DNC servers by Russia.) (Vol I, p 44)

Trump directed his campaign to get Clinton emails in an effort that included outreach to Russia. (Vol I, p 62)
posted by OnceUponATime at 2:12 PM on November 9, 2019 [38 favorites]


And if you are reading those quotes and you notice that Konstantin Kilimnik's name comes up a lot and you wonder why Mueller couldn't prove a connection between Kilimnik and the Russian government election tampering effort when it seems so obvious that there must be such a connection...

The same Ukrainian prosecutor who was working with Giuliani let Kilimnik flee Ukraine for Russia, which put him beyond Mueller's reach. (Mueller indicted him and he is now a wanted fugitive, but I don't think Putin will be extraditing him...)
posted by OnceUponATime at 2:22 PM on November 9, 2019 [32 favorites]


The way all the dots connect, it's so clear that this isn't a bunch of small crimes. It's all the same crime. From before the start of his campaign to now, it's all part of one large crime, and Putin is the one committing it. Trump is just having his strings pulled.
posted by wabbittwax at 2:30 PM on November 9, 2019 [55 favorites]


That is extremely right and extremely well put.
posted by OnceUponATime at 2:32 PM on November 9, 2019 [5 favorites]


That seems like an extremely forgiving and potentially dangerous position to take when trying to hold Trump accountable for his intentional abuse of power and his intentional choice to place his own self-interest above the national interest. It's all the same crime, and Trump is doing more than just having his strings pulled.
posted by katra at 3:14 PM on November 9, 2019 [19 favorites]


And I apologize for my sharp tone in response to what looks like a variation of the 'hapless Trump' excuse - my concern is that it minimizes his active role and potentially makes it more difficult to hold him accountable, similar to the GOP defenses that have recently been reported, including by the NYT:
Most of the witnesses have described what people around the president said, but few recounted any direct conversations with Mr. Trump. As his national security adviser who saw him daily, Mr. Bolton presumably could take investigators into the Oval Office as none of their witnesses have.

Mr. Trump seemed to reference that himself on Friday during comments to reporters before flying to Atlanta for campaign events. “I’m not concerned about anything,” he said, shrugging off the impeachment inquiry. “The testimony has all been fine. For the most part, I never even heard of these people. I have no idea who they are. They are some very fine people. You have some never Trumpers. It seems that nobody has any firsthand knowledge. There is no firsthand knowledge.”
and Politico: The unsolved mystery of frozen Ukraine aid
Despite a mountain of evidence supplied by cooperative diplomats — and a public admission and hasty retraction by acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney — the uncertainty surrounding the hold on the aid has only deepened over time, according to interview transcripts released this week as part of the impeachment inquiry. In fact, what has become increasingly clear is that only a small cadre of budget officials — and Trump himself — has the answers. [...] If Democrats intend to make a public case that Trump attempted to shake down his Ukrainian counterpart, they will face pressure to address how the outright stonewall by Trump’s budget officials has impeded their effort to solve this mystery.
But see CNN: ""If Mr. Mulvaney had information that contradicts the consistent and incriminating testimony of numerous public servants, Mr. Mulvaney would be eager to testify, instead of hiding behind the President's ongoing efforts to conceal the truth. [...]" an official working on the impeachment inquiry said in a statement to CNN." According to WaPo: "In the weeks ahead, the GOP’s focus will be to try to minimize Trump’s role in the Ukraine pressure campaign and to justify his actions by highlighting that country’s history of corruption problems, according to Republicans familiar with the party’s strategy who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations."
posted by katra at 5:56 PM on November 9, 2019 [5 favorites]


The Ukraine Depositions Have Destroyed Trump’s “Corruption” Defense
Text messages released last month showed that Trump’s pressure on Ukraine was never about corruption. And this week, Congress unveiled additional evidence to debunk the “corruption” defense: more than 1,000 pages of testimony from the three men at the center of Trump’s extortion campaign.
...
One test of sincerity, for instance, is whether you target corruption wherever it exists, or only in countries where it suits your interests. Trump flunked this test. Volker, during his Oct. 3 testimony, was asked whether he had ever heard Trump express “concerns about corruption in any other country besides Ukraine.” He said no. Sondland, during his Oct. 17 deposition, was asked whether he knew of “any aid being withheld to the other 28 countries in your portfolio under President Trump in 2018 or 2019.” He said he didn’t.
Trump and Mulvaney’s claim that corruption concerns held up Ukraine aid
Trump didn’t raise corruption concerns in his July 25 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, according to the rough readout released by the White House. He made two requests. First, Trump asked Zelensky to look into a conspiracy theory involving Ukraine, the cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike and a Democratic National Committee server. Second, Trump asked for an investigation into former vice president Joe Biden, a potential Democratic opponent in the 2020 election, and his son Hunter Biden, who had business dealings in Ukraine.
Before his claims of corruption, Trump tried to build a resort in Ukraine
The Trumps were looking to erect luxury resorts across the former Soviet republics, and Ukraine seemed like a promising location. But doing so meant navigating a landscape that had long struggled with corruption. And as part of its overtures, the Trump Organization engaged developers Dmitry Buriak and felon Felix Sater, both of whom have had business interests in Russia.

Now, a decade after his company’s efforts floundered, President Donald Trump is arguing that it’s the son of his political rival Joe Biden, not him, who wanted to benefit from what he calls a “very corrupt” Ukraine.
Ceterum censeo, Trumpo delenda est
posted by kirkaracha at 6:51 PM on November 9, 2019 [13 favorites]


And what we're learning is that this one crime only continued to grow in scope. From his campaign planning to, his first meetings in the office, through to the present, Trump has never stopped devoting a large part of his time and resources to working for Russian interests.
posted by xammerboy at 8:07 PM on November 9, 2019 [12 favorites]


meta-disinformation strategy...carpet bombing the entire rhetorical space...

I love this. Bet Noam would too. Powerful image.
posted by j_curiouser at 11:16 PM on November 9, 2019 [7 favorites]


That seems like an extremely forgiving and potentially dangerous position to take when trying to hold Trump accountable for his intentional abuse of power and his intentional choice to place his own self-interest above the national interest. It's all the same crime, and Trump is doing more than just having his strings pulled.

Well, the way to pull Trump's strings is through corrupt deals, and he absolutely needs to be held accountable for those.

But the point is that getting rid of Trump won't solve the larger problem, which is that Putin is waging information warfare against the United States. Trump is, as Timothy Snyder says, the payload of an information weapon. He is an idiot, and he will blow himself up in the process of blowing up US politics (metaphorically) but there will be other weapons when he is gone.

And when Putin is defeated, there will be other people who want to target the US with these same techniques.

It's not enough to drive Trump out of office. We need to develop defenses against the attacks that landed him there. He is the proximate cause of many of our problems and needs to be stopped. But then we need to address the root cause.
posted by OnceUponATime at 5:02 AM on November 10, 2019 [46 favorites]


House Republicans release their impeachment inquiry witness wish list (Riley Beggin, Vox)
Saturday, the ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Devin Nunes, sent a letter [PDF] to Schiff that both requested a number of witnesses be called and complaining that House Democrats’ “sham impeachment process” unfairly inhibits Republicans from fully participating in the hearings due to the rules around such requests.
posted by ZeusHumms at 6:42 AM on November 10, 2019


House Republicans release their impeachment inquiry witness wish list (Riley Beggin, Vox)

As I mentioned slightly upthread, Schiff already noped this. I found the Letter from Chairman Schiff to Rank-ing Member Nunes which shuts him down with elegance.
posted by mikelieman at 7:01 AM on November 10, 2019 [10 favorites]


Trumpism, like many diseases, is one that thrives in a weakened host. Putin's infowar wouldn't have been nearly as successful, and our own memetic defenses wouldnt have been so powerless against it, if a minority of Americans hadn't been acting as a sort of informational HIV and destroying our immune system.

In a pre-FOX world we could have combatted Putin's machinations effectively. A large plurality of the population wouldnt have been convinced that facts, like Reagan famously said, are stupid things.

But we live in a world where powerful interests have been maliciously undermining the very concept of objective reality for decades. And they're and their billionaire class beneficiaries are perfectly willing to sell out America to Putin, or tge Klan, or whatever it takes to keep getting more tax cuts and more drained from the treasury to their already bloated bank accounts.

If the problem was just Putin we'd be fine. But the problem is that the billionaires are an eager fifth column for anyone who promises tex cuts, and they'll sell violent white supremacy to the resentful portion of the white population who are in their turn eager to destroy anything and everything if only it gives them more white supremacy.

Getting rid of Trump is just the first step in a long hard pile of work. A necessary first step but only the first step.

How we keep momentum and will to do the rest once Trump is gone as the easily hatavle public face of the problem is going to be tricky.
posted by sotonohito at 7:05 AM on November 10, 2019 [25 favorites]


A lot of people think once Trump is gone we will go back to "normal", but dark money, disinformation, and the Trump Republican party is here to stay. If anything, it will get worse. If a mega billionaire like Gates is looking at paying 6 billion in taxes, you better believe they will be willing to pay a billion to make sure that won't happen.
posted by xammerboy at 7:37 AM on November 10, 2019 [14 favorites]


I watched a documentary on William Jennings Bryan's presidential campaign. He was running for a lot of the same things Democratic candidates are today. He was absolutely brilliant, and his campaign was an incredible non-stop speaking tour around the U.S.

But mega donors flooded newspapers with articles suggesting that without mega-millionaires the technical progress the U.S. had achieved would vanish. It was a scare tactic. It was a little scary, because the documentary basically flat out said - with that much money against Bryan, what chance did he really have?
posted by xammerboy at 7:56 AM on November 10, 2019 [4 favorites]


Donald Trump is just a symptom of the cancer that is the GOP.
posted by mikelieman at 7:57 AM on November 10, 2019 [6 favorites]


A Plea From 33 Writers: Words Matter. Stop Using ‘Quid Pro Quo.’ (Roxana Robinson and 32 other writers, NYT Opinion)
Please stop using the Latin phrase “quid pro quo” regarding the impeachment inquiry. Most people don’t understand what it means, and in any case it doesn’t refer only to a crime. Asking for a favor is not a criminal act; we frequently demand things from foreign countries before giving them aid, like asking them to improve their human rights record.

That is not a crime; the crime is President Trump’s demand for something that will benefit him personally. But using this neutral phrase — which means simply “this for that” — as synonymous with criminality is confusing to the public. It makes the case more complicated, more open to question and more difficult to plead.

Please use words that refer only to criminal behavior here. Use “bribery” or “extortion” to describe Mr. Trump’s demand to President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine, making it very clear that this is a crime. The more we hear words that carry moral imputations, the more we understand the criminal nature of the act.

Please also stop using the phrase “dig up dirt.” This slang has unsavory connotations. Instead, please use the more formal, direct and powerful phrase “create false evidence,” or “find incriminating evidence” or the simpler “tell lies about.”

Words make a difference.
posted by katra at 8:00 AM on November 10, 2019 [56 favorites]


Use “bribery” or “extortion” to describe Mr. Trump’s demand to President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine, making it very clear that this is a crime.

I agree and I don't. We've repeatedly seen that once Trump's actions are described in legal terms his defenders start twisting the definitions and criteria of those terms. I really don't what the better strategy is - "abuse of power" or "bribery"? And does either indicate the scope? The thousands of Ukraine lives that hung in the balance of Trump's threat?
posted by xammerboy at 8:10 AM on November 10, 2019 [2 favorites]


Was Trump call with Ukraine ‘perfect’? GOP has many answers (AP)
Republicans have no unified argument in the impeachment inquiry of Donald Trump, in large part because they can’t agree on how best to defend the president — or for some, if they should. [...]

At its core, the impeachment inquiry is based on what Democrats say is an improper quid pro quo — a “shakedown” — that Trump engaged in during his July 25 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelesnkiy. According to a White House rough transcript of the call and testimony from several government officials, Trump was withholding needed military aid the East European ally as he wanted Zelenskiy to investigate Trump’s potential 2020 rival, Joe Biden, as well 2016 U.S. election interference. [...]

The House Republican message against impeachment has four distinct parts, according to this aide: The transcript of Trump’s call with Zelenskiy shows the president did nothing wrong; several key witnesses testified that they don’t have firsthand knowledge of what transpired; the Ukrainians didn’t know the military aid was being upheld until it was publicly reported; and eventually the U.S. agreed to send the money to Ukraine. [...]

What goes without saying, though, is that few Republicans lawmakers are willing to say the call was “perfect” or that there was “no quid pro quo,” as Trump insists. More often, they say a little of this, a little of that. “There are perfectly appropriate quid pro quos and there are inappropriate quid pro quos,” offered Sen. John Kennedy, R-La. “Just saying that there is a quid pro quo, at least based on my analysis of the evidence that I’ve seen so far, is a red herring.”
posted by katra at 8:11 AM on November 10, 2019


The Constitution Says ‘Bribery’ Is Impeachable. What Does That Mean? (Ben Berwick, Justin Florence, John Langford, Lawfare, Oct 3, 2019)
In analyzing the president’s conduct, some commentators have pointed to one of the two specific grounds for impeachment enumerated in the Constitution: bribery. Yet, by and large, those who have examined Trump’s efforts to put pressure on Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky as potential bribery have done so through the narrow lens of modern federal statutory criminal law.

But that is the wrong place to look when considering impeachment. In fact, the Founders had a broader conception of bribery than what’s in the criminal code. Their understanding was derived from English law, under which bribery was understood as an officeholder’s abuse of the power of an office to obtain a private benefit rather than for the public interest. This definition not only encompasses Trump’s conduct—it practically defines it.

[...] The Founders had no intent of tying the constitutional definition of bribery to federal criminal statutory law. On the most basic level, no federal criminal code existed at the time that the Constitution was drafted. Beyond that, the Framers had no reason to believe that Congress would enact federal criminal statutes in the future. As Laurence Tribe and Joshua Matz explain in their comprehensive book on impeachment, “To End a Presidency,” criminal law was understood to be the province of the states, and there was very little federal criminal law at all until the mid-20th century. To the extent there was federal criminal law, it followed the common law model. That is why the concept of high crimes and misdemeanors can’t be limited by federal statutes. The same goes for bribery—as there was no general federal bribery statute at all until 1853. [...]

In short, the Founders’ conception of bribery—and thus the scope of that term in the Constitution—cannot be understood with reference to modern federal statutes and the interpretation of those statutes by modern courts. As Tribe and Matz explain, “[T]he Framers were concerned with abuse of power, corruption, and injury to the nation. At no point did any delegate link the ultimate safeguard against presidential betrayal to intricacies of a criminal code.”
posted by katra at 8:18 AM on November 10, 2019 [12 favorites]


Opinion: The House articles of impeachment could be history’s takeaway on Donald Trump, Los Angeles Times, James Reston Jr., November 10, 2019:
It’s an all but foregone conclusion that the House of Representatives will impeach Donald Trump, and it is almost as certain that the Senate will not convict him. For those who are convinced of the president’s venality, the latter prospect makes it imperative that the formal indictment in the House — the articles of impeachment — be detailed and all-encompassing.

The articles’ content, the exact way they focus the effort to hold Trump accountable, could possibly sway the eventual verdict, as senators ponder individually the moral choice between party loyalty and the rule of law. As important, the way the charges are conceived and written will affect how history remembers this “grand inquest of the nation.” Was it merely misbegotten politics or a legitimate attempt to adjudicate incontrovertible high crimes and misdemeanors?
...
When the House composes the articles of impeachment for the history books, they should write with the conviction that it’s a 100% foregone conclusion, not merely a hope for the future.
posted by cenoxo at 10:17 AM on November 10, 2019 [6 favorites]


The Common Misconception About ‘High Crimes and Misdemeanors’
“High crimes and misdemeanors” is surely the most troublesome, misleading phrase in the U.S. Constitution. Taken at face value, the words seem to say that impeachable conduct is limited to “crimes”—offenses defined by criminal statutes and punishable in criminal courts. That impression is reinforced by the fact that the phrase follows the obviously criminal “treason” and “bribery” in Article II’s list of the kinds of conduct for which the “President, Vice President and all civil officers” may be impeached.

But this is not, in fact, what the Constitution requires. “High crimes and misdemeanors” is not, and has never been, limited to indictable criminality. Nonetheless, despite centuries of learning on the point, there the phrase sits, begging to be taken at its delusory face value.
...
There are two strong arguments against the idea that the phrase requires criminal behavior: a historical one and a practical one. The history of the phrase “high crimes and misdemeanors” and of how it entered our Constitution establishes beyond serious dispute that it extends far beyond mere criminal conduct. The practical reasoning is in some ways more important: A standard that permitted the removal of presidents only for indictable crimes would leave the nation defenseless against the most dangerous kinds of presidential behavior.
posted by kirkaracha at 10:41 AM on November 10, 2019 [6 favorites]


Rand Paul calls it ‘big mistake’ for Trump defense to center on quid pro quo (Politico)
He says what Trump did is exactly what everyone in D.C. does.
Paul’s candid rejection of the White House’s defense and minimization of the question at hand overlooks the political tinge that is central to the allegations against Trump and has been backed up by testimony from administration officials.

That the president had asked his Ukrainian counterpart for one line of investigation that could damage his potential rival in the 2020 election and another he believed could exonerate him from the Russia probe that swamped the first half of his first term undermines the argument Trump was focused on corruption more broadly.
posted by katra at 11:00 AM on November 10, 2019 [1 favorite]


We're so abstracted away from the crime that it's not about whether he did it or not, it's whether he can plausibly lie about it to avoid consequences.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 11:10 AM on November 10, 2019 [8 favorites]


Rand Paul calls it ‘big mistake’ for Trump defense to center on quid pro quo (Politico)
He says what Trump did is exactly what everyone in D.C. does.


Wait is Rand Paul confessing that he did something in exchange for the russian campaign funding he received that was funnelled through the NRA?
posted by srboisvert at 11:33 AM on November 10, 2019 [27 favorites]


Mark Sumner at Daily Kos: William Barr is racing to deliver a report that blows up the impeachment inquiry—and everything else
Attorney General William Barr is racing to complete a new “report” before Thanksgiving. And if Barr’s very poor summary of the Mueller report threw Trump a lifeline by distorting the real findings of the special counsel investigation, this new report looks to be more like an atom bomb, designed to incinerate Washington by putting the whole Justice Department behind a conspiracy theory that rewrites history and declares open warfare on political opponents. And Republicans are already meeting with Barr to plan a “roll out” for this supposedly classified report in order to maximize its impact.

Barr appears to have taken the results of an inspector general report that was expected to end weeks ago, rolled it together with the investigation-into-the-investigation that he launched under the nominal control of prosecutor John Durham, and capped it all with the “findings” of a world tour that included attempts to get the Australian government, the Italian government, and the U.K. government to participate in attacks on U.S. intelligence agencies. What’s going to come out the other end could be a dud, but it could launch an effort to derail the impeachment process—and more.
posted by jocelmeow at 12:29 PM on November 10, 2019 [8 favorites]


Let's hope the press does a better job this time around when vetting Barr's claims of exoneration.
posted by Nerd of the North at 1:39 PM on November 10, 2019 [5 favorites]


President’s man says President is A-OK!
posted by valkane at 1:53 PM on November 10, 2019 [6 favorites]


House Intelligence Committee smartly introduces the word 'extortion' into the process, and some media follow their lead. <The Independent
posted by Harry Caul at 2:28 PM on November 10, 2019 [23 favorites]


To boil it down to its essence: Barr is almost certainly cooking up a right wing coup attempt.

The tell is the talk of a left wing coup in various forms, e.g., invalidating the 2016 election results (such as they are). They are all about projection.
posted by sjswitzer at 2:42 PM on November 10, 2019 [13 favorites]


The knives are out: Nikki Haley claims top aides tried to recruit her to ‘save the country’ by undermining Trump
If anyone ever doubted that Nicki Haley is a bag of toxic slime in a pretty skin suit, there you have the evidence. On impeachment she's on the "what? I can't see/hear/feel anything"-team, and somehow it works better for her than for any of the others:
In a New York City interview with The Post coinciding with the book release, Haley also dismissed efforts by House Democrats to impeach Trump. She said she opposes Trump’s efforts to seek foreign help for political investigations in a call with Ukraine’s president, but that the actions are not impeachable.
“There was no heavy demand insisting that something had to happen. So it’s hard for me to understand where the whole impeachment situation is coming from, because what everybody’s up in arms about didn’t happen,” Haley said.
“So, do I think it’s not good practice to talk to foreign governments about investigating Americans? Yes. Do I think the president did something that warrants impeachment? No, because the aid flowed,” she said, referring to nearly $400 million in sidelined military aid.
“And, in turn, the Ukrainians didn’t follow up with the investigation,” Haley said.
(maybe you have to read the whole article to see how she gets away with this while not alienating the MAGA-hats or the moderate Republicans).
posted by mumimor at 3:21 PM on November 10, 2019 [8 favorites]


Media beware: Impeachment hearings will be the trickiest test of covering Trump (Margaret Sullivan, WaPo Perspective)
Beware mealy-mouthed and misleading language. Punditry will be running even more amok than usual once the hearings begin. And we’ll be hearing a lot about what a divided nation we have and how ugly politics has become. We’ll be hearing the term “quid pro quo” endlessly.

Jon Allsop, writing in Columbia Journalism Review, suggested “quid pro quo” is inaccurate: “A president threatening to withhold military aid to a country unless it offers dirt on a domestic political rival, as Trump did, is not merely trading favors.” Questions about extortion or bribery — far riskier terms for would-be “balanced” journalists — are closer to the mark.
posted by katra at 3:31 PM on November 10, 2019 [3 favorites]


This is a President who keeps the media in a cage at his rallies and declares them enemies of the people, but now is the time to use powerful nouns the media in this country needs a total do-over.
posted by benzenedream at 3:56 PM on November 10, 2019 [2 favorites]


The Disorienting Defenses of Donald Trump
Republicans find themselves in a tough spot. Lawmakers swear an oath to uphold the Constitution, which obliges them to act as a check on the executive branch and any abuses of its power. Yet instead of considering the testimony, many Republicans have chosen reflexively to defend Mr. Trump — not an easy task in the face of such strong evidence of inexcusable behavior.

Here’s a field guide to some of the lines of attack that Republicans have used so far. See if you can recognize them if they appear during the public hearings scheduled to begin this week.
Pro tip: drink every time someone says "quid pro quo" or "whistleblower."
posted by kirkaracha at 4:09 PM on November 10, 2019


Looks like Lev Parnas is very eager to cooperate. Giuliani associate says he sought to pressure Ukraine to investigate Bidens
posted by Harry Caul at 4:22 PM on November 10, 2019 [11 favorites]


Do I think the president did something that warrants impeachment? No, because the aid flowed,” she said, referring to nearly $400 million in sidelined military aid. “And, in turn, the Ukrainians didn’t follow up with the investigation,” Haley said.

I really wish journalists, and people in general, would hit back hard whenever this argument is made since the only reason the aid was released and Zelensky cancelled his CNN announcement was because they were caught in the act. They were inches away from completing the extortion, and the crime and substantial cover-up were already well underway when congress was made aware.
posted by p3t3 at 6:20 PM on November 10, 2019 [44 favorites]


From the Times article The Disorienting Defenses of Donald Trump:

"As described so far by several witnesses, President Trump’s behavior, consorting with a foreign government for his own personal benefit, is literally what the framers had in mind when they established the power to impeach a president for high crimes and misdemeanors. Whether that warrants removal from office is another matter.”

Read that twice. That's the New York Times Editorial Board...
posted by xammerboy at 8:57 PM on November 10, 2019 [28 favorites]


That paragraph makes no fucking sense. "This is exactly what the framers meant by an impeachable offense. But should it result in removal from office? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯"
posted by kirkaracha at 9:38 PM on November 10, 2019 [36 favorites]


National Sec Adviser: Top Impeachment Probe Witness Will Be Removed From WH Council
On Sunday, National Security Adviser Robert O’Brien said Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, who gave a bombshell testimony in the House impeachment investigation last month on President Donald Trump’s Ukraine scheme, will be removed from his post at the White House National Security Council.
...
The national security adviser said Vindman, who currently serves as the council’s Director for European Affairs, will be removed as a part of the White House’s “streamlining” efforts.
posted by kirkaracha at 10:23 PM on November 10, 2019 [14 favorites]


I just noticed that at least one CNN commentator shifted to using the word "bribery" instead of Quid pro quo, so hopefully this is going to stick.
posted by Namlit at 3:10 AM on November 11, 2019 [17 favorites]


Regarding the use of 'quid pro quo' ad nauseum:

How Barr and Trump Use a Russian Disinformation Tactic

It's a disinformation tactic called reflexive control. They did this with 'no collusion'. QPQ is more of the same. No collusion 2.0 if you like.
Reflexive control is a “uniquely Russian” technique of psychological manipulation through disinformation. The idea is to feed your adversary a set of assumptions that will produce a predictable response: That response, in turn, furthers a goal that advances your interests. By luring your opponent into agreeing with your initial assumptions, you can control the narrative, and ultimate outcome, in your favor. Best of all, the outcome is one in which your adversary has voluntarily acceded. This is exactly what has happened with much of the American public in the course of Mueller’s investigation.

The assumptions that culminated in Mr. Barr’s conclusions began almost two years ago, when the White House, Trump supporters and the media characterized the focus of the special counsel’s investigation as “collusion.” The word “collusion” does not appear anywhere in Mr. Mueller’s appointment letter: His mandate was to investigate any “links and/or coordination” between the Trump campaign and Russia. There is a good reason for this: “Collusion” is the legal equivalent of Jell-O. Outside of specific factual contexts — such as price fixing in antitrust law — the word “collusion” has no legal meaning or significance. In fact, in his report, Mr. Mueller explicitly stated that his conclusions were not about collusion, “which is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the United States code.”
We should respond in kind and start calling this what it is: a war. Remember when Meuller was asked if the Russians attacked the US election? It was one of the few times during his testimony he was emphatic. 'Yes. They are doing it as we sit here'. This is an information war and they've won the first battle: convincing half the people that the attack was a hoax. In that battle, they had no greater ally than Trump.

I've read that you need to be at war for there to be treason. Well, this is a war and Trump is a traitor.

“Uniquely Russian” they call this tactic. I wonder who he learnt it from.
posted by adept256 at 4:31 AM on November 11, 2019 [38 favorites]


As a younger 80s punk during the Reagan era, my friends and I used to play a conversational game similar to this.
Any adults who criticized our clothes, look or occasionally loitering presence would be argued with and eventually we would drop the bomb of 'Hey man, why do you hate America so much?' in the exchange. Observing the pretzels our critics would twist themselves into to just to keep the argument going was always entertaining and bizarre.
posted by Harry Caul at 4:56 AM on November 11, 2019 [12 favorites]


That paragraph makes no fucking sense. "This is exactly what the framers meant by an impeachable offense. But should it result in removal from office? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯"

Just a reminder that the NYT -- and its editors -- were cool with a piece telling us that Michael Brown, the unarmed young black man killed by Officer Darren Wilson in Ferguson -- "was no angel" because, in addition to the minor shoplifting incident that precipitated his encounter with Wilson, he had "dabbled in drugs and alcohol," gotten into a scuffle with a neighbor, and made some rap songs with vulgar lyrics. That was a very important aspect of that person and that story that had to be stated unequivocally for the world to know, per the NYT.

But the crimingest President who ever lived, openly criming even now and in a way that they say the framers of the Constitution actually had in mind when they wrote about what should warrant the removal of a President? Gosh, folks, we just can't say one way or the other, because that's how committed we are to neutrality!
posted by lord_wolf at 6:36 AM on November 11, 2019 [49 favorites]


If the problem was just Putin we'd be fine. But the problem is that the billionaires are an eager fifth column for anyone who promises tax cuts, and they'll sell violent white supremacy to the resentful portion of the white population who are in their turn eager to destroy anything and everything if only it gives them more white supremacy.


I agree with this completely. I like your metaphor about these domestic conditions weakening our immune system and making us vulnerable to infection. That's probably better than the "payload" metaphor.

It reminds me of this really good NYT video series: Operation Infektion: Russian Disinformation from Cold War to Kanye

Another metaphor: Russia looks for cracks into which to drive wedges. The cracks in our society are income inequality and racism. Russia likes to back separatist movements. The US has a separatist movement -- the Confederacy. Turns out that's still a thing they can back. People who hate the federal government and the loss of racial privilege.

Putin believes that the US is responsible for all the pro-democracy protest movements all over the world, including in Russia. He's a little bit delusional -- Fiona Hill says KGB vets can't help being paranoid -- but not totally delusional. Josh Marshall explained what Putin thinks he's doing very well back in 2016, and I have been thinking about it ever since. Because Marshall points out that Fox News is based on the same kind of delusion about "liberal media" as Putin has about US "information warfare."

One other thought I want to share really quick. It's not really "Russia" that is doing any of this. It is Putin and his billionaire friends acting on their own behalf. And teaming with some American billionaires acting on their own behalf. In some ways this is an asymmetric conflict, the US nation state against non-state actors. (It just so happens that those "non-state actors" took over the Russian government first. But they do not operate on behalf of the Russian people.)
posted by OnceUponATime at 6:52 AM on November 11, 2019 [52 favorites]


Good points and good links, OnceUponATime!
posted by mumimor at 7:25 AM on November 11, 2019 [4 favorites]


while PBS will broadcast the hearings during the day, they evidently intend to stick with antiques roadshow and the normal lineup at primetime. bill moyers encourages viewers and interested persons to contact their local affiliate and demand primetime (re)broadcast of the proceedings. here, on the blue, we've long been expecting that televised coverage will raise awareness critically among the populace as to the scope of the misministration's malfeasance and threat to the constitutional rule of law, as it did during the investigations of nixon. this is where comparisons break down, and, to borrow a slogan, how democracy the republic dies.
posted by 20 year lurk at 7:43 AM on November 11, 2019 [9 favorites]


Trump met with 'lock him up' chants during Veterans Day Parade < the Independent.
Things are getting more and more Watergate-Nixon-Era-ish every week.
posted by Harry Caul at 8:50 AM on November 11, 2019 [19 favorites]


It's a disinformation tactic called reflexive control. They did this with 'no collusion'. QPQ is more of the same. No collusion 2.0 if you like.

The idea that propaganda techniques like this are "uniquely" Russian is itself the outcome of American propaganda. If you ask the Russians where they learned how to do this, they'll tell you it was American advertising and the CIA (and they'll be right). It's nice to imagine this is all some Russian plot because it helps us forget that we're the baddies!
posted by dis_integration at 8:50 AM on November 11, 2019 [13 favorites]


while PBS will broadcast the hearings during the day, they evidently intend to stick with antiques roadshow and the normal lineup at primetime.

Just for people that don't know: PBS, like NPR, is not a traditional network of stations. The national PBS organization has little to no control over when affiliate stations air programming (Even in commercial TV, station owners often have a large amount of leeway over when they air a network program).

Also - what does it mean to "broadcast the hearings during prime time?" You can't squeeze 8 hours of hearings into 2 hours of prime time. So that means that a production company (which PBS generally is not - they're a distribution network) would have to produce a 1-2 hour recap of the days hearings and provide it to PBS for distribution. I would argue that WETA in DC (producers of Newshour) are well-placed to do this, but like every other public broadcasting outlet, I'm sure they have staffing/budget issues, and can't afford to just pull talent and a couple of producers, editors, and audio techs off of their regular jobs for an indeterminate period of time.

I don't know what's going through Bill Moyers' head, but his smarmy attempt to bully PBS while he pretends to know how to run a television network seems really dumb and counterproductive. Even the idea that millions of Americans are going to sit down in front of the TV to watch hours of hearings in 2019 seems insane to me. There are dozens of media outlets which have the ability create programming around the hearings. The television audience has been highly fractured for a while now, and the media landscape of 1973 isn't going to come screaming back into existence just because the olds want it to.

Anyway. It just seems silly to me to be criticizing PBS while they're actually doing SOMETHING, while the commercial networks are going to roll along showing Dancing with the Stars and NCIS.
posted by god hates math at 9:30 AM on November 11, 2019 [22 favorites]


An epic ‘Meet the Press’ rant unmasks the real goal of Trump’s lies (Greg Sargent, WaPo Opinion)
NBC News’s Chuck Todd seemed to allow Paul’s basic framing to stand unchallenged, saying at one point: “So two wrongs make a right?” That prompted this remarkable pushback from Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.), which you should watch in full:
.@RandPaul tries to “both sides” Trump and Biden, Chuck Todd nods along, and @jahimes just burns it all down. pic.twitter.com/f5ProtBbqR — Jesse Lee (@JesseCharlesLee) November 10, 2019
The core distinction here is between shaping foreign policy around some conception of what’s in the national interest (withholding U.S. aid to get Ukraine to battle generic corruption) and perverting foreign policy to serve Trump’s political interests (withholding aid to extort Ukraine into helping absolve Russia of 2016 electoral sabotage on Trump’s behalf and to smear a 2020 opponent). Paul laughably tried to reconcile these things by arguing that, since Biden actually was corrupt, in withholding aid Trump was acting in the national interest, as if the fact that Biden is a 2020 rival is pure coincidence. But Biden wasn’t actually corrupt, and Trump was subverting the national interest to his own. [...]

This episode on “Meet the Press” illustrates in a back-door way what the real aim of pro-Trump propaganda is, and how it will be employed in the inquiry’s public phase. Remember, it was a longtime imperative for Trump and lawyer Rudolph Giuliani to get Ukraine to issue a public statement confirming sham investigations that would rewrite the story of 2016 and help rig 2020 for Trump. This scandal is all about disinformation — about getting news organizations to treat disinformation seriously, to create a miasma of doubt around Russia’s 2016 sabotage and an aura of corruption around Biden. Indeed, as former Trump adviser Stephen K. Bannon has admitted, the way to create this sort of aura is to get the mainstream media to cover such allegations, no matter how discredited, to introduce them into the mainstream discussion and get them treated as representing one side of a good-faith political dialogue.

That’s the obvious goal behind getting the impeachment inquiry to include public testimony from people like Hunter Biden. And along those lines, this “Meet the Press” episode is a cautionary tale. It shows what it looks like when a bad-faith actor — Paul — floats this kind of disinformation and succeeds in getting it treated far too respectfully.
posted by katra at 9:45 AM on November 11, 2019 [22 favorites]


The idea that propaganda techniques like this are "uniquely" Russian is itself the outcome of American propaganda. If you ask the Russians where they learned how to do this, they'll tell you it was American advertising and the CIA (and they'll be right). It's nice to imagine this is all some Russian plot because it helps us forget that we're the baddies!

This is complicated. But the first thing you need to think about is that all US administrations are not the same. Each administration has its own foreign policy and its own way of dealing with international politics. I'd say it was fair and reasonable for the US to support the color revolutions. Others may disagree. My opinion is based on the feeling that the US was cowardly in not supporting the uprisings in Hungary and Czechoslovakia during the Cold War. My feeling, not a documented fact. Supporting the color revolutions was supporting the will of the peoples in those countries, and they were appealing to the West for help. I know a lot about American intervention/propaganda/spying in Europe post WW2, but that is for another thread.
On the other hand, the single worst foreign policy decision the US made during the 20th century was probably sponsoring the coup against Mosaddeq in Iran. At the time, the Truman administration probably saw it as a minor albeit important issue which they didn't properly understand. In our time, it is the source of just about every serious problem in the world today, and not only ME problems. Obviously, a lot of US interventions in Latin America are on the same line, if not as globally destructive. It's interesting to me that Obama had a very clear understanding of these issues and focused on dealing with them.
posted by mumimor at 10:02 AM on November 11, 2019 [9 favorites]


Sorry, not Truman, Eisenhower
posted by mumimor at 10:05 AM on November 11, 2019 [2 favorites]


Stephen Kinzer on US-Iranian Relations, the 1953 CIA Coup in Iran and the Roots of Middle East Terror I normally don't link to democracy now, but this is a neat summary of what I was trying to say above. And now I'll go walk the dog.
posted by mumimor at 10:12 AM on November 11, 2019 [3 favorites]


Retiring Republican Rep Mac Thornberry (R-TX, from my hometown of Amarillo TX) tells ABC News that you can't impeach Trump for abusing his office by trying to extort Ukraine because he does it all the time and there is no reason to think his attempted extortion of Ukraine is particularly worse than all the other times he tries to abuse his office for political and personal gain.

Yes, really.

posted by sotonohito at 10:17 AM on November 11, 2019 [13 favorites]


13 Republicans and Trump appointees who have indicated his Ukraine call was hardly ‘perfect’ (WaPo)
President Trump felt the need Sunday to rally the Republican troops. In a tweet, he again urged them to defend him to the hilt on the Ukraine scandal — and suggested they weren’t quite doing it. “The call to the Ukrainian President was PERFECT,” he declared. “Read the Transcript! There was NOTHING said that was in any way wrong. Republicans, don’t be led into the fools trap of saying it was not perfect, but is not impeachable. No, it is much stronger than that. NOTHING WAS DONE WRONG!” [...]

So why the sudden outburst? Probably because that particular view was suddenly in vogue this weekend. No fewer than four Republicans — former United Nations ambassador Nikki Haley, Sen. John Neely Kennedy (La.) and Reps. Mac Thornberry (Tex.) and Will Hurd (Tex.) — all said that asking for an investigation of a political opponent isn’t okay.

None of them said Trump should be impeached — Kennedy suggested Trump’s request of Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky might not have been so directly aimed at former vice president Joe Biden, even though Trump asked Zelensky specifically to investigate Joe Biden, and his son Hunter, who worked in Ukraine — but there seems to be an increasing willingness not to pretend the call was nearly as “perfect” as Trump claims.

We now count 13 Republicans and Trump appointees — including three ambassadors and ambassador nominees — who have offered some version of this talking point. A couple applied it to China, whom Trump also said should investigate Biden, but the sentiment is largely the same.

All of them are making it more difficult for Trump to argue there’s nothing to see here.
posted by katra at 10:25 AM on November 11, 2019 [1 favorite]


This scandal is all about disinformation — about getting news organizations to treat disinformation seriously, to create a miasma of doubt around Russia’s 2016 sabotage and an aura of corruption around Biden. Indeed, as former Trump adviser Stephen K. Bannon has admitted, the way to create this sort of aura is to get the mainstream media to cover such allegations, no matter how discredited, to introduce them into the mainstream discussion and get them treated as representing one side of a good-faith political dialogue.

That's been the Republican playbook since at least Newt Gingrich's tenure as Speaker, and it's been fabulously successful, suckering the cowed media nearly every time.
posted by Gelatin at 10:28 AM on November 11, 2019 [5 favorites]


D-Rep Hines Conn, ripping open the Chuck Todd Industrial Complex on Chuck's own show, in the wake of a head-nodding acqiesence from NBC avatar in real time.
Rand Paul there to stake the propaganda? NBC there to host the event? then Hines stepped up to call shenanigans.
posted by Harry Caul at 11:09 AM on November 11, 2019 [12 favorites]


Retiring Republican Rep Mac Thornberry (R-TX, from my hometown of Amarillo TX) tells ABC News that you can't impeach Trump for abusing his office by trying to extort Ukraine because he does it all the time and there is no reason to think his attempted extortion of Ukraine is particularly worse than all the other times he tries to abuse his office for political and personal gain.


Seems to me it would reasonable to subpoena Thornberry and ask him to testify about all the other instances Trump has used his office for personal and political extortion.
posted by srboisvert at 11:30 AM on November 11, 2019 [27 favorites]


D-Rep Hines Conn, ripping open the Chuck Todd Industrial Complex on Chuck's own show, in the wake of a head-nodding acqiesence from NBC avatar in real time.

Elected representatives aren't supposed to exhort the press to do their jobs; it's supposed to be the other way around.
posted by Gelatin at 12:01 PM on November 11, 2019 [13 favorites]


Trump’s bluster crashes into a barrage of impeachment facts (Politico)
The Trump approach to impeachment is expected to follow his usual response to adversity: Flood the zone with so much content that no one can tell what it true, false, biased or just plain spin.
posted by katra at 12:09 PM on November 11, 2019 [2 favorites]


I was YouTubing, and it struck me that the Trump crimes are essentially different from normal Republican crimes because they are really narrowly benefitting Trump. What Nixon, Reagan, and the Bushes did was always for the party and the Republican electorate. Obviously they'd personally benefit as well, but today it's almost the other way around. Anyone associated with Trump is stenched forever.
John Dickerson: Senators Can't Use Phones Or Talk To Each Other During Impeachment Trial
posted by mumimor at 12:14 PM on November 11, 2019 [2 favorites]


Random thought: Oliver North taught us that a presidential pardon is unnecessary if Congress grants you immunity first. Has Schiff considered this tactic with regards to some of the recalcitrant witnesses?

I’m thinking specifically of Bolton — he’s clearly indicating he wants to talk but wants legal cover before he goes on the record. Since what we know about his actions to this point points to the unlikeliness of him actually broken any laws with regards to this matter, maybe this would be a good way to compel his testimony?
posted by Big Al 8000 at 12:21 PM on November 11, 2019 [2 favorites]


I’m thinking specifically of Bolton — he’s clearly indicating he wants to talk but wants legal cover before he goes on the record.

Bolton doesn't work for the administration any more and they have no authority over him save for restrictions on revealing classified data. The legal cover Schiff could grant is an immunity from prosecution based on crimes one would basically confess to in the process of incriminating Trump, but the indications so far don't seem to be that Bolton is worries about legal jeopardy for himself regarding the Ukraine extortion -- notwithstanding whatever other crimes he may be guilty of -- but immediately recognized that the call raised legal problems for Trump.

But Bolton knows Trump has no authority to issue a gag order. He's only doing this dance to bolster Trump's gag orders against other people while pretending he wants to cooperate. He could testify if he wanted to.
posted by Gelatin at 1:16 PM on November 11, 2019 [10 favorites]




The legal cover Schiff could grant is an immunity from prosecution based on crimes one would basically confess to in the process of incriminating Trump

Let's grant this bastard Congressional Immunity and see what secrets he's hiding under that moustache. It's not like we're ever going to prosecute him for his war crimes, anyway.
posted by dis_integration at 1:30 PM on November 11, 2019 [1 favorite]


What got me thinking about immunity is the report that Parnas is preparing to sing — he appears to be doing the math and has decided that leniency in exchange for cooperation is much more likely than a pardon. And he’s making overtures specifically to the House, so if there’s gonna be any quid pro quo in the offing, it might as well be in defense of the republic .
posted by Big Al 8000 at 1:38 PM on November 11, 2019 [1 favorite]


I’m thinking specifically of Bolton — he’s clearly indicating he wants to talk but wants legal cover before he goes on the record.

I don't think that is clear at all. There is nothing preventing Bolton from testifying to congress right now, today. Plenty of executive staff have already testified with no legal jeopardy. The fact that Bolton is not willing to testify and is looking for a judge to make him do so indicates that he really doesn't want to comply without a fight.

There is absolutely nothing that Trump can do to Bolton - no law, no penalty, no crime - to prevent him from testifying. Bolton is not testifying because he has personally chosen not to cooperate with the impeachment investigation.
posted by JackFlash at 1:43 PM on November 11, 2019 [9 favorites]


So this Daniel Goldman guy is a RICO specialist, and those who know of him (Christ, how many characters must we get to know in this drama) are thrilled. RICO specialist, big results, and television friendly. But this is an impeachment proceeding. Are they lining up things for criminal cases afterwards? That would be good. RICO removes that hiatus of responsibility between one who orders, and one who commits. Sounds good.
posted by stonepharisee at 2:12 PM on November 11, 2019 [7 favorites]


What got me thinking about immunity is the report that Parnas is preparing to sing — he appears to be doing the math and has decided that leniency in exchange for cooperation is much more likely than a pardon.

Manafort basically kept his mouth shut and no pardon has been forthcoming. Flynn is in the same boat. I don’t think he wants to wait until Trump remembers to unfuck his allies because it seems to be very low on Trump’s priority list.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 2:29 PM on November 11, 2019 [1 favorite]


Ex-Trump aide John Bolton has deal for book that may publish before 2020 election, reports say

The same literary agency that represented former FBI Director James Comey and the anonymous author of "A Warning" helped Bolton land the $2 million deal, according to AP.

I just don't know. He wants to spill his guts but control the narrative? He's such a giant asshole in so many dimensions it must be hard to write a book where he's the good guy. Being asked a bunch of questions by Dems in congress will never make him look like the good guy.
posted by adept256 at 2:30 PM on November 11, 2019 [8 favorites]


Testifying before congress may steal the lead and kill the public relations hype for his book deal. Much better to save all the good stuff for his book promotion.

He has a financial motive to delay testifying as long a possible, perhaps running out the impeachment clock so he never has to testify.
posted by JackFlash at 2:38 PM on November 11, 2019 [2 favorites]


State Department Freed Ukraine Money Before Trump Says He Did

President Donald Trump says he lifted his freeze on aid to Ukraine on Sept. 11, but the State Department had quietly authorized releasing $141 million of the money several days earlier, according to five people familiar with the matter.

...

What they didn’t know, according to one of the people, was that shortly before Sept. 9, Bolton had relayed a message to the State Department that the funding could go ahead. It’s not clear whether Bolton, who resigned from the job a week later, did so with Trump’s approval.

Bolton took away their quid! And then walked! If only more people rage quit like that.

C'mon John, tell your story.
posted by adept256 at 2:49 PM on November 11, 2019 [23 favorites]


Testifying before congress may steal the lead and kill the public relations hype for his book deal. Much better to save all the good stuff for his book promotion.

He has a financial motive to delay testifying as long a possible, perhaps running out the impeachment clock so he never has to testify.


Except by not testifying he boxes himself in as a quisling at best and a traitor at worst if his book is at all juicy with details.

My guess is that as always he wants a position with the next Republican administration so he can continue to push for his dream of mass human sacrifice to his war god.
posted by srboisvert at 3:49 PM on November 11, 2019 [3 favorites]


Giuliani considers launching an impeachment podcast amid public hearings (CNN)
Rudy Giuliani is considering re-entering the impeachment fray by launching a podcast to provide impeachment analysis of the public hearings in the House of Representatives scheduled for later this week.
Giuliani was overheard discussing the plans with an unidentified woman while at a crowded New York City restaurant, Sant Ambroeus, over lunch on Saturday. The conversation, which lasted more than an hour, touched on details including dates for recording and releasing the podcast, settling on a logo, and the process of uploading the podcast to iTunes and other podcast distributors.
...
Giuliani also mentioned two op-eds for major newspapers he was planning on publishing, the first of which would explain why Trump is "unimpeachable" and the second offering an explanation of Giuliani's defense of his client, the President.
What could go wrong?
posted by Preserver at 4:08 PM on November 11, 2019 [14 favorites]


Except by not testifying he boxes himself in as a quisling at best and a traitor at worst if his book is at all juicy with details.

How is he boxing himself in? He could testify today but he chooses not to. He just needs to run out the clock on the impeachment saying "I would have loved to testify, but I don't have the blessing of those pesky judges", ignoring the fact that he (through his protege), is the one who ran to the pesky judges asking them to delay/decide for him.

Bolton's objective is not to take down Trump. He could have done that in any number of ways if that is what he really wanted. Bolton's primary objective is to promote Bolton and his toxic brand of extremist right-wing militarism.
posted by JackFlash at 4:18 PM on November 11, 2019 [3 favorites]


Rudy is trying to outrun the bus, heh.
posted by ryanrs at 4:18 PM on November 11, 2019


Giuliani considers launching an impeachment podcast amid public hearings
That's fabulous news. I won't have to go all over the internet to find out what's going on. He will have confessed everything, and it'll all be in one place.
posted by MtDewd at 4:21 PM on November 11, 2019 [10 favorites]


Setting the WABAC Machine to last month, remember when Giuliani accidentally butt-dialed an NBC reporter twice (jeez Louise, this timeline), saying, "Charles would have a hard time with a fraud case 'cause he didn't do any due diligence," at one point? Roger Sollenberger at Salon (Nov. 10, 2019) thinks "Charles" is Charles Gucciardo (of personal injury firm Gucciardo Law):

"Last week Giuliani and Gucciardo confirmed to the New York Times that Gucciardo gave $500,000 to the former mayor through Giuliani’s firm, Giuliani Partners, in two payments in September and October 2018. According to Gucciardo’s lawyer, the payments went to Giuliani on behalf of Fraud Guarantee, a company co-managed by Giuliani’s clients Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman. Their work with Fraud Guarantee — whose mission statement is to help their customers “reduce and mitigate fraud” — helped earn them a federal indictment last month... Strangely enough, we still don’t yet know how Gucciardo, Giuliani, and Parnas all met. The only thing that binds this group other than money is, oddly enough, Christianné Allen."

Christianné Allen is Giuliani's recently-hired, 20-year-old communications director; she is also "currently the most solid connection between the work the President’s private attorney was doing in Ukraine, an ongoing federal investigation into two of his clients, and a Long Island personal injury lawyer who for reasons still unclear reportedly paid Giuliani $500,000 in two lump-sum “loans” on behalf of a scam business in the fall of 2018."
posted by Iris Gambol at 8:04 PM on November 11, 2019 [12 favorites]


remember when Giuliani accidentally butt-dialed an NBC reporter twice

The whistleblower no-one wanted.
posted by adept256 at 8:35 PM on November 11, 2019 [3 favorites]


remember when Giuliani accidentally butt-dialed an NBC reporter twice

Also remember that Trump appointed Giuliani to be his White House cybersecurity adviser.
posted by JackFlash at 8:50 PM on November 11, 2019 [21 favorites]


Yeah, somehow that's Gucciardo's excuse for climbing into bed, too: Gucciardo’s lawyer told the Times the funds were loans convertible into equity in the company. As the Times pointed out, though, Fraud Guarantee doesn’t seem to have any clients or customers, and it’s unclear why someone in Gucciardo’s position — an experienced lawyer — would invest half a million dollars in such a company. Per Gucciardo’s lawyer, he did so because Giuliani was involved, and Giuliani was “the first name in cybersecurity.

The accidental phone business is ridiculous, but let's not forget how Giuliani deliberately "revealed text messages of conversations between himself and senior officials at the State Department that he says show they endorsed his controversial dealings with Ukraine" (Newsweek, Sept. 27, 2019) on Fox.
posted by Iris Gambol at 9:30 PM on November 11, 2019 [2 favorites]


New testimony adds 2 stunning and previously unknown details about the Ukraine quid pro quo (Cody Fenwick, Alternet)
But testimony from Laura Cooper, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Russia, Ukraine, and Eurasia, included two new details about the scheme that we hadn’t previously been aware of.

Here’s the key portion of her testimony:
Cooper: But towards the end of August when [Volker] met with me for what, you know, I thought was going to be you know just a routine touch base on Ukraine, but also I thought it was going to be a strategizing session on how do we get this security assistance released knowing that we both—we both wanted the funding released. So in that meeting he did mention something to me that, you know, was the first about somehow an effort that he was engaged in to see if there was a statement that the government of Ukraine would make that would somehow disavow any interference in U.S. elections and would commit to the prosecution of any individuals involved in election interference. And that was about as specific as it got.

Q: Okay. Did he indicate to you that if that channel he was working was successful it might lift this issue?

Cooper: Yes.

[emphasis added]
[...] as the bolded section above suggests, it seems the Trump team wasn’t just asking for an investigation — which would be bad enough — but asking for Ukraine to commit to prosecutions. This is completely inappropriate and corrupt because a person’s involvement in a crime does not necessarily mean they are culpable or worthy of prosecution. Asking a foreign country to commit to prosecuting “any individuals involved in election interference” before any such investigation has been conducted is a step beyond the damning scandal that has already been uncovered. Especially because, given the leverage Trump held over Ukraine, the country could have easily concluded that he wanted prosecutions no matter what the facts showed.

Second, this passage also indicated that Volker knew about the link between the military aid and the announcement of investigations — two key components at the heart of the quid pro quo. It’s not clear whether he passed along this ultimatum to the Ukrainians, as Ambassador Gordon Sondland has admitted to doing. But Cooper’s testimony indicated he made the connection before he even knew about the contents of the phone call between Trump and Zelensky in which the demands were made explicit.
posted by ZeusHumms at 9:46 PM on November 11, 2019 [6 favorites]


GOP outlines theory of impeachment defense in memo to members
The Republicans claim these four pieces of evidence are "fatal" to the allegations that Trump used military aid to pressure Ukraine to investigate his political opponents.

"The July 25 call summary — the best evidence of the conversation — shows no conditionality or evidence of pressure;

President Zelensky and President Trump have both said there was no pressure on the call;

The Ukrainian government was not aware of a hold on U.S. security assistance at the time of the July 25 call; and

President Trump met with President Zelensky and U.S. security assistance flowed to Ukraine in September 2019 — both of which occurred without Ukraine investigating President Trump’s political rivals."
Ceterum censeo, Trumpo delenda est
posted by kirkaracha at 9:46 PM on November 11, 2019 [4 favorites]


For #3: DOD Announces $250M to Ukraine, in a June 2019 press release; if Ukraine hadn't been looped in about delivery/dispersal of that support, or were constantly put off when asking after it, wouldn't that have made the delay apparent? Can't figure out the funds-release timeline after announcements like this.

Also, Rick Perry's still dragging his feet about testifying, though others' Testimony highlights Rick Perry's central role in Ukraine scandal as he prepares to exit (CNN, Nov. 9, 2019)

Earlier today: After push from Perry, backers got huge gas deal in Ukraine (PBS.org, Nov 11, 2019)
Two political supporters of U.S. Energy Secretary Rick Perry secured a potentially lucrative oil and gas exploration deal from the Ukrainian government soon after Perry proposed one of the men as an adviser to the country’s new president. [...] Ukraine awarded the contract to Perry’s supporters little more than a month after the U.S. energy secretary attended Zelenskiy’s May inauguration. In a meeting during that trip, Perry handed the new president a list of people he recommended as energy advisers. One of the four names was his longtime political backer Michael Bleyzer.

Perry likely had outsized influence in Ukraine. Testimony in the impeachment inquiry into Trump shows the energy secretary was one of three key U.S. officials who were negotiating a meeting between Trump and the Ukrainian leader.

The sequence of events suggests the Trump administration’s political maneuvering in Ukraine was entwined with the big business of the energy trade.
posted by Iris Gambol at 11:31 PM on November 11, 2019 [10 favorites]


GOP outlines theory of impeachment defense in memo to members

..."The July 25 call summary — the best evidence of the conversation — shows no conditionality or evidence of pressure;

The July 25 call summary -- which Trump released in his own defense -- clearly has Trump ask a foreign nation to interfere in the US election by digging up dirt on a political rival. That's an impeachable offense all by itself.

And while Republicans try to muddy the waters by rules lawyering as to whether there was a quid pro quo (Ron Howard narrator voice: There was), this "defense" concedes the fact that Trump asked a foreign nation to interfere in the US election by digging up dirt on a political rival, which is an impeachable offense all by itself.
posted by Gelatin at 2:41 AM on November 12, 2019 [5 favorites]


(So as not to abuse the edit window: "shows no conditionality" also fails because Trump said ""I would like you to do us a favor though" (emphasis added). "Though" is conditional. As with Trump's "read the transcript" defense, they're hoping people will accept waht they say the call readout says instead of what it actually says, which was alarming enough for White House officials to abuse the classification system to bury it.)
posted by Gelatin at 2:46 AM on November 12, 2019 [4 favorites]


Current WP headlines: White House infighting flares amid Democrats’ probe and Trump cites Ukraine’s corruption, European stinginess to justify his actions. Neither rationale withstands scrutiny.

Trump used to be our problem. Now he is their problem. That is better.
posted by stonepharisee at 4:28 AM on November 12, 2019 [8 favorites]


As for the No Pressure! part, the fucking RED ARMY is two hours drive from Kiev. The only thing in their way is Ukraine's alliances, which congress voted to support, but no pressure!
posted by adept256 at 4:41 AM on November 12, 2019 [22 favorites]


Well, and last night's Maddow show lined up all the pressure on Ukraine before Perry got his sycophants an oil deal. Basically, as I understand it, the timeline is

Congress approved multichannel funding to Ukraine.
Guiliani sends Lev and Co to Ukraine to tell new Ukraine government that if they didn't announce investigations into Biden, then Pence wouldn't come to the new president's inauguration.
Ukraine did not announce investigations.
Pence did not go to the inauguration, instead went to Canada.
Perry went to Ukraine, taking with him two huge donors to Perry's campaigns.
At inauguration, Perry gave the new Ukraine president a list of people Ukraine "should hire as energy consultants". On the list are Perry donors.
Guiliani, Lev, and co, continue to pressure Ukraine for misinformation on Clinton, Biden.
Russia ramps up attacks.
Ukraine caves and hires Perry associates, including giving them a long term oil exploration contract, even though it was millions and millions lower than other bidders.
Military aid to Ukraine still held up.
POTUS has call with Ukraine president.
US military and state department personnel start asking why the aid approved by Congress has not been released.
Legal rulings are made in various departments that the aid being withheld is illegal. Some funds released without POTUS permission.
Bolton, upon hearing rulings, releases remainder of aid, possibly without informing POTUS.
Bolton resigns.


All of this because of some bizarre-universe conspiracy theory that Racist Grandpa POTUS has been fed, probably by Vizier Steve Miller.

This is just insane, y'all. I mean, bugfuck, how the hell did we get here, insane.
posted by SecretAgentSockpuppet at 6:58 AM on November 12, 2019 [108 favorites]


Well that was a great public service SecretAgentSockPuppet! Thanks!
posted by Harry Caul at 7:05 AM on November 12, 2019 [3 favorites]




Press Watch: After all its great reporting, Washington Post self-gaslights on impeachment (Dan Froomkin, Salon & Press Watchers)
Days after publishing damning reports on Trump's conduct, WaPo bizarrely suggests he was a "supporting character"

National security reporter Greg Jaffe’s masterpiece of credulity reflects an extraordinary willingness to doubt not only the facts as amply reported by his own and other major media outlets, but to reject his own previous reporting.
posted by ZeusHumms at 7:25 AM on November 12, 2019 [8 favorites]


If Trump is a "supporting character" in his own Presidency and the way the Trump Administration attempted to extort Ukraine then that in and of itself is grounds for impeachment for incompetence and inability or refusal to do his job.

The President is not supposed to be a fucking supporting character in anything that happens in the White House.
posted by sotonohito at 8:04 AM on November 12, 2019 [26 favorites]


Days after publishing damning reports on Trump's conduct, WaPo bizarrely suggests he was a "supporting character"

Sounds like they're going to go with the "rogue staffers" thing that Haley has been trying to get out there as a theme and maybe throw Giuliani under the bus to sell it. Gives them both an alleged out for Trump and a way to attack Democrats by claiming that's where the staffers' loyalties lie.

I mean it's obviously bullshit, but can be sold to the base and fits their usual M.O. pretty well.
posted by gusottertrout at 8:17 AM on November 12, 2019


the fucking RED ARMY is two hours drive from Kiev.

While is see your point, I don't think they have called it the Red Army since World War 2 (despite Patrick Swayze in a 1980s movie.)
posted by JackFlash at 8:24 AM on November 12, 2019 [5 favorites]


Trump called Bolton at home to have him cancel a Navy destroyer's freedom-of-navigation voyage into the Black Sea.

From the comments it looks like this is the CNN article that prompted the president of the United States to stop a mission by the US Navy to avoid provoking the president of Russia.
posted by kirkaracha at 8:30 AM on November 12, 2019 [1 favorite]


Mod note: One deleted; let's avoid a digression over "red army" and conflating today's Russia with USSR of many decades ago
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 8:41 AM on November 12, 2019 [6 favorites]


The Whistleblower Complaint Has Largely Been Corroborated. Here's How.
Trump has spent weeks questioning the whistleblower's motives and slamming the account for being inaccurate. But as this annotation shows, most of the complaint has been corroborated during closed-door depositions of administration officials, through public statements and from a rough transcript of the call itself, released by the White House.
The Fact Checker’s guide to impeachment hearing spin
During the deposition stage of the investigation, Trump and his allies have offered false and misleading claims that we have debunked over the past few weeks. Here’s a guide to some of the most significant claims.
Ceterum autem censeo Trump delenda est
posted by kirkaracha at 8:51 AM on November 12, 2019 [7 favorites]


Yesterday Mulvaney filed a motion to try to freeload on the back the of Klupperman/Bolton lawsuit to prevent testimony. Bolton and Klupperman told Mulvaney to get lost. No love there.

So today Mulvaney announces that he is no longer going to sue in court, ask a judge, to ignore the House subpoena. He's just going to flat out ignore it.

Republicans should be concerned about the legal precedents they are setting. They are completely neutering the legislative branch and deferring to the executive. But then again, installation of an authoritarian dictator may be their objective. But you would think having a crazy one would give them pause.
posted by JackFlash at 9:08 AM on November 12, 2019 [10 favorites]


During the deposition stage of the investigation, Trump and his allies have offered false and misleading claims

You don't say! Gee, Washington Post, why would someone do that?
posted by Gelatin at 9:08 AM on November 12, 2019 [5 favorites]


But then again, installation of an authoritarian dictator may be their objective. But you would think having a crazy one would give them pause.

We started out with a crazy dictator, may as well finish with one.
posted by kirkaracha at 9:23 AM on November 12, 2019


Republicans should be concerned about the legal precedents they are setting. They are completely neutering the legislative branch and deferring to the executive. But then again, installation of an authoritarian dictator may be their objective. But you would think having a crazy one would give them pause.

After three years of Trump, it's pretty clear that Republicans believe that any right wing authoritarian is better than any Democrat. And of course they will rediscover their Constitutional principles the moment a Democrats is elected President, but they're fools to think they can just put the genie of authoritarianism back in the bottle. The next time Republican legislators try to gin up a BENGHAZI!!1! or a "butter emails," a Democratic president can just tell them to get lost, and remind them that they were all fine with it under Trump.
posted by Gelatin at 9:36 AM on November 12, 2019 [5 favorites]


So just to put things into a broader international context - The President of the United States has chosen to abandon two allies - The Ukraine and the Kurds and gone silent on China's Uighur genocide and rollback of Hong Kong's democracy. The result is geopolitical and military victories for Russia, Turkey, Iran and China.

In every case it is a loss for democracy and western values. The United States as a symbol of freedom and democracy is in full gallop retreat.

The only actual overt commitments Trump has made are to protect oil in Iraq and Saudi Arabia.
posted by srboisvert at 10:10 AM on November 12, 2019 [54 favorites]


In every case it is a loss for democracy and western values...The only actual overt commitments Trump has made are to protect oil in Iraq and Saudi Arabia.

So, so true. This is what makes me want to respond to anyone echoing the bullshit "but he wanted to investigate corruption" talking points by spitting on their shoes.
posted by mcstayinskool at 10:16 AM on November 12, 2019 [4 favorites]


the fucking RED ARMY is two hours drive from Kiev.

While is see your point, I don't think they have called it the Red Army since World War 2 (despite Patrick Swayze in a 1980s movie.)


In fact during the invasion of the Ukraine they were called Little Green Men or Polite People because they were not in uniform for disinformation purposes (It seems that in the United States they go by the name Business Associates or Interns).
posted by srboisvert at 10:16 AM on November 12, 2019 [3 favorites]


(I don't think it is polite to write or say the Ukraine)
posted by mumimor at 10:18 AM on November 12, 2019 [14 favorites]



The President is not supposed to be a fucking supporting character in anything that happens in the White House.

Charles Pierce at Esquire calls it "Camp Runamok".
posted by srboisvert at 10:27 AM on November 12, 2019 [4 favorites]


The House has released the testimony of Catherine Croft, a Ukraine specialist with the State Department. There's some very important new information in her testimony.

Croft says that the delivery of Javelin missiles was put on hold by the OMB, Office of the Management of the Budget. Mick Mulvaney is the head of the OMB, one of the several hats that he wears in addition to Chief of Staff for Trump. Normally the OMB doesn't get in to setting policy. They just authorize the Treasure to cut checks.

Croft says that in a principals committee meeting that all of the entire foreign policy experts from the State Department, Defense, and intelligence departments approved of the transfer and thought it was important to the defense of Ukraine against Russian aggression.

All except Mick Mulvaney who, contrary to everyone else in the government and working on Trump's orders, said out loud that Putin wouldn't like it.

So it wasn't just the investigations that Trump wanted into the Bidens that was causing the hold up. It was also Trump working to keep Putin as his friend, the friend who helped him in the last election and presumably wanted to help him in the 2020 election.

This is yet another betrayal of the country. Do you think Republicans will be upset?
posted by JackFlash at 10:46 AM on November 12, 2019 [37 favorites]


I mean, it could be that the House is ignoring the most important quid pro quo. Trump telling Putin, I'll help you if you help me.
posted by JackFlash at 10:52 AM on November 12, 2019 [2 favorites]


"The July 25 call summary — the best evidence of the conversation — shows no conditionality or evidence of pressure;

The word "though", in the sentence "do us a favor though", implies conditionality
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 10:58 AM on November 12, 2019 [10 favorites]


Comcast's NBCUniversal has handed down the talking points for a second day. MSNBC's Katy Tur is still pushing a presumed background angle that americans are most worried that the impeachment process tomorrow will be unfair. Madeleine Dean D-Penn, yesterday called her out on it mid-interview with a disappointed "Oh, my dear . .." when Tur kept repeating questions from that angle. Dean ended up scolding her as being "dark and cynical".
posted by Harry Caul at 11:18 AM on November 12, 2019 [5 favorites]


I tuned in to NPR’s The Takeaway to see how they’re playing it and was pleasantly surprised that all three guests forcefully took the reins of the discussion away from the “but why are we so Divisive (tm) today” host and steered firmly into the “this is about bribery, extortion, abuse of power and the selling-out of the country for personal gain” path.

Exactly. It's only "divisive" because one party has cynically decided to condone bribery, extortion, abuse of power and the selling-out of the country for personal gain if it gets them tax cuts and conservative judges.

Which is why Democrats and other loyal Americans should be shaming Republicans at every opportunity for their presumed lockstep support of Trump, and not let the media concern troll them about making Republicans uncomfortable by presenting Trump's crimes to the American people in no uncertain terms.

(The same is true about equal rights. It's only divisive to recognize the human rights of all American citizens and residents when some people refuse to do so.)
posted by Gelatin at 12:49 PM on November 12, 2019 [21 favorites]


Croft says that in a principals committee meeting that all of the entire foreign policy experts from the State Department, Defense, and intelligence departments approved of the transfer and thought it was important to the defense of Ukraine against Russian aggression.

All except Mick Mulvaney who, contrary to everyone else in the government and working on Trump's orders, said out loud that Putin wouldn't like it


Jeezo beezo, if I were running the news, that would be my top-of-the-fold, first up on broadcast, continuous loop on the ticker headline. Why are the Democrats not hammering this portion of the transcript and publicly calling Mulvaney out?
posted by Big Al 8000 at 1:03 PM on November 12, 2019 [35 favorites]


In every case it is a loss for democracy and western values. The United States as a symbol of freedom and democracy is in full gallop retreat.

Let's please not pretend that "western values" and the US's spin on freedom and democracy are only recently falling from high.
posted by el gran combo at 1:15 PM on November 12, 2019 [8 favorites]


One question about SecretAgentSockpuppet's timeline up above: is the whole Rick-Perry-gets-his-buddies-plum-deals thing actually connected to the larger aid-withholding picture, or is it a separate grift either piggybacked on the pressure others are putting on or being run entirely in parallel? Because what he's asking for seems wholly disconnected from the whole Guiliani/Trump/Mulvaney/Pence project.
posted by jackbishop at 1:19 PM on November 12, 2019 [1 favorite]


Rick Perry isn't a gangster, he's a schmuck. I don't think there's any way he'd be allowed into the real crimeing gang. They're just letting him do the same run-of-the-mill favoring we had a century ago. His timeline here could be dropped into Deadwood as a comical C-plot with a little rewriting and a costume change.
posted by rhizome at 1:26 PM on November 12, 2019 [6 favorites]


I'd speculate that the prevailing attitude that "it's all a grift so get your grifting on" enables dimwitted folks like Perry to start reaching out for grift partners and... those partners tend to be the same cast of characters. So, no but mostly yes.
posted by sjswitzer at 1:27 PM on November 12, 2019 [2 favorites]


That's to say that a lot of these folks are in it for the side-hustle, but the side hustle generally turns out to be another branch of the main hussle which is stupid amounts of petro dollars knocking about in pariah states.
posted by sjswitzer at 1:31 PM on November 12, 2019 [1 favorite]


It's only "divisive" because one party has cynically decided to condone bribery, extortion, abuse of power and the selling-out of the country for personal gain if it gets them tax cuts and conservative judges.

Quoted for fucking truth, Gelatin. And I hope Democratic Party officials and especially the elected politicians hear you and keep hammering at that point.
posted by Bella Donna at 1:32 PM on November 12, 2019 [6 favorites]


In private speech, Bolton suggests some of Trump's foreign policy decisions are guided by personal interest (NBC News)
According to six people who were there, Bolton also questioned the merits of Trump applying his business acumen to foreign policy, saying such issues can’t be approached like the win-or-lose edict that drives real estate deals: When one deal doesn’t work, you move on to the next. [...] his pointed comments, at a private gathering last Wednesday at Morgan Stanley’s global investment event in Miami, painted a dark image of a president and his family whose potential personal gain is at the heart of decision-making, according to people who were present for his remarks. [...]

Bolton told the gathering of Morgan Stanley’s largest hedge fund clients that he was most frustrated with Trump over his handling of Turkey, people who were present said. Noting the broad bipartisan support in Congress to sanction Turkey after President Recep Tayyip Erdogan purchased a Russian missile defense system, Bolton said Trump’s resistance to the move was unreasonable, four people present for his speech said.

Bolton said he believes there is a personal or business relationship dictating Trump’s position on Turkey because none of his advisers are aligned with him on the issue, the people present said. The Trump Organization has a property in Istanbul, and the president's daughter Ivanka Trump attended the opening with Erdogan in 2012. Though it’s a leasing agreement for use of the Trump name, Trump himself said in a 2015 interview that the arrangement presented “a little conflict of interest” should he be elected. [...]

Like other former Trump advisers, Bolton said regardless of how much evidence is provided to Trump that Russia interfered in the 2016 election, the president refuses to take any action because he views any move against Moscow as giving credence to the notion that his election is invalid, the people present for Bolton's remarks said.
posted by katra at 1:35 PM on November 12, 2019 [17 favorites]


In private speech, Bolton suggests some of Trump's foreign policy decisions are guided by personal interest

More like all of his foreign policy decisions are guided by personal interest, either his or Putin's.
posted by kirkaracha at 2:09 PM on November 12, 2019 [3 favorites]


Oh, man. From katra's NBC link:

Multiple people who attended Bolton’s private speech in Miami did not recall him mentioning Ukraine but said he told attendees that he had kept a resignation letter in his desk for three months.

At one point in his closed-door remarks, Bolton was asked what he thinks will happen in January 2021 if Trump is re-elected, people present for his remarks said. [...] Bolton said Trump could go full isolationist — with the faction of the Republican Party that aligns with [Rand] Paul’s foreign policy views taking over the GOP — and could withdraw the U.S. from NATO and other international alliances, three people present for his remarks said.

He also suggested that Kushner and Ivanka Trump could convince the president to rewrite his legacy and nominate a liberal like Lawrence Tribe — a Harvard Law professor who has questioned Trump’s fitness for office and was a legal adviser to Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign — to the Supreme Court, the people present for Bolton's speech said.

Bolton said, with an eye roll that suggested he doesn’t take them seriously, that Kushner and Ivanka Trump could do so in an attempt to prove they had real influence and were in the White House representing the people they want to be in social circles with at home in New York City, the people present for his remarks said.

Those present said that at that point, the audience appeared shocked.


An isolationist policy would be terrible for international business, and the Supreme Court maneuvering is a thing he's been doing right in the lights of some supporters -- like the people attending this shindig. Now I want to sort through the late summer headlines/crises, the time period when Bolton's saying he prepped the resignation letter. (Probably just spin, I know: Bolton has been writing a book, having reached a deal with Simon & Schuster, and people present for his remarks in Miami said he suggested to the audience several times that if they read it, there would be much more material along the lines of what was in his speech.)
posted by Iris Gambol at 2:16 PM on November 12, 2019 [7 favorites]


This is what I don’t get about Bolton — why doesn’t he testify? It’s clear he doesn’t like Trump and thinks he’s doing real harm to the country. Hell, he’s telling paid audiences but not the fucking Congress.

Does he realize when he says Trump is using the office for personal gain that is precisely the sort of behavior that the founders intended to address by impeachment?

It’s not unique behavior, either. The number of Never Trump Republicans who support impeachment is actually quite small. Sure, Jeff Flake will tell you how terrible Trump is but God forbid you associate him with Democrats! Why, they’re just unreasonable!

Partisanship, man. It’s a helluva mind-killer.
posted by Big Al 8000 at 2:28 PM on November 12, 2019 [8 favorites]


But I will say this: it does confirm that Bolton’s warmongering is all false bravado. He’ll happily send other people to die for his pet ideas but the moment he has to show some personal intestinal fortitude, he hides behind presidential directives to stay silent.
posted by Big Al 8000 at 2:32 PM on November 12, 2019 [1 favorite]


Let's please not pretend that "western values" and the US's spin on freedom and democracy are only recently falling from high.

Let's also please not pretend that what's happening now is just a continuation of the way it's been for generations.
posted by Lyme Drop at 2:37 PM on November 12, 2019 [18 favorites]


Look. John Bolton is to total and utter loon. He is affiliated with the Center for Security Policy, a right-wingnut outfit run by total loon and conspiracist Frank Gaffney.

These are the folks behind the idea that Obama is a secret Muslim, that Saddam Hussein was the real planner behind the 9/11 attacks, that Hillary's assistant Huma Abedin is a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, that the logo of the US Missile Defense Agency is a coded message of submission to Islam because it looks too much like a crescent and star, that Gen. Petraeus submitted to Sharia, that the Broward County sheriffs office is riddled with agents of Hamas.

Nobody should listen to a word Bolton says without realizing he is a full on crazy man. He's a danger to your own sanity.
posted by JackFlash at 2:41 PM on November 12, 2019 [21 favorites]


Hell, he’s telling paid audiences but not the fucking Congress.

I think you answered your own question. Consider "[Bolton] suggested to the audience several times that if they read [his upcoming book], there would be much more material along the lines of what was in his speech." If he goes to Congress he has to spill everything for free.

Bolton is 70. I think at some level he understands that he's very unlikely to serve in government again. This is him grabbing six figure speaking fees and a fat book advance while he still can.
posted by jedicus at 2:42 PM on November 12, 2019 [5 favorites]


Yeah, ginning up interest in his stupid book. Perhaps someone with standing could offer Bolton a cheque to drop by Congress for a chat, since he's made clear that's the only way to motivate him. (Yet only a few days ago, the State Department's early-September release of the Ukraine funds was credited to Bolton's independent go-ahead... Bolton's the mustachioed man of mystery nowadays, and there was more peace of mind when he was a predictable hawk.)
posted by Iris Gambol at 2:50 PM on November 12, 2019 [2 favorites]


Meet the Inquisitors About to Rule the Impeachment Hearing
One’s a former mob-buster. The other’s a veteran of more than a decade of Capitol Hill’s most divisive investigations. And on Wednesday both will go prime time.
posted by kirkaracha at 3:23 PM on November 12, 2019 [8 favorites]


This is what I don’t get about Bolton — why doesn’t he testify? It’s clear he doesn’t like Trump and thinks he’s doing real harm to the country. Hell, he’s telling paid audiences but not the fucking Congress.

If he testified, Bolton would never get confirmed to another administration position again, and he probably has wars he still wants to start.
posted by Gelatin at 3:31 PM on November 12, 2019 [1 favorite]


In part, I think Bolton wants a subpoena, and he wants it enforced by a court ruling because apparently subpoena's are meaningless on their own now. That way he can say "I had to testify, I didn't have a choice." He wants to face the rest of the right wing with some form of plausible deniability going forward.
Also, yeah, there's the book deal and his generally being a shitty person.

What surprises me is that he had to know his "private" speech would leak. That had to be part of the calculus in speaking in the first place, but it would seem to undermine that deniability. Again, though: book hype.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 3:45 PM on November 12, 2019 [4 favorites]


If he testified, Bolton would never get confirmed to another administration position again

The joke's on you: he's never been confirmed for any position! Ambassador to the UN under Bush43 was a recess appointment which Bolton quit at the end because he wasn't going to be able to get confirmed. The National Security Advisor is not a confirmed position. Everything else has been appointments to Deputy Undersecretary of Yelling type jobs.
posted by rhizome at 4:07 PM on November 12, 2019 [34 favorites]




Specifically:
It has just come to my attention that then-Undersecretary of State John Bolton was interviewed on July 18, 2003 by the State Department Office of the Inspector General in connection with a joint State Department/CIA IG investigation related to the alleged Iraqi attempts to procure uranium from Niger. This information would appear to be inconsistent with information that Mr. Bolton provided to the Committee on Foreign Relations during the Committee’s consideration of his pending nomination to be Permanent Representative to the United Nations.

-- excerpt, Sen. Joe Biden's letter of concern to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, July 28, 2005 [BREAKING: Biden Questions Whether Bolton Testimony Was “True and Accurate” (ThinkProgress, July 28, 2005)]

The very day before that: Biden: Did Bolton Testify In Leak Investigation? (ThinkProgress, July 27, 2005) "The following is a text of a letter from Sen. Joseph Biden asking the Bush administration to clarify whether John Bolton has testified before the grand jury investigating the Valerie Plame leak"... On July 21, 2005, MSNBC reported that Under Secretary Bolton testified before the federal grand jury in Washington that is investigating the leak of the identity of Valerie Plame as an agent of the Central Intelligence Agency. [...] As you know, the Committee questionnaire, which the nominee completed in March, requires all nominees to inform the Committee whether they have been “interviewed or asked to supply any information in connection with any administrative (including an inspector general), Congressional or grand jury investigation within the past 5 years, except routine Congressional testimony.

Trump liked Bolton because he was a Fox contributor who knew the lay of the land (but was also a known *****): Why John Bolton Couldn't Get Confirmed as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations (Time, March 23, 2018) Bolton had offended a host of Washington characters in his decades in government. Colin Powell had confessed to Senators that he was worried about the way Bolton mistreated subordinates, TIME reported, and 60 retired diplomats had sent a letter to the committee speaking out against the nomination.
posted by Iris Gambol at 5:44 PM on November 12, 2019 [3 favorites]


Bolton wants a subpoena, and he wants it enforced by a court ruling because apparently subpoena's are meaningless on their own now

So representational democracy and John Bolton have something in common, after all.

Schiff and the Dems may have strategic reasons for not enforcing Congressional subpoenas, but when the tables are turned (and they will be), they will have pounded a nail in the coffin of democracy themselves. Grave mistake, IMHO.
posted by Dashy at 6:09 PM on November 12, 2019 [1 favorite]


Let's please not pretend that "western values" and the US's spin on freedom and democracy are only recently falling from high.

I think it is more that the mask has been fully yanked off, and this is the tipping point. Very little opportunity for polite or plausible deniability.

If there is anything to "western values", that banner is now being waved in Europe not the Anglosphere.
posted by Meatbomb at 6:39 PM on November 12, 2019 [4 favorites]


This is what I don’t get about Bolton — why doesn’t he testify? It’s clear he doesn’t like Trump and thinks he’s doing real harm to the country. Hell, he’s telling paid audiences but not the fucking Congress.

If you have skeletons in your closet -- and rest assured that John fucking Bolton has skeletons in his closet -- you do not go before Congress under oath lightly.

Bolton has an axe to grind with Trump, but he will only wield it under very specific ass-covering circumstances.
posted by delfin at 6:41 PM on November 12, 2019 [4 favorites]


I think Iris Gambol revealed the crux of the matter - Biden (and the Dems) screwed Bolton out of “his” ambassadorship so now is his opportunity to make Biden (and the Dems) twist in the wind. He won’t do the right thing without taking his pound of flesh at the same time.

Now it makes sense to me.
posted by Big Al 8000 at 7:01 PM on November 12, 2019 [2 favorites]


WaPo: 7:30 a.m.: GOP staff says Trump’s ‘mindset’ key to call with Zelensky [emphasis added below]
A staff memo prepared for Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee argues that Trump’s “mindset” is key to interpreting his July 25 call with Zelensky. “President Trump has generally been skeptical of foreign assistance, believing that European allies should contribute their fair share to regional defense,” says the memo, which is dated Tuesday and was first reported by Axios. “President Trump has had, for years preceding the call, a deep-seated, genuine, and reasonable skepticism toward Ukraine due to its pervasive corruption. President Trump is well aware of actions by senior Ukrainian government officials to work for his defeat in the 2016 election. These experiences colored President Trump’s interaction with President Zelensky.”
To Exonerate Trump, Republicans Embrace Russian Disinformation (Michelle Goldberg, NYT Opinion)
[...] the House Republicans who are actually involved in the hearings seem set to go all in on the fantasy of Ukrainian election interference. To exonerate Trump, they are ready to help cover for Russia. [...] Nunes made his intention clear, writing of Trump’s “documented belief that the Ukrainian government meddled in the 2016 election,” which “forms the basis for a reasonable desire for Ukraine to investigate the circumstances surrounding the election.”

The conspiracy theories that undergird the president’s “documented belief” aren’t really coherent, but they don’t have to be to serve their purpose, which is sowing confusion about the well-established fact that Russia assisted Trump’s campaign. They posit not just that Manafort was set up, but also that Democrats worked with Ukraine to frame Russia for hacking Democrats’ emails, a dastardly Democratic plot that led to Trump’s election. Naturally, George Soros, perennial scapegoat for the far right, is also involved.

“George Soros was behind it. George Soros’s company was funding it,” Giuliani said on ABC in September, spinning tales of Hillary Clinton’s collusion with Ukraine. [...] Some of these lies seem to have originated in Russia; documents from the Mueller investigation recently obtained by BuzzFeed News show that Manafort was blaming Ukraine for the Democratic National Committee hack back in 2016, a story he apparently got from one of his associates, a former Russian intelligence officer named Konstantin Kilimnik. [...] A few of Trump’s more responsible aides have reportedly tried to disabuse him of Ukraine conspiracy theories, to no avail. Instead it appears that House Republicans, out of slavish fealty to the president, are going to use high-profile hearings to amplify them.

In her testimony, Hill seemed to warn Republicans off their current path. She mentioned the report issued last month by the Republican-controlled Senate Intelligence Committee about how Russia used online propaganda to boost Trump in 2016. “If we have people running around chasing rabbit holes because Rudy Giuliani or others have been feeding information to The Hill, Politico, we are not going to be prepared as a country to push back on this again,” she said. “The Russians thrive on misinformation and disinformation.” Unfortunately, so do Trump’s defenders.
posted by katra at 7:09 PM on November 12, 2019 [11 favorites]


If there is anything to "western values", that banner is now being waved in Europe not the Anglosphere.

Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic would like a word with you. Also, the Tories in the UK, the National Front in France, and AfD in Germany are trying to drag Western Values behind a dumpster for a curb stomping.

Frankly, democratic values are under assault around the world.

Maybe New Zealand?
posted by Big Al 8000 at 7:09 PM on November 12, 2019 [6 favorites]


We thought Trump was the biggest con man. We were all wrong. (Catherine Rampell, WaPo)
Many of President Trump’s critics (myself included) have portrayed him as a fantastically successful con artist, a man who has swindled customers, vendors and voters alike.

We were all wrong. Trump isn’t history’s biggest scam artist; he’s history’s biggest dupe.

At least, that’s the narrative Trump and his defenders are spinning as they portray the president as the victim of an elaborate, long-running political sting, perpetrated by his own devious underlings.

[…]

Four of the five sitting Federal Reserve governors, for instance, were Republicans handpicked for their current positions by Trump, and yet Trump now says they represent the “biggest threat” to his presidency and are an “enemy” to America. He has similarly accused his own Cabinet members, White House counsel, FBI director and other senior officials of allegedly plotting against him.

These connivers have been astoundingly effective. Somehow they’ve tricked Trump into saying and doing racist and corrupt things, in public and on camera. They hoodwinked him into passing economic policies that punish his working-class base while rewarding wealthy donors. And, worst of all — in the case of Ukraine — these schemers suckered Trump into subordinating U.S. national security to his own selfish political interests.

Either that or they cleverly framed him.
posted by Johnny Wallflower at 7:58 PM on November 12, 2019 [26 favorites]


Rep. Adam Schiff: Trump's Potentially Impeachable Offenses Include Bribery (NPR)
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., told Morning Edition host Steve Inskeep during an interview at the Capitol on Tuesday that he thinks there's a clear argument to be made that Trump committed "bribery" and "high crimes and misdemeanors" — both explicitly outlined in the Constitution as impeachable offenses — when pressuring the Ukrainian government to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden's son in exchange for long-promised military aid.

"Bribery, first of all, as the founders understood bribery, it was not as we understand it in law today. It was much broader," Schiff said. "It connoted the breach of the public trust in a way where you're offering official acts for some personal or political reason, not in the nation's interest."

To prove bribery, Schiff said, you have to show that the president was "soliciting something of value," which Schiff thinks multiple witnesses before his committee have testified to in private. [...] "The basic allegations against the president are that he sought foreign interference in a U.S. election, that he conditioned official acts on the performance of these political favors," Schiff said. "And those official acts include a White House meeting that the president of Ukraine desperately sought with President Trump, as well as hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer-funded military assistance for a country that is at war with Russia and a country that the United States has a deep national security interest in making sure it can defend itself."

[...] "I mean, when you consider the serious terms of whether the president has committed an impeachable offense, the fact that the scheme was discovered, the fact that the scheme was unsuccessful, doesn't make it any less odious or any less impeachable," he said. "If the president solicited for help in the U.S. election, if the president conditioned official acts on the performance of these political favors, whether Ukraine ever had to go through with it really doesn't matter. What matters is: Did the president attempt to commit acts that ought to result in his removal from office?"
posted by katra at 10:47 PM on November 12, 2019 [10 favorites]


WATCH LIVE: The Trump Impeachment Hearings – Day 1 (PBS)
The House of Representatives kick off public impeachment hearings against President Donald Trump on Wednesday. The impeachment hearing begins at 10 a.m. ET. The PBS NewsHour will stream analysis coverage beforehand starting at about 9 a.m. ET. Watch live (YouTube)
WATCH LIVE: Open Hearing with Ambassador Bill Taylor and George Kent (House Intelligence Committee, YouTube)
On Wednesday, November 13, 2019 at 10 AM EST, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence will hold an open hearing with the Honorable Ambassador William B. Taylor, Chargé d’Affaires Ad Interim, Kyiv, Ukraine and Mr. George Kent, Deputy Assistant Secretary for European and Eurasian Affairs. This is the first open hearing in the House impeachment inquiry. The next hearing, with Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch, will be held on Friday, November 15 at 9 AM EST.
Impeachment Hearing with William Taylor and George Kent (C-SPAN)
Watch LIVE On November 13 | 9am ET | C-SPAN3
posted by katra at 11:05 PM on November 12, 2019 [10 favorites]


From the nbc article:
Bolton’s lawyer teased his client's value last week in a letter to House Democrats that noted that the former national security adviser had been present for “many relevant meetings and conversations” on Ukraine, including some that have yet to be disclosed to investigators. His lawyer, Charles Cooper, said Bolton is willing to testify if a federal court approves it and issues a ruling that essentially says he can defy the White House’s position that he can’t speak to Congress.

To me, this looks like Bolton wants to testify but is scared of Trump. I'm not surprised that he is scared, hawks are in my experience almost always frightened people. But I'm curious about what he is scared of? He is not elected, never has been, and never will be. The cultists can't hurt him by voting him out or withholding funding. He may not be popular on Fox anymore, but he clearly has an audience of rich people. One of all the articles posted here mentioned the possibility of a non-disclosure agreement for all Trump officials, which seems illegal in itself: government officials serve the country, not the President. But Barr is already magicking the law, so who knows what he can have come up with?
How does this fit with Bolton writing a book? Trump doesn't mind all the leaking and the gossip, he revels in it. It makes the presidency into a reality show, just like he likes it. Testifying before congress, under oath, is a whole other thing. Mostly because the Republican senators are going to have a really hard time explaining how Trump should not be impeached.

Something else:
Bolton said he believes there is a personal or business relationship dictating Trump’s position on Turkey because none of his advisers are aligned with him on the issue, the people present said. The Trump Organization has a property in Istanbul, and the president's daughter Ivanka Trump attended the opening with Erdogan in 2012. Though it’s a leasing agreement for use of the Trump name, Trump himself said in a 2015 interview that the arrangement presented “a little conflict of interest” should he be elected. [...]

I'm thinking that if Trump says he has a little conflict of interest, he'll be having a HUGE conflict of interest. Erdogan has a hold on Trump, just like Putin, and who knows how many other dictators and criminals.
posted by mumimor at 2:44 AM on November 13, 2019 [10 favorites]


Pre-hearing weirdness on MSNBC as they are holding court with guest commentator George Conway (wtf?), and he repeatedly gets emotional discussing today.
posted by Harry Caul at 6:27 AM on November 13, 2019 [1 favorite]


Opening statements were a stark contrast. Schiff: clear laying out of the facts and context. Nunes: conspiracy theories, misdirection, and lies.
posted by freecellwizard at 7:32 AM on November 13, 2019 [9 favorites]


So Democrats and Republicans sticking to their usual playbooks, then.
posted by Gelatin at 7:40 AM on November 13, 2019 [2 favorites]


Nunes: conspiracy theories, misdirection, and lies.

Something something Streisand effect something something suing fictional cow.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 7:46 AM on November 13, 2019 [5 favorites]


Turned the live feed on, saw Stefanik and Jordan busting Schiff's balls about the whistleblower's identity, saw the stupid fucking posters Rs have sitting behind them, turned it back off. I can't actually watch this ridiculous farce until there's some indication that something will come of it.
posted by Gaz Errant at 7:49 AM on November 13, 2019 [8 favorites]


I've got the stream on in the background while working, so I haven't been hanging on every word, but the witnesses are coming across as extremely credible so far. Portraying them as political hacks is going to be a very tall order.
posted by tonycpsu at 8:02 AM on November 13, 2019 [8 favorites]


Turned the live feed on, saw Stefanik and Jordan busting Schiff's balls about the whistleblower's identity

Schiff was able to deftly parry the point of order from Stefanik about questions related to the whistleblower's identity and then double down on how they won't be able to ask those questions. Schiff also got to note that Jordan's 'question' was based on a false statement.
posted by katra at 8:03 AM on November 13, 2019 [4 favorites]


i am jonesing to talk about this as it happens. Anyone else in MeFi Chat/politics?
posted by freecellwizard at 8:04 AM on November 13, 2019


We're all in #live on PoliticsFilter slack.
posted by Xyanthilous P. Harrierstick at 8:07 AM on November 13, 2019 [2 favorites]


Whatever that is.
posted by delfin at 8:17 AM on November 13, 2019 [7 favorites]


Mod note: fwiw, it's fine to talk about the hearings in here as they happen. Just include enough context that people who aren't watching know what you're seeing -- the main thing we want to avoid is a lot of "omg!" contextless reactions.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 8:23 AM on November 13, 2019 [4 favorites]


WaPo: Live updates: Historic impeachment hearing is underway

Guardian: US politics live - Trump impeachment inquiry

NBC News: Trump impeachment hearing: Live updates from the public testimony

NYT: Impeachment Hearing: Live Updates From Taylor and Kent Testimony
posted by katra at 8:23 AM on November 13, 2019 [2 favorites]


The political people on twitter are going nuts over Taylor's masculine voice

Because that's the important part
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 8:24 AM on November 13, 2019 [5 favorites]


Because that's the important part

You know when political people talk about "optics"?

This is optics.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 8:25 AM on November 13, 2019 [15 favorites]


538: Trump Impeachment Hearings, Day 1: Live Analysis
posted by notpace at 8:27 AM on November 13, 2019 [1 favorite]


The next time someone says government should be run "like a business" I'm going to restrain them a'la A Clockwork Orange and force them to watch this statement. This is what happens when you run America like a business. The CEO thinks he is the state and people owe him their personal allegiance.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 8:30 AM on November 13, 2019 [22 favorites]


This is optics.

Frankly, that's what the entire affair is. Those who are following the facts understand the impact of the testimony. Those who deliberately choose not to follow the facts are spouting conspiracy theory and tangential issues and points of order. Each side on Twitter will breathlessly declare that their representatives have DESTROYED~! the other's, and nothing new and exciting will be learned.
posted by delfin at 8:33 AM on November 13, 2019 [4 favorites]


This is optics.

I'm aware of that, yeah, I just think it's disgusting
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 8:34 AM on November 13, 2019 [4 favorites]


Portraying them as political hacks is going to be a very tall order.

That's easy. Don't show or quote their testimony, unless there's a flubbed answer or something that can be misconstrued. Only show or quote Republican questioning and conservative commentators. The viewers' and readers' minds will fill in the blanks with an imagined version of what the witness said and their motivation for doing so.
posted by jedicus at 8:39 AM on November 13, 2019 [3 favorites]


Those who are following the facts understand the impact of the testimony. Those who deliberately choose not to follow the facts are spouting conspiracy theory and tangential issues and points of order. Each side on Twitter will breathlessly declare that their representatives have DESTROYED~! the other's, and nothing new and exciting will be learned.

Remember though that there are plenty of people out there that don't neatly fit into either of those categories. There are more than two sides. The battle right now is in trying get the facts out to those people and to show them why exactly they need to care about this. And there are a lot of them out there. That's where these public hearings can, maybe, have an impact.
posted by wondermouse at 8:48 AM on November 13, 2019 [8 favorites]


Josh Marshall, TPM: What Do the Democrats Have to Prove?
The case, rather than needing to be made in some heroic fashion, really makes itself. The evidence is overwhelming. It’s not the Democrats who are on trial here, needing to prove themselves with some magisterial performance. Indeed, it’s not even really the President whose guilt is obvious and not even questioned with serious arguments. Who and what is on trial here is the Republican party, which has made it pretty clear that they are willing to countenance any level of law breaking and abuses of power so long as it is done by a Republican or at least as long as it is Donald Trump.

The Democrats’ job is to lay out the evidence in a public setting and get elected Republicans to sign on the dotted line that this is presidential behavior they accept and applaud. That won’t be difficult. They have one last chance to change their answer. Democrats real job is to clarify and publicize that that is their answer
.
posted by neroli at 8:51 AM on November 13, 2019 [36 favorites]


"The political people on twitter are going nuts over Taylor's masculine voice"

He has an old-school news anchor's voice. A bit Cronkite.
posted by bz at 9:00 AM on November 13, 2019 [5 favorites]


Guardian: Democrats announce two more closed-door impeachment interviews
Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney)

WOW: Mid-hearing impeachment inquiry officials announce two new closed depositions.

Friday: David Holmes
Saturday: Mark Sandy, an OMB official who refused to appear last week.
November 13, 2019
Holmes may well be the aide who overheard Gordon Sondland’s conversation with Trump, in which the president asked the US ambassador to the EU about the “investigations” in Ukraine.
NBC News: New impeachment depositions announced for this week
David Holmes is expected to testify in closed session on Friday, Nov. 15.

Mark Sandy is expected to testify in a closed session on Saturday, Nov. 16.
posted by katra at 9:05 AM on November 13, 2019 [10 favorites]


NYT: The top Ukraine diplomat revealed he was told that Trump was more concerned about investigations of Biden than Ukraine.
William B. Taylor Jr., the top United States diplomat in Ukraine, offered dramatic new testimony Wednesday about how President Trump’s preoccupation with investigating former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. was affecting his actions toward Ukraine.

Mr. Taylor said that a member of his staff overheard a telephone conversation in which the president mentioned “the investigations” to Gordon D. Sondland, the United States ambassador to the European Union. After the call, the aide asked Mr. Sondland what the president thought of Ukraine. The ambassador “responded that President Trump cares more about the investigations of Biden, which Giuliani was pressing for.”

He was referring to Rudolph W. Giuliani, the president’s personal lawyer, who Mr. Taylor described as the leader of a “highly irregular” policymaking channel on Ukraine that ran counter to goals of longstanding American policy. The episode was not included in Mr. Taylor’s interview with impeachment investigators last month, because, he said, he was not aware of it at the time.
posted by katra at 9:13 AM on November 13, 2019 [5 favorites]


NBC News: About that phone call...
Sondland calling Trump on a cellphone from Kyiv is extraordinary for all sorts of reasons. Normally EU Ambos don’t call presidents. They never do so to discuss Ukraine policy. Doing so on a cellphone from Kyiv means whole world was listening in.
— Michael McFaul (@McFaul) November 13, 2019
posted by katra at 9:20 AM on November 13, 2019 [41 favorites]


Yet again, it looks like Sondland has some 'splaining to do.

Sondland has said that he was not aware of the connection to the Biden investigations until late in September. Taylor's testimony says that Sondland had a direct conversation with Trump about Biden investigations on July 26, the day after the infamous phone call.

Sondland has already had to modify his testimony once. According Taylor, Sondland is still lying to cover up for Trump.
posted by JackFlash at 9:26 AM on November 13, 2019 [9 favorites]


Hey, I've been watching the impeachment hearings with Taylor off and on, and they are devastating. I highly recommend catching whatever you can. The question of whether or not these hearings would make for powerful television that can potentially persuade the nation that impeachment is necessary has been answered for me. It's also given me something I haven't felt in a long time. A feeling of some pride in this country.
posted by xammerboy at 9:27 AM on November 13, 2019 [22 favorites]


Politico is posting video highlights here: Taylor reveals new Trump comments about Biden: Highlights from impeachment hearing
posted by katra at 9:30 AM on November 13, 2019 [1 favorite]


CBS News letting Mark Meadows rant and rave without much pushback.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 9:31 AM on November 13, 2019 [1 favorite]


Sondland has already had to modify his testimony once. According Taylor, Sondland is still lying to cover up for Trump.

Schiff: Care to revise your statement, sir?

Sondland: What?

Schiff: Do you want to change your bullshit story, sir?
posted by kirkaracha at 9:32 AM on November 13, 2019 [3 favorites]


NBC News: The point when Taylor says it was ‘clear' release of aid was conditioned on probes
While Taylor learned on July 18 from the Office of Management and Budget that security assistance was being held up for an unspecified reason, he said Wednesday that he didn’t understand until early September that the release of the money was conditioned on Ukraine investigating the Bidens and a 2016 election conspiracy theory. [...]

Taylor said that before that point, he only understood that a possible Trump-Zelenskiy meeting at the White House was conditioned on pursuing those investigations. But it was after the Sept. 1 meeting between Pence and Zelenskiy that it became clear to him that both the military aid and the possible face-to-face meeting was dependent on the announcement of those probes.
posted by katra at 9:35 AM on November 13, 2019 [2 favorites]


Guardian: One of the biggest new lines to come out today’s impeachment hearing so far comes from Bill Taylor’s testimony that US ambassador to the EU, Gordon Sondland, told one of Taylor’s aides in July that Trump cared more about “investigations of Biden” than US policies towards Ukraine. [...]
And here’s how some political commentators have responded: [...]
David Corn (@DavidCornDC)

BOOM. Taylor testifies that when Sondland was asked what Trump thought of Ukraine, "Sondland responded that President Trump cares more about the investigations of Biden." Here's the motive. Trump only saw Ukraine policy as a means to get the political dirt he wanted! November 13, 2019
posted by katra at 9:42 AM on November 13, 2019 [5 favorites]


It's looking more and more like Sondland was the point man for implementing Trump's extortion strategy. According to this new testimony, Sondland spoke directly to Trump about it, not through the Giuliani cut out.

No wonder Sondland has been lying in his testimony. He's the capo running the crew to execute the godfather's extortion scheme.
posted by JackFlash at 9:47 AM on November 13, 2019 [4 favorites]


NBC News: State Dept. official testifying Friday is staffer who overheard Trump-Sondland call
A source familiar with the matter tells NBC News that David Holmes, the State Department official just added to the calendar to testify in closed session Friday, is the staffer for Bill Taylor who overheard Sondland’s phone call in which President Trump asked him about "the investigations."

David Holmes is a new character in the Ukraine saga. He is the counselor for political affairs at the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine.
posted by katra at 9:50 AM on November 13, 2019 [3 favorites]


Mark Meadows says that Sondland's testimony to the committee will clear all of this up.
posted by rhizome at 9:51 AM on November 13, 2019




Devin Nunes’s opening statement at the public impeachment hearing, annotated

Seems to have a political bias:
After the spectacular implosion of their Russia hoax on July 24, in which they spent years denouncing any Republican who ever shook hands with a Russian, on July 25 they turned on a dime and now claim the real malfeasance is Republicans’ dealings with Ukraine.
posted by ZeusHumms at 10:06 AM on November 13, 2019 [1 favorite]


Marcy Wheeler [@emptywheel] catalogs the 9 lies of Devin Nunes in his opening impeachment statement (Meteor Blades, Daily Kos)
The pathetic performance by Republican Rep. Devin Nunes, the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, in his opening statement in the impeachment inquiry Wednesday morning was a litany of lies. Marcy Wheeler, who, as blogger emptywheel, has for nearly two decades closely followed national security and civil liberties issues, pointed out nine of them on Twitter. Here’s a selection:
  • At the outset she noted: “Nunes starts with a lie, that Democrats accused Trump of being an ‘Agent.’”
  • ”Note: Nunes claims Dems didn't have more than circumstantial evidence of collusion. Evidence in the Stone trial more than meets Mark Meadows' definition of collusion.”
  • “In fact, Mueller said there was evidence of conspiracy, which is stronger than collusion. So far, Two lies in the first seconds of Nunes' speech.”
  • “Nunes claims there were 1-sided leaks. Lie number 3.”
  • “Nunes claims ‘most’ GOP witnesses denied. They got 3 witnesses. Lie number 4.”
  • ”Nunes false says Mark Zaid called for a coup. Lie number 5.”
  • ”Nunes now complaining about projection. Claiming Steele dossier = collusion with Russia, claims Dems defend Hunter Biden having a job. Lies 6 and 7.”
  • ”Note, Nunes claims witnesses don't know the answers on Hunter Biden. Except a number of witnesses did testify to it. Lie 8.”
  • ”Nunes claims ‘Russian hoax’ has ended. No, the fully predicted investigation into Trump and his flunkies conspiracies with Russia and WikiLeaks has not. Lie 9.”
That’s quite the introduction.

It isn’t mere lying. There is a scheme here. As the conservative political activist and former chess champion Garry Kasparov has noted, “The point of modern propaganda isn't only to misinform or push an agenda. It is to exhaust your critical thinking, to annihilate truth.”

To annihilate truth. To make it difficult for people to know what is and isn’t true. To create chaos.

That’s what Donald Trump and his sycophants are up to this morning, and every morning.
Formatting added.
posted by ZeusHumms at 10:11 AM on November 13, 2019 [43 favorites]


Best I can tell, the WP article linked above has transposed the mines quotes and the commentary.
posted by notsnot at 10:13 AM on November 13, 2019 [1 favorite]


Mark Meadows says that Sondland's testimony to the committee will clear all of this up.

Ha, yeah, just like Steiner held off the Russian advance at Pankow.
posted by Joey Buttafoucault at 10:25 AM on November 13, 2019 [5 favorites]


Guardian: Republicans resurrect baseless conspiracy theory about Ukraine
Republicans on the House intelligence committee appear to be using their questioning time to add credibility to the baseless conspiracy theory that Ukraine interfered in the 2016 election. (The US intelligence community has thoroughly confirmed that Russia interfered in the election.) [...] But it is worth noting that Republicans have not yet sought to counter Bill Taylor and George Kent’s testimony outlining a months-long campaign by Trump’s allies to pressure Ukraine to announce investigations into Joe Biden and the 2016 election.
Guardian: Ari Fleischer, a former press secretary for George W. Bush, criticized the questioning of the lawyer speaking for the Republican members of the House intelligence committee.
Ari Fleischer (@AriFleischer) Whatever the GOP counsel is doing, it's not working. I don't undertand where he's going.
November 13, 2019
posted by katra at 10:28 AM on November 13, 2019 [6 favorites]


Whatever the GOP counsel is doing, it's not working. I don't undertand where he's going.

Neither did the GOP counsel, I'm pretty sure.

I had the overall impression that a specific checklist of nonsense talking points, as outlined in the mendacious opening by Nunez, is being ticked off by Counsel. We're well past "if you can't argue the facts, pound on the table" -- we're into the "ridiculous conspiracy posters from Kinko's and generating looking-glass alternate realities" territory. Schiff, so far, seems to be keeping those efforts in check as best he can, and undoing their attempts at damage where possible, but the GOP has too much invested in this to have their minds changed. I hope the evening media coverage is able to frame these proceedings without propping up their nonsense, but we'll have to wait (and hope against hope).
posted by halation at 10:38 AM on November 13, 2019 [10 favorites]


...of course, now Jim Jordan is up, so...
posted by halation at 10:39 AM on November 13, 2019 [3 favorites]


From the Guardian feed:
Jim Jordan, a Trump ally, echoed Republican messaging by trying to paint Bill Taylor’s knowledge of a potential quid pro quo as relying on secondhand information.

However, this argument may fall apart next week, when a number of people who do have direct knowledge of the pressure campaign on Ukraine -- namely Gordon Sondland and Alexander Vindman -- testify publicly.

That said, Jordan appears to have succeeded at his short-term goal of creating a clip of Taylor acknowledging he did not listen to Trump’s Ukraine call or discuss a potential announcement of investigations with the Ukrainian president. It seems likely that exchange will play on Fox News tonight.
Fudge.
posted by ZeusHumms at 10:49 AM on November 13, 2019


Am I imagining, or do some of these older GOP members of the committee seem really uncomfortable being there?
posted by Harry Caul at 10:55 AM on November 13, 2019


Is it me or does the line that "our ambassador to Ukraine wasn't fully briefed on our policies towards and discussions with Ukraine" seem an odd direction if you're trying to argue everything was above board, normal and anyone would have done the same?
posted by Erberus at 10:58 AM on November 13, 2019 [20 favorites]


do some of these older GOP members of the committee seem really uncomfortable being there?
@sahilkapur
Just got this message from a Republican operative:
not from me: but this is a massive
fucking shitshow
no one wants to be here

posted by neroli at 11:08 AM on November 13, 2019 [23 favorites]


no one wants to be here

Jordan does, I think, since he gets to scream gaslighting bullshit into a microphone without being checked
posted by halation at 11:10 AM on November 13, 2019 [15 favorites]


This is just to say

I have heard
the testimony
from the Republican
apparatchiks

who are trying
to rescue
an orange buffoon
from impeachment

This is a massive
fucking shitshow
no one wants
to be here
posted by Faint of Butt at 11:15 AM on November 13, 2019 [78 favorites]


Seems like in lieu of substantive questioning, Republicans are going for sound bites that will play well in the news and campaign ads.
posted by ZeusHumms at 11:20 AM on November 13, 2019 [6 favorites]


no one wants to be here

Jordan does, I think, since he gets to scream gaslighting bullshit into a microphone without being checked


No, his usual response to people talking about a crime is to leave the room and deny it ever happened.
posted by Etrigan at 11:21 AM on November 13, 2019 [9 favorites]


Yamiche Alcindor (@yamiche):
Confirmed: White House plans to have a “rapid response” team— including press, legislative affairs & WH counsel staff—for first public impeachment inquiry hearing.

Context: This is not how WH has handled past big public hearings with people like Robert Mueller or Michael Cohen.
posted by ZeusHumms at 11:27 AM on November 13, 2019 [2 favorites]


Mr. Kent, please sit on your jacket. You're ruining the beautiful sartorial effect of the bow tie.
posted by angrycat at 11:47 AM on November 13, 2019 [6 favorites]


Mr. Kent, please sit on your jacket. You're ruining the beautiful sartorial effect of the bow tie.

but how else can we enjoy the matching (!) pocket square??? Admittedly the chyron tends to obscure it, but it's there, and it's spectacular.

Joaquin Castro's quite skillful in illuminating the nature of the leverage used against Ukraine for the "favor," the timeline which suggests that the aid hold may have been released after concern the story would get out, and the fact that "attempted murder" is still a crime -- all points which don't get nearly enough coherent media play. Taylor equivocated a bit, but I hope Castro gets some airtime tonight, because his delivery is excellent, simple, clear, and calm.
posted by halation at 11:57 AM on November 13, 2019 [3 favorites]




Never change, Vox.
posted by mbrubeck at 12:06 PM on November 13, 2019 [2 favorites]


Coach Shouty is back, to get all his FoxNews soundbites in. Let's see if he
even has a question.
posted by Harry Caul at 12:08 PM on November 13, 2019 [2 favorites]




I think angrycat meant 'sit on your jacket' as sit on the (vent) hem to anchor the jacket, à la Broadcast News (fantastic tip!). Kent's got a real "I learned how to make apple butter from Jimmy Stewart" vibe in that get-up.
posted by Iris Gambol at 12:30 PM on November 13, 2019 [11 favorites]


Sketches of the proceedings from a WaPo editorial cartoonist. Jim Jordan shall henceforth be known as BLABBIDY BLABBIDY BLABBIDY BLABBIDY.
posted by Sublimity at 12:44 PM on November 13, 2019 [19 favorites]


Seems like in lieu of substantive questioning, Republicans are going for sound bites that will play well in the news and campaign ads.

They know their audience isn't paying attention to the process -- why else would Trump keep insisting people read the call "transcript" that makes him look guilty if he wasn't certain that none of them would actually read it, or if they did just parrot the opinion of it their media told them to have ("I see no quid pro quo")?

These Republican theatrics are about generating clickbaity headlines like "Representative Venal DESTROYS Corrupt Deep State minion in fake impeachment." The more nonsensical the question the better, because Republicans want images of confused public servants who don't know what the heck they're talking about as "evidence" of how they pwnzed the opposition. It isn't meant to stand up to critical reading, because anyone capable of that has already drawn the obvious conclusion that Trump did everything everyone said he did.
posted by Gelatin at 12:49 PM on November 13, 2019 [12 favorites]


NBC News: Hurd's questioning highlights Dems' point on timing of Trump's interest in Ukraine corruption
Rep. Will Hurd, R-Texas, sought to make the point in his line of questioning that the Trump administration provided substantial military aid to Ukraine in fiscal year 2017 and 2018, trying to highlight that the administration was very supportive of Ukraine.

But that point also highlights something else important: that Trump did not become enamored with Urkainian “corruption” until earlier this year, which happens to also be when Biden began running for president. It’s a point Democrats have sought to make in the impeachment process.
Guardian: Representative Mike Turner’s combative questioning of Bill Taylor and George Kent represented quite a reversal from a September hearing with the acting director of national intelligence, during which the Republican congressman expressed concern about Trump’s Ukraine call.
Kaitlan Collins (@kaitlancollins) Reminder that Rep. Mike Turner, who just questioned Taylor moments ago, said this Sept. 26 after reading the transcript: "I want to say to the President: This is not OK. That conversation is not OK..I think it's disappointing to the American public when they read the transcript." November 13, 2019
posted by katra at 1:05 PM on November 13, 2019 [8 favorites]


To me, this looks like Bolton wants to testify but is scared of Trump ... But I'm curious about what he is scared of?

No need to invent convoluted explanations. The simplest explanation is that Bolton does not want to testify.

The idea that Bolton is afraid to testify makes no sense. Today we have Taylor and Kent testifying in public before congress and the whole world. Both Taylor and Kent received subpoenas and also received direct orders from the White House not to testify. But here they are, complying with the subpoena. They seem to have no fear. They are still standing and breathing. Just as Bolton could if only he wanted to.

Bolton is not testifying because he doesn't want to.
posted by JackFlash at 1:15 PM on November 13, 2019 [22 favorites]


Interesting deep cut on appropriateness of behaviour in US politics from Bright Line Watch. Pretty even-handed on what counts as constitutional hardball.
posted by Wrinkled Stumpskin at 1:25 PM on November 13, 2019 [1 favorite]


There's a lot to unpack in that Bright Line Watch article..it might warrant it's own FPP in order to discuss. Just my opinion.
posted by OHenryPacey at 1:33 PM on November 13, 2019 [5 favorites]


Bolton has remembered one of the Maxims: The enemy of my enemy is my enemy's enemy, no more, no less.
I'm sure he'd love to stick on in the back of Trump, but not to the benefit of the libs.
posted by Bovine Love at 2:01 PM on November 13, 2019 [2 favorites]


In RE that Vox link:
As Kent launched into his opening statement, he drew comparisons to a diplomatic Mr. Rogers (or a sterner Bill Nye?).
If only!
posted by sjswitzer at 2:09 PM on November 13, 2019 [1 favorite]


Not to abuse the edit window, but this Bill Nye quote seems apropos:
Grow the fuck up. You're not children anymore. I didn't mind explaining photosynthesis to you when you were twelve, But you're adults now and this is an actual crisis. Got it?

Safety glasses off, mutherfuckers.
posted by sjswitzer at 2:25 PM on November 13, 2019 [37 favorites]


The impeachment hearings, on Earth and Earth-45 (Alexandra Petri, WaPo)
Good news, 2019! In an unprecedented and probably very expensive crossover event, the impeachment hearings are occurring on two parallel and warring Earths that have somehow been shoved into the same hearing room on Capitol Hill.

Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.) delivered a point-by-point account of everything that has happened on impeachment thus far. Aid to Ukraine was being withheld because President Trump wanted the country’s new president to investigate Joe Biden. In a transcript of the call, Trump asks the president to look into this.

Meanwhile, on Earth-45, Devin Nunes (perhaps his presence on the Intelligence Committee in this universe is less confusing) welcomed everyone to a day of televised theatrical performance (like the Kennedy Center Honors) during which players he denounced as actors from central casting would deliver irrelevant statements about bad things Trump might have done, instead of getting into the real questions: the Steele Dossier, something called the Black Ledger (of additional concern because Sabrina the Teenage Witch refused to sign it) and, of course, the cruel and oppressive practice of keeping whistleblowers’ identities secret.
posted by Johnny Wallflower at 2:37 PM on November 13, 2019 [16 favorites]


McSweeney's, I Don't Know Who to Believe in this Impeachment Hearing: "What sounds more believable? That career diplomats with everything to lose would make up a story implicating the most powerful man in America? Or that the president’s butt-dialling, criminal-loving lawyer was involved in something nefarious? I wish this would be easier!"
posted by jocelmeow at 2:39 PM on November 13, 2019 [47 favorites]


Rep. Will Hurd, R-Texas, sought to make the point in his line of questioning that the Trump administration provided substantial military aid to Ukraine in fiscal year 2017 and 2018...But that point also highlights something else important: that Trump did not become enamored with Urkainian “corruption” until earlier this year, which happens to also be when Biden began running for president.

Petro Poroshenko was Zelensky's predecessor as president of Ukraine. Poroshenko wasn't very active against corruption:
His campaign to become president in 2014 was based on the idea that someone like him could rise above corruption. But even those who worked for Poroshenko say that something changed in the year after he won, his reform effort stalling in 2015. His campaign promise of an anti-corruption court lay unfulfilled for years. (Only this month, ahead of the Poroshenko-Zelenskiy run-off, was it finally launched. A spokesperson for his campaign did not respond to interview requests) Media investigations have repeatedly suggested that Poroshenko’s allies benefit from graft. “Poroshenko is very adept at creating this smokescreen of assurances to the West and then fulfilling about 15 percent of them,” said John Lough, a researcher at Chatham House. “Look at the National Agency for Corruption Prevention, which he allowed to be sabotaged. At the end, he increasingly looks and sounds like someone whose mission it is to save the old system.”
Poroshenko appointed unqualified cronies as prosecutor general:
A year after taking office in 2014, President Poroshenko installed a loyal lieutenant, Viktor Shokin, as prosecutor general. There was broad pressure from the international community to push out Shokin for his failure to prosecute corruption. But Poroshenko just replaced him with another lackey, Yuri Lutsenko, the leader of Poroshenko’s political party in the legislature and a man who didn’t even have a law degree. Under Lutsenko, there were no high-level corruption prosecutions either, and he stymied efforts to establish an independent corruption court.
So Trump was helping the Ukrainian government when it was pretty corrupt and withdrew aid aftera reformer was elected.
posted by kirkaracha at 2:58 PM on November 13, 2019 [20 favorites]


Re hearings: I really want pushback on the term 'transcript'. Every time it comes up, I wish the response would first be, "I'm not aware of a transcript. Do you mean the incomplete redacted memo that was hidden in the SCIF?"
posted by j_curiouser at 3:48 PM on November 13, 2019 [46 favorites]


Court Rejects Trump’s Appeal in Fight to Keep Financial Records From Congress (NYT)
A full federal appeals court on Wednesday refused to take up President Trump’s appeal of an earlier ruling that his accounting firm must comply with a House committee’s demands and turn over eight years of his financial records.

In the latest of a string of court losses for Mr. Trump over his uncompromising vow to fight “all” subpoenas from Congress, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia rejected his request that it rehear a case in which he challenged the subpoena to the firm, Mazars USA.
Congress can have access to eight years of Trump’s tax records, appeals court orders (WaPo)
Trump’s lawyers have said they are prepared to ask the Supreme Court to intervene in this case and in several other legal battles between the president and Congress. [...] The D.C. Circuit previously said it would put any ruling against the president on hold for seven days to give Trump’s attorneys time to ask the Supreme Court to step in.

Trump’s attorneys also are planning to ask the high court as soon as this week to block a similar subpoena for the president’s tax records from the Manhattan district attorney, who is investigating hush-money payments in the lead-up to the 2016 election. The New York-based appeals court ruled against Trump this month and refused to block the subpoena to his accounting firm, Mazars USA.
posted by katra at 4:44 PM on November 13, 2019 [12 favorites]


So Trump was helping the Ukrainian government when it was pretty corrupt and withdrew aid aftera reformer was elected.

This was essentially my understanding. Poroshenko was dirty, Trump (et al) thought he (Poro) would win, which was supposedly a given, but he lost (which I believe surprised many).

So, Trump had to figure out how to keep the dirty going and came up with using the money and meeting leverage over $fuckingnewguy. I'm sure a desired secondary effect was to prove Zelinskyy was willing to play ball, which he was, but that all got blown up anyway and here we are now.
posted by rhizome at 5:07 PM on November 13, 2019 [5 favorites]


Poroshenko's time in office overlaps with an older "Ukraine" + "corruption" story: A U.S. State Department report out of Kiev, Ukraine, has accused officials at U.S. Army Europe of trying to cover up the "gross mismanagement" of more than $1.4 million in American taxpayer dollars (Newsweek, Feb. 7, 2019)

Newsweek obtained a copy of a 31-page report containing allegations that officials at U.S. Army Europe intentionally concealed relevant information and lied to the U.S. Embassy's financial office to have more than $1.4 million in foreign military funds distributed without official authorization in the fall of 2017. [...]

The letter also details an alleged financial plot run by the Ukrainian government, saying officials submitted invoices to both the Canadians and the Americans for the same set of meals between July 1, 2016, and January 31, 2017. The complaint indicates that the scheme may have existed since the program's inception back in 2015, resulting in hundreds of thousands of American tax dollars being wasted, according to the documents.

Separate from the alleged cover-up of unauthorized payments and the Ukrainian scheme, the report outlines how the lack of basic administrative and logistic controls over such items as food and fuel led to the likelihood that "a large sum of money was wasted in support of this program."

posted by Iris Gambol at 5:30 PM on November 13, 2019


George Kent, top State Department Ukraine expert, helps Democrats debunk GOP theories (WaPo)
“I think it’s amply clear that Russian interference was at the heart of the interference in the 2016 election cycle,” Kent said, echoing the assessment of every U.S. intelligence agency, and every Trump-appointed head of those agencies. [...] Kent also dispelled some lesser-known theories and talking points taken up by Trump’s defenders.

For instance, Democrats asked him to comment on the claim by Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) that Trump’s threat to withhold aid to Ukraine was “exactly” the same tactic used by then-Vice President Biden when he threatened to withhold aid if Ukrainian prosecutor general Viktor Shokin wasn’t fired. “I do not think they are the same thing,” Kent said. What Biden requested, Kent said, was the removal of “a corrupt prosecutor general . . . who had undermined a system of criminal investigation that we built with American money to build corruption cases.” Shokin, Kent said, had “destroyed the entire ecosystem that we were trying to create,” and he credited Biden for leading a U.S. effort to combat corruption in Ukraine.

Democrats also questioned Kent about the campaign waged by Trump’s personal lawyer, Rudolph W. Giuliani, to oust the former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch. Giuliani and Ukraine’s ex-chief prosecutor, Yuri Lutsenko, have accused Yovanovitch of providing a “do not prosecute list” to Ukrainian officials to protect Biden and others. Kent adamantly rejected those allegations, saying, “I have every reason to believe it is not true.” He described Lutsenko as a “corrupt” prosecutor with questionable motives and defended Yovanovitch as “dedicated, as is every U.S. government official in Ukraine, to help Ukrainians overcome the legacy of corruption.”

[...] And Kent testified, “I did not witness any efforts by any U.S. official to shield Burisma from scrutiny. In fact, I and other U.S. officials consistently advocated reinstituting a scuttled investigation of [Mykola] Zlochevsky, Burisma’s founder, as well as holding the corrupt prosecutors who closed the case to account.”

In his closed-door deposition last month, Kent also expressed concerns about rampant corruption in Ukraine’s government and business community. Before serving at the embassy in Kyiv, Kent was the senior anti-corruption coordinator in the State Department’s European Bureau.
posted by katra at 6:21 PM on November 13, 2019 [12 favorites]


I woke up today and turned on the TV. CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC all had live coverage of the impeachment of Trump. Fox was showing Judge Judy.

I just wish someone would tell Jim Jordan "I wrestle with this question" or somesuch. Or maybe the Dems could put their own signs up in the back of the hearing room. Maybe "I'm with him" or "baby on board" to show absurd that conduct is.
posted by baegucb at 6:33 PM on November 13, 2019 [1 favorite]


Fox was showing Judge Judy? After her 2020 Bloomberg endorsement? Mark a vote of no confidence.
posted by Iris Gambol at 6:54 PM on November 13, 2019


Fox News covers impeachment hearing by defending Trump and gaslighting viewers (Guardian)
After Taylor and George Kent, the deputy assistant secretary of state, wrapped up their opening statements, it was time for the hearing proper to begin. Adam Schiff cleared his throat and began questioning the men at the center of the first public impeachment hearing in a generation.

As the world watched with bated breath, Fox News used this moment to cut to an ad break, a Muppets-themed advertisment dancing across the screen as other news channels showed Schiff officially kicking off the inquiry. [...]

When the network cut back to the studio, its hosts couldn’t muster much of a response. Bret Baier reckoned, spuriously, that Republican committee member Jim Jordan had “really hit home” with his questioning. Chris Wallace, among the less partisan Fox News hosts, conceded Taylor “had been an effective witness”.

It fell to Dana Perino, White House press secretary under George W Bush turned professional Fox News guest, to recycle a talking point from the Robert Mueller Trump-Russia investigation: that all this was expensive.
posted by katra at 7:11 PM on November 13, 2019 [6 favorites]


I should mention Fox news and other tv stations were local to me. And I worked at Fox decades ago (10201 West Pico Blvd. is still ingrained in my brain). Just what I saw when I woke up.
posted by baegucb at 7:24 PM on November 13, 2019 [2 favorites]


Normally EU Ambos don’t call presidents. They never do so to discuss Ukraine policy. Doing so on a cellphone from Kyiv means whole world was listening in.

"The Best People" are so bad at infosec I start to wonder if it isn't on purpose; I just can't figure out why.
posted by Mitheral at 8:46 PM on November 13, 2019 [5 favorites]


talking point from the Robert Mueller Trump-Russia investigation: that all this was expensive.

IIRC the assets seized from Manafort more than covered the expenses of the Mueller investigation.

You may have to visit Manafort in prison if you want to confirm this personally. He was Trump's campaign chairman.

While you're on your prison tour, why not say hello to Michael Cohen, Trump's personal lawyer. Maybe he'll reprise his famous statement to other Trump yes-men: 'What he did to me he'll do to you'.

You could swing by the courts to check on Flynn, Trump's national security advisor, who blew up is plea agreement it seems in hopes of a pardon. Maybe you could relay that message from Cohen.

And while you're at court, stick around for the Roger Stone show. That man has Richard Nixon tattooed on his back, literally. He was Trump's ... I don't know... wikileaks liaison?

That's the short list. Seems like Mueller's witch hunt found a lot of fucking witches!

Fuck William Barr and his effort to bury the report. Now a majority of people think there was nothing in it!
posted by adept256 at 9:09 PM on November 13, 2019 [31 favorites]


I wonder where Stone is going to put his Trump tattoo?
posted by ryanrs at 9:52 PM on November 13, 2019 [3 favorites]


The taint, just like everyone else.
posted by kirkaracha at 9:59 PM on November 13, 2019 [23 favorites]


Rachel Maddow called it the quote you'd put on the mug if you were making swag for Trump Impeachment 2019 Day 01:

"You can't promote principled anti-corruption action without pissing off corrupt people." - George Kent

I watched the entire hearing today, it was fascinating and infuriating in several different ways.
posted by carsonb at 11:31 PM on November 13, 2019 [16 favorites]


WaPo:
Dueling narratives, separated by a polarized media, collide at first public impeachment hearing
Mike Rothschild, a researcher and author who specializes in debunking conspiracy theories, said coaxing the public not to watch would be effective for the people already prepared to line up behind the president. “But it seems a bit desperate,” he added, born of an inability to “refute anything that the witnesses are claiming.”
But there were probably many Americans, said Nyhan, the political scientist, who don’t follow online news closely, and who may have been tuning in for the first time on Wednesday.
For these viewers, the narrative spun by Nunes would prove difficult to comprehend.
“Most Americans aren’t watching Hannity every night,” he said, referring to Sean Hannity, the Fox News host and Trump confidant. “I can’t imagine a normal person would understand what he’s talking about.”
I found the whole thing hard to watch because the Republicans were so absurdly, obviously focused on taking down the very foundations of democracy and international cooperation. It was literally painful to watch. I forget who it was, but there was one Republican who seemed to realize in the middle of his question that he really didn't want an answer to it, so he just shouted over Ambassador Kent. Who can watch that and not see the corruption of that Congressman?
posted by mumimor at 2:14 AM on November 14, 2019 [19 favorites]


how did anybody get anything done in the summer of '74 I'd like to know
posted by angrycat at 3:41 AM on November 14, 2019 [10 favorites]


Dueling narratives, separated by a polarized media, collide at first public impeachment hearing

Both siding a batshit insane GOP and Fox News against everyone else. They really buried the lede with that one.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 5:15 AM on November 14, 2019 [12 favorites]


how did anybody get anything done in the summer of '74 I'd like to know

No internet.
posted by Pendragon at 5:20 AM on November 14, 2019 [33 favorites]


Matt Oswalt (@MattOswaltVA):
the Impeachment Hearings is like watching Wheel of Fortune where the puzzle is completely solved but contestants keep guessing letters
posted by callmejay at 6:54 AM on November 14, 2019 [96 favorites]


And the GOP keeps trying to buy a vowel but all they ever choose is Q over and over, wasting everyone’s time and showing a flagrant ignorance and disregard for the rules of the event.
posted by Servo5678 at 7:15 AM on November 14, 2019 [14 favorites]


Bill Taylor, George Kent, and the Power of Expertise (Lili Loofbourow, Slate)
With their deep knowledge and clear confidence in their own neutrality, the first impeachment hearing witnesses painted a clear picture of what’s at stake. […]

What America saw today was a shocking demonstration of what it looks like when actual experts testify to things they know about. [Their] testimony accomplished something the Robert Mueller hearing never could: It made the stakes clear. The “national security” mentioned during the Mueller hearings often felt too abstract for the average person to care about, especially given how much remained classified, how hard to follow much of it was. The story of what has happened in Ukraine is not simple. But through their testimony, Taylor and Kent made the country spring to life as an actual place with actual people whose concerns deserve consideration and whose urgent circumstances they can very capably communicate.
posted by ZeusHumms at 7:40 AM on November 14, 2019 [15 favorites]


The struggle I'm seeing in these public hearings, is whether or not the House GOP can successfully use such a venue to disinform, confuse and exhaust an audience with their Putin-style fogging.
I'm thinking not, as they don't seem to have the stamina or planning ability to continue that effectively over many weeks, plus they get undercut by The Tweeter several times a week.
posted by Harry Caul at 8:08 AM on November 14, 2019 [3 favorites]


The struggle I'm seeing in these public hearings, is whether or not the House GOP can successfully use such a venue to disinform, confuse and exhaust an audience with their Putin-style fogging.

Democrats need to be more consistent with the message that the Republicans using the hearings as a venue to disinform, confuse and exhaust is an admission that Trump did what his accusers say he did, that there's no legitimate defense, and the Republicans know it, and they're doing it anyway.
posted by Gelatin at 8:20 AM on November 14, 2019 [16 favorites]


Normally EU Ambos don’t call presidents. They never do so to discuss Ukraine policy. Doing so on a cellphone from Kyiv means whole world was listening in.

Have you considered the possibility that Trump wanted Putin to hear him trash talking Ukraine?
posted by JackFlash at 8:27 AM on November 14, 2019 [3 favorites]


Impeachment Is Not a Fair Fight, and on Day One It Showed (Renato Mariotti, Politico Magazine)
There’s only so much Republicans can do when Democrats have all the evidence they need.
If it looked like House Republicans were throwing a lot of mud at the wall to see what might stick during the first day of public impeachment hearings, that’s because they had settled into a strategy many defense attorneys adopt when the prosecution has the goods on their client—confuse the issues and distract the audience from the evidence at hand.

I’ve tried many federal criminal cases, and Wednesday’s hearing looked a lot like trials in which the prosecution has the defendant on tape admitting to a crime. When defense attorneys can’t mount a defense on the merits, they raise a lot of peripheral issues in the hope of convincing at least one juror that there is reasonable doubt.

[...] But they simply can’t overcome the abundant evidence Democrats possess to prove their central point—that President Donald Trump conditioned military aid to Ukraine on a public announcement that his political rival, Joe Biden, was under investigation. [...] What hamstrings Republicans most is the psychology of Trump himself. He has refused to admit the quid pro quo and instead argue that it is not an impeachable offense, as many prominent Republicans have advocated. Admitting wrongdoing would take a lot of the air out of the impeachment hearings, but Trump appears incapable of doing so.

So Democrats will remain in the enviable position of proving a point on which they have ample evidence, even though Trump has kept them from getting key documents and witnesses. It’s not hard to tell a compelling story when you hold all the cards, but it won’t be a winning hand unless they can move public opinion.
posted by katra at 8:28 AM on November 14, 2019 [6 favorites]


I've learnt that the way Taylor was pronouncing 'Kiev', as keev rather than key-ev was in the Ukrainian manner, whereas the latter is the Russian way. It's one of those small but big differences.
posted by adept256 at 8:33 AM on November 14, 2019 [29 favorites]


To nitpick a little, he's pronouncing a different word: Ukrainian "Kiyv" (Київ), not Russian "Kiev" (Киев).
posted by hat_eater at 8:45 AM on November 14, 2019 [14 favorites]


Kyiv not Kiev: Why spelling matters in Ukraine’s quest for an independent identity.

Although many news outlets are sticking with "Kiev" and pronouncing it "key-ev", it is not the correct latinization of the capital city of Ukraine. From the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine, Official guidance on the correct spelling and usage of Ukrainian place names.
posted by peeedro at 8:58 AM on November 14, 2019 [13 favorites]


From twitter (with video): An explanation of how to pronounce the Ukrainian capital, for all those who are confused today.

It seems like the KEEV pronunciation is actually an accommodation for non Ukrainian speakers, but is closer to the favored pronunciation.
posted by Exceptional_Hubris at 9:26 AM on November 14, 2019 [4 favorites]


Trump supporters don't care if Trump commits crimes, plays dirty politics, or hands Ukraine to Russia. All things said and done, it would be easier if they could cling to some weak sauce rationale that Trump did nothing wrong, but ultimately, they believe Trump is fighting a war on their behalf against globalism. For them, that's what's important.
posted by xammerboy at 9:38 AM on November 14, 2019 [1 favorite]


Fun fact: "Ukraine" is pronounced ooh-cry-ee-nah in Ukrainian.
posted by sjswitzer at 9:48 AM on November 14, 2019 [13 favorites]


It appears that Democrats are getting smart and abandoning the phrase "quid pro quo" and replacing it with "bribery" which means the same thing without all the lawyerly Latin gobbledygook. Nancy Pelosi herself is now using the word bribery.

Bribery is a better word because everyone clearly understands what it means. And the word bribery is right there in the constitution in the impeachment clause. No Democrat should use the phrase quid pro quo again. They should use it's clear English word, bribery. The word should be used in the articles of impeachment.
posted by JackFlash at 10:06 AM on November 14, 2019 [37 favorites]


WaPo: Live updates: Pelosi says testimony of diplomats ‘corroborated evidence of bribery’ by Trump
Pelosi used the word “bribery” Thursday to describe Trump’s actions toward Ukraine, going further than she previously has done in outlining House Democrats’ accusations against the president. Wednesday’s testimony by acting ambassador to Ukraine William B. Taylor Jr. and Deputy Assistant Secretary of State George Kent corroborated “evidence of bribery” and supported allegations that Trump violated his oath of office, Pelosi said at her weekly news conference. [...]

At her news conference, Pelosi also forcefully pushed back against the efforts by Trump and his allies to dismiss the testimony of Kent and Taylor as “secondhand.” “That is such a fraudulent proposition put forward by the Republicans,” Pelosi said. “We are not here to be manipulated by the obstruction of justice of the administration.”
posted by katra at 10:15 AM on November 14, 2019 [10 favorites]


How Adam Schiff avoided a circus during first televised impeachment hearing (James Hohmann, WaPo via SF Gate)
1. Putting the Intelligence Committee in charge of the impeachment inquiry after the Lewandowski mess elevated Chairman Adam Schiff [who is a former prosecutor].

2. Doing the closed-door depositions in advance meant that Democrats knew what to ask and didn't waste time beating around the bush.

3. Letting the witnesses deliver long opening statements on their own terms made the hearing look less partisan.

4. Giving a lawyer for each side 45 minutes to question the witnesses meant less grandstanding and more substance.

5. Not waiting for legal battles to play out allowed Democrats to emphasize the degree to which Trump is still stonewalling the investigation.
Schiff has said repeatedly in recent weeks that he's not going to let the Trump administration go "rope-a-dope," a boxing technique to describe moving around the ring to avoid clashing. He decided not to wait for depositions with key witnesses like acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney or former national security adviser John Bolton. There are court cases playing out related to the enforcement of subpoenas that Trump officials have refused to comply with. Schiff felt waiting on these to play out would delay the start of the public phase too much. Wednesday showed he didn't need to wait.

Democrats on Wednesday repeatedly highlighted notes and other records that have not been turned over, including from Taylor and Kent, by the State Department. This undercut the White House talking point that there aren't first-hand witnesses. There aren't first-hand witnesses because they're not being allowed to appear.
Emphasis mine.

This is today's Daily 202 column from WaPo; I wanted to see if it was more accessible coming from a different site.
posted by ZeusHumms at 10:16 AM on November 14, 2019 [23 favorites]


I liked the part where instead of focusing on the proper legal terminologies for Trump's many and varied vilenesses, the witnesses yesterday quietly but persistently emphasized the fact that Ukrainian soldiers very likely died as a result of Trump's trying to play a game of monkey-in-the-middle with Zelenskiy over those javelins.

I forget which of many putrid drips yesterday kept saying "Are you calling Zelenskiy a liar? He said he didn't feel pressured. If you're saying Trump pressured him, then you're calling him a liar." Bullshit! Trump pushed him and he did not yield. Trump attempted to make him feel pressure; he didn't feel pressure. That doesn't change squat about Trump being a pushy, pressuring, perfectly-willing-to-let-those-soldiers-die, disgusting, inhumane monster, does it? Just because you leap nimbly over your moribund consciences in order to bend over for Trump every day of your lives doesn't mean everybody does, you pitiful mewling pack of weaklings.
posted by Don Pepino at 10:29 AM on November 14, 2019 [16 favorites]


Bribery is a better word because everyone clearly understands what it means.

Except that bribery doesn't capture the extortion part of it. A lot of people don't feel Trump bribing someone for political dirt to be a big deal. What about the gun to the head of Ukraine's people? What about that entire country's existence as a democracy being threatened? The carrot being offered here was needed to dodge a country sized bullet.
posted by xammerboy at 10:31 AM on November 14, 2019 [15 favorites]


Republicans say they have a right to confront the whistleblower. Here’s why that’s wrong. (WaPo)
Even in a criminal prosecution, where confrontation rights are guaranteed, defendants aren’t permitted to face off with every person who participated in an investigation.

For example, the right to confrontation would not apply to an anonymous tipster who heard about a crime and called the local police station. It applies only to testimony a prosecutor relies upon to prove his or her case, explained former director of the U.S. Office of Government Ethics Walter Shaub.

As Congress enters a new phase of televised hearings, it’s unlikely Republican lawmakers or Trump’s desire to hear from the whistleblower will wane. Some experts said the overwhelming focus on his or her identity is largely a distraction. Others have called it an attempt to encourage retaliation. “The idea is to make the consequences of reporting wrongdoing so severe that others will be afraid to do so in the future,” Shaub said.
Impeachment witnesses can expect abuse, death threats, say survivors of past political scandals (Reuters)
John Dean entered the witness protection program. Valerie Plame feared for her children. Both are veterans of U.S. political scandals that threatened the White House, and they have a warning for the witnesses who are testifying against President Donald Trump in the current public impeachment hearings. Life is about to change, it could get ugly, and death threats will become routine.

“You know that politics is a blood sport, but you can never quite be prepared for what is coming your way,” Plame, who was at the center of a 2003 episode that rocked the presidency of George W. Bush, said in a telephone interview. “They’re going to be subjected to all kinds of abuse.”
posted by katra at 10:34 AM on November 14, 2019 [6 favorites]


"moving around the ring to avoid clashing" is not what i've always understood rope-a-dope to mean, nor what ali is credited with having done. believe that is more akin to "float like a butterfly." ali: "the new style about laying in the ropes sometimes and letting the man punch himself out. it is called the rope-a-dope."

would also add that it is not an apt description of the behavior of president horrorshow, widely celebrated (?) as a "counterpuncher," though i would quibble with that description too: more of a sucker puncher.
posted by 20 year lurk at 10:35 AM on November 14, 2019 [8 favorites]


AP source: 2nd US official heard Trump call with Sondland (Desmond Butler, Michael Biesecker And Matthew Lee, AP)
The July 26 call between Trump and Gordon Sondland was first described during testimony Wednesday by William B. Taylor Jr., the acting U.S. ambassador to Ukraine. Taylor said one of his staffers overhead the call while Sondland was in a Kyiv restaurant the day after Trump’s July 25 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy that triggered the House impeachment inquiry.

The second diplomatic staffer also at the table was Suriya Jayanti, a foreign service officer based in Kyiv. A person briefed on what Jayanti overheard spoke to AP on condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive matter currently under investigation. […]

The staffer Taylor testified about is David Holmes, the political counselor at the embassy in Kyiv, according to an official familiar with the matter who spoke on condition of anonymity.

Holmes is scheduled to testify Friday before House investigators in a closed session.
posted by ZeusHumms at 10:39 AM on November 14, 2019 [10 favorites]


Bribery is a better word because everyone clearly understands what it means. And the word bribery is right there in the constitution in the impeachment clause. No Democrat should use the phrase quid pro quo again. They should use it's clear English word, bribery. The word should be used in the articles of impeachment.

I have a couple of issues with this. Moving away from "quid pro quo" is good, but "extortion" would be more accurate than "bribery." I wouldn't be surprised if Trump has been bribed but this case is closer to extortion.

Using a word that's in the impeachment clause reinforces the misconception that the president's actions need to be explicitly listed in the Constitution and you can't impeach him for something that isn't listed.

Using a term that also refers to a crime reinforces the misconception that an impeachable offense must also be a criminal offense.
posted by kirkaracha at 10:44 AM on November 14, 2019 [11 favorites]


Any term which is used will be rules lawyered into the ground in bad faith, so why not choose terms that are clear and understood to be improper? Use bribery and/or extortion.

Focus on communication and message to the public, not evading Devon Nunes' rants.
posted by benzenedream at 10:56 AM on November 14, 2019 [16 favorites]


I have a couple of issues with this. Moving away from "quid pro quo" is good, but "extortion" would be more accurate than "bribery." I wouldn't be surprised if Trump has been bribed but this case is closer to extortion.

You've got it backwards. Trump was giving a bribe to get what he wanted, not receiving a bribe. Trump was offering the bribe of military aid and an official White House visit in exchange for an investigation of his political opponent. Bribery is a crime whether giving or receiving.

The public clearly understands bribery, but what is extortion exactly? What is its precise legal definition? What are the required elements for extortion? Republicans could pick over these issues just like quid pro quo.

Using a word that's in the impeachment clause reinforces the misconception that the president's actions need to be explicitly listed in the Constitution and you can't impeach him for something that isn't listed.

Reinforces them for whom? A bunch of constitutional scholars forever arguing over the number of fairies that could dance on the head of a pin?

Who cares? An impeachment is a political process, not a legal one. You win by winning over the public with simple, clear arguments, like bribery, which is spelled out right there in the constitution. Let the legal scholars waste their breath on what constitutes "high crimes and misdemeanors."
posted by JackFlash at 11:01 AM on November 14, 2019 [9 favorites]


Rudy Giuliani says Trump will stay loyal to him but jokes that he has 'insurance' (Guardian)
Rudy Giuliani, Donald Trump’s personal lawyer, has said he is confident the president will remain loyal to him as an impeachment inquiry unfolds in which the former New York mayor has become a central figure.

But Giuliani joked that he had good “insurance” in case Trump did turn on him, amid speculation Republicans will seek to frame him as a rogue actor. In a telephone interview with the Guardian, in response to a question about whether he was nervous that Trump might “throw him under a bus” in the impeachment crisis, Giuliani said, with a slight laugh: “I’m not, but I do have very, very good insurance, so if he does, all my hospital bills will be paid.”

Giuliani’s lawyer, Robert Costello, who was also on the call, then interjected: “He’s joking.”

Whether it was a joke or a veiled threat, Giuliani has emerged as a key player in the impeachment proceedings, which center on the question of whether Trump sought to pressure the Ukrainian government to investigate his political rival, Joe Biden. [...] “I acted properly as his lawyer,” Giuliani said. “I did what a good lawyer is supposed to do. I dug up evidence that helped to show the case against him was false; that there was a great deal of collusion going on someplace else other than Russia. And then I stepped on the number one minefield, which is Joe Biden, who is heavily protected by the Washington press corps.”
posted by katra at 11:38 AM on November 14, 2019 [13 favorites]


Extortion seems like a more appropriate term than bribery because Ukraine was promised that aid, and Trump chose to withhold it in hopes of getting his bidding done. I'm not sure that 'bribery' is going to win over the public, some of whom already resent that the U.S. earmarks funds for any manner of international aid; I've heard the why do we send ___ to ____, when we have needy people right here at home reasoning more than a few times. Some people think that Trump 'bribing' Ukraine, to get intel unavailable domestically because of the awful, corrupt swamp he's so doggedly committed to draining, was a good tactic. They believe their president is smart, and has done nothing wrong.

(No, as it happens I'm not spending Thanksgiving with my family of origin.)
posted by Iris Gambol at 11:39 AM on November 14, 2019 [5 favorites]


Jay Goldberg, a longtime friend and former lawyer for Trump, told MSNBC that Giuliani has a book of his Ukraine contacts that hasn’t yet been subpoenaed and if it is could be harmful to the president. (Washington Post, Oct. 17, 2019) (And that's just a relatively recent lever; Giuliani and Trump have known one another so long that Giuliani's son Andrew, a WH staffer, thinks of Trump as 'a father figure.')
posted by Iris Gambol at 11:53 AM on November 14, 2019 [2 favorites]


...according to an official familiar with the matter who spoke on condition of anonymity.

How come these people get to remain anonymous, while the actually-brave whistle-blowers are outed? Media, you suck.
posted by wenestvedt at 11:55 AM on November 14, 2019 [13 favorites]


How come these people get to remain anonymous
Because that's how you get information? Because that's how journalism works?
posted by neroli at 12:08 PM on November 14, 2019 [7 favorites]


Trump was giving a bribe to get what he wanted, not receiving a bribe.

In as much as it was bribery, I think this is backward. What makes a bribe a bribe is the personal payment for official services rendered. In this case he was demanding a bribe, i.e. personal assistance with his reelection, in exchange for fulfilling his official duties.

Though, he didn't have to really even 'do' anything to fulfill those officially duties, just not intercede to withhold the already authorized assistance.

That said, not being a law-talking person, I'm unclear there's a difference between "demanding a bribe" and "extortion". In a non-legal sense, the simply fact that holding up the services was literally costing lives makes it read as extortion to me.
posted by bcd at 12:16 PM on November 14, 2019 [6 favorites]


How come these people get to remain anonymous
Because that's how you get information? Because that's how journalism works?


It's how one type of journalism works, and it's not a form that has been covering itself in glory these last few years. Fahrenthold didn't rely on insiders looking to knife someone else to uncover the massive frauds committed by everyone in the Trump Foundation.
posted by Etrigan at 12:19 PM on November 14, 2019 [11 favorites]


Bribery +1

It's impeachable - *literally right there* in the Constitution. No arguing about wtf a "high crimes and misdemeanors" is. No point in wordplay over what's impeachable.
posted by j_curiouser at 12:19 PM on November 14, 2019 [2 favorites]


Can we all agree on briber-tortion?
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 12:30 PM on November 14, 2019 [10 favorites]


+1 to what Iris Gambol said.

we can all think these hearings are going great but if his supporters think he was doing the only possible thing to get that Biden guy then they don’t think it’s bribery, extortion, or wrong.

they think he is doing what it takes to keep the liberals and democrats from getting away with... whatever it is we get away with bc it’s obviously not stealing elections.
posted by affectionateborg at 12:32 PM on November 14, 2019 [5 favorites]


I'm a bit curious why a "misuse of the Lincoln Bedroom" argument isn't being trotted out for the phone call as well. The president has proffered US government assets in exchange for a campaign donation. It even has a nice monetary value attached so the President has set just how much a crime it was. It is a measly 391 million dollar campaign violation.
posted by srboisvert at 12:32 PM on November 14, 2019


Fahrenthold didn't rely on insiders
David Farenthold, like every other good journalist, uses anonymous sources.
posted by neroli at 12:34 PM on November 14, 2019 [8 favorites]


extorting a bribe?
posted by bcd at 12:40 PM on November 14, 2019 [4 favorites]


George Kent's Gigantic Impeachment Nalgene Has Me Quid Pro Quenched
U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary George Kent spent the first day of the impeachment inquiry straight guzzling from a Nalgene tall boy of water on national television and I have never been more inspired in my whole dang life. The bow-tied bureaucrat took 48 ounces of pure H2O to the head over the course of the hours-long testimony leaving me, yes, I'll say it again, quid pro quenched. Am I thirsty for impeachment? Yes indeedy. Am I thirsty for anything else? Not after pounding a liter and a half of aqua like my boy George over here. I am hydrated as hell and ready to take on corruption and/or dry skin!
...
This big honkin' water bottle is so impressive that the lawyer for the Republicans, who I believe is Nicholas Cage playing Castor Troy from Face/Off, took one look at it and threw in the towel. He was like, "Our defense doesn't hold water, but this does! This witness is slaked! Time to slowly deflate in my chair like an unruly preteen at a required family dinner."
posted by kirkaracha at 12:43 PM on November 14, 2019 [28 favorites]


the lawyer for the Republicans, who I believe is Nicholas Cage playing Castor Troy from Face/Off
I was thinking Dennis Miller in a Ron Perlman skin suit, but to each their own.
posted by Harry Caul at 12:51 PM on November 14, 2019 [4 favorites]


Fahrenthold didn't rely on insiders
David Farenthold, like every other good journalist, uses anonymous sources.


And, like every other good journalist, he doesn't selectively edit sentences that he quotes to make them sound like people are saying something different.

Fahrenthold didn't rely on insiders looking to knife someone else means something different from "uses anonymous sources", and it's disingenuous to pretend that he's practicing the kind of access journalism that allows obvious image-polishing.
posted by Etrigan at 12:52 PM on November 14, 2019 [4 favorites]




I've learnt that the way Taylor was pronouncing 'Kiev', as keev rather than key-ev was in the Ukrainian manner, whereas the latter is the Russian way. It's one of those small but big differences.

The Western way however is a breaded chicken breast with a garlic butter filling and it is pronounced "delicious".
posted by srboisvert at 12:58 PM on November 14, 2019 [6 favorites]


What if they mix it up and catch them off guard by going the other way? Forget all the Latin and decades of dirty dealing and all the blood on his hands and pick the least traditionally criminal aspect of this and just refuse to back down? Like, "We, congress, said we were sending these weapons to Ukraine. You held up the execution of our order because you think you're in a more-equal branch of government. Well, you're not, and we're putting our foot down on this strong-executive shit right now, better forty+ years late than never. You defied congress, and that fulfills the misdemeanor part of high crimes n misdemeanors, so you can GTFO, you big lesion."
posted by Don Pepino at 12:59 PM on November 14, 2019 [4 favorites]


At least one of the benefits of the GOP good old boy network is that they're sending their fucking idiot cronies to do a substandard job. That's one thing I love about cryptofascist authoritarian wannabes. They're so high on their own farts and so far to the left of the Dunning-Kruger scale that they basically shoot their own feet off quite a lot of the time through their own arrogance.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 1:05 PM on November 14, 2019 [16 favorites]


Per TPM, Zelensky was days away from doing an interview on CNN during which he would meet Trump's demands when the whistleblower story broke
posted by nubs at 1:18 PM on November 14, 2019 [9 favorites]


John Dean entered the witness protection program. Valerie Plame feared for her children. Both are veterans of U.S. political scandals that threatened the White House Republicans

Fixed for the media that is still afraid to draw attention to plain facts.
posted by Gelatin at 1:21 PM on November 14, 2019 [26 favorites]


I'm a bit curious why a "misuse of the Lincoln Bedroom" argument isn't being trotted out for the phone call as well. The president has proffered US government assets in exchange for a campaign donation. It even has a nice monetary value attached so the President has set just how much a crime it was. It is a measly 391 million dollar campaign violation.

I am reminded of:
U.S. Code § 30121. Contributions and donations by foreign nationals

(a) Prohibition It shall be unlawful for—

(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make—
(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;
(B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or
(C) an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 30104(f)(3) of this title); or

(2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.
(Emphasis mine)
posted by mikelieman at 1:40 PM on November 14, 2019 [8 favorites]


What's impeachable is what get votes as impeachable. It's a political process, not legal. I'm sure there are a lot of Republicans out there that think what Trump did was impeachable, but not bad enough to outweigh the good he is doing. Trump's actions may meet the legal definition of bribery, but that doesn't mean Senators need to vote to impeach him.
posted by xammerboy at 2:59 PM on November 14, 2019 [1 favorite]


Yeah I’m with the phrase “bribery”. A $400 million dollar bribery.

People understand it and it’s easy to digest. I’ll give you money if you do something you don’t really want to do.

Let’s not get hung up on the technicalities here. They are not important on TV. It doesn’t matter if legal scholars want to argue whether or not it’s legally correct. This is marketing and sales, not the law. As soon as you go the other way, my mom is going to get confused and change the channel
posted by jasondigitized at 3:11 PM on November 14, 2019 [7 favorites]


Can't find a link to it, but I just heard NPR's Audie Cornish grow completely exasperated during an interview with Jim Jordan about yesterday's impeachment hearing. Every single thing out of Jordan's mouth was disingenuous, and she was having none of it. He also shouted over her, as is his wont. He came across like a complete nut bar and you could practically smell the flop sweat through the airwaves.
posted by Sublimity at 3:11 PM on November 14, 2019 [13 favorites]


Anyone who expected anything even slightly different from an interview with Jim Jordan should be demoted at a minimum.

That's what he does.

That's all he does.
posted by delfin at 3:35 PM on November 14, 2019 [3 favorites]


Of course that’s all he does. It was refreshing to hear a member of the media refuse to accept it.
posted by Sublimity at 4:03 PM on November 14, 2019 [12 favorites]


Russian spies likely intercepted ambassador's cell phone call with Trump. Ambassador Sondland violated procedures by calling Trump from his personal cell phone while in Ukraine. Multiple intelligence agencies are apparently known to tap cell phone calls in Ukraine, so it is likely that Russian Intelligence listened in on the call. State department staff had repeatedly tried to tell Sondland not to use his personal cell phone for official business.

but her emails
posted by biogeo at 4:15 PM on November 14, 2019 [37 favorites]


Here's a link to the Jim Jordan interview.
posted by PhineasGage at 4:18 PM on November 14, 2019 [3 favorites]


For those that feel compelled to listen to that Jim Jordan/Audie Cornish interview, it's just been posted on NPR's website.
posted by notpace at 4:20 PM on November 14, 2019 [4 favorites]


Bloomberg, Giuliani Faces U.S. Probe on Campaign Finance, Lobbying Breaches
Rudy Giuliani, President Donald Trump’s personal lawyer, is being investigated by federal prosecutors for possible campaign finance violations and a failure to register as a foreign agent as part of an active investigation into his financial dealings, according to three U.S. officials.

The probe of Giuliani, which one official said could also include possible charges on violating laws against bribing foreign officials or conspiracy, presents a serious threat to Trump’s presidency from a man that former national security adviser John Bolton has called a “hand grenade.”

A second official said Giuliani’s activities raise counterintelligence concerns as well, although there probably wouldn’t be a criminal charge related to that. The officials, who asked for anonymity to discuss a sensitive matter, provided the first indication of the potential charges under investigation.
posted by jocelmeow at 4:54 PM on November 14, 2019 [10 favorites]


I want to go to DC and picket either Congress or the DOJ with "NO PLEA BARGAINS."
posted by rhizome at 5:04 PM on November 14, 2019 [2 favorites]


Sondland's been criming on the phone, with that security violation.
posted by j_curiouser at 5:04 PM on November 14, 2019 [4 favorites]


My mistake--the interviewer was Jessica Taylor, not Audie Cornish.
posted by Sublimity at 5:26 PM on November 14, 2019 [2 favorites]


At the end of that interview Jordan went to "Ukraine got their aid and Zelensky didn't make the announcement, so what's the problem?"
posted by achrise at 5:34 PM on November 14, 2019 [4 favorites]


At the end of that interview Jordan went to "Ukraine got their aid and Zelensky didn't make the announcement, so what's the problem?"

You still get busted for stealing if you try to put the goods back once you get caught.
posted by Gelatin at 5:43 PM on November 14, 2019 [19 favorites]


At the end of that interview Jordan went to "Ukraine got their aid and Zelensky didn't make the announcement, so what's the problem?"

The Sideshow Bob quote is pithy, but when trying to explain the idiocy of this it's more, "The mugger sees the cop walk up and puts his gun away and says keep the wallet. No problem there either, right?
posted by bcd at 5:46 PM on November 14, 2019 [18 favorites]


Zelensky only got the aid because Bolton gave the go ahead. Bolton quit the next day.
posted by xammerboy at 6:22 PM on November 14, 2019 [21 favorites]


It really can't be stressed enough -- and isn't being -- that Republicans keep moving the goalposts because the defenses they offer keep failing. Saying they released the aid once the whistleblower complaint was released isn't a defense, it's an admission of guilt.
posted by Gelatin at 6:29 PM on November 14, 2019 [34 favorites]


Zelensky only got the aid because Bolton gave the go ahead. Bolton quit the next day.

Presumably this is Bolton's story. It remains unconfirmed. There were two bundles of money, $250 million from the Pentagon and $141 million from the State Department. According to the story, Bolton ordered the release of the $141 million from the State Department.

This doesn't explain how a National Security Adviser can give orders to the State Department, nor does it explain how the other bundle of $250 million from the Defense Department was also released.

From other accounts it was Mick Mulvaney from his Office of the Management and Budget role, that was controlling the spigot. I'm reserving judgement on this Bolton self-serving story until more details are revealed.
posted by JackFlash at 6:39 PM on November 14, 2019 [19 favorites]


Absolutely what JackFlash just explained. The timing is a matter of public record, so the fact that the release didn't happen till after they knew the jig was up makes that whole defense laughable, but the actual mechanism of the release is still a matter of unsubstantiated claims from people with skin in the game. Better to wait and see about that part.
posted by bcd at 6:57 PM on November 14, 2019 [3 favorites]


@JasonSCampbell
Laura Ingraham: "Attempted bribery isn't in the Constitution"
posted by xammerboy at 7:43 PM on November 14, 2019 [3 favorites]


NYT: Appeals Court Rules President Must Turn Over 8 Years of Tax Returns

Trump Asks Supreme Court to Bar Release of His Tax Returns
President Trump asked the Supreme Court on Thursday to bar his accounting firm from turning over eight years of his tax returns to Manhattan prosecutors.
...
In their petition urging the Supreme Court to hear their appeal, Mr. Trump’s lawyers argued that he was immune from all criminal proceedings and investigations so long as he remained in office. But even if some federal investigations may be proper, the petition said, the Supreme Court should rule that state and local prosecutors may not seek information about a sitting president’s conduct.
...
Mr. Trump’s lawyers noted that the Supreme Court heard cases concerning claims of immunity from Presidents Richard M. Nixon and Bill Clinton.
...
In the two earlier cases, United States v. Nixon in 1974 and Clinton v. Jones in 1997, both presidents suffered unanimous losses.
Ceterum censeo, Trumpo delenda est
posted by kirkaracha at 7:48 PM on November 14, 2019 [18 favorites]


Laura Ingraham: "Attempted bribery isn't in the Constitution"

Darn. Foiled again by the stellar constitutional scholars of the Federalist Society.

Note she has confessed that it was bribery.
posted by JackFlash at 7:54 PM on November 14, 2019 [34 favorites]


Yeah, I was just about to say: at least they’re now admitting it was an attempt at bribery.

I suspect there will be some high level messaging meetings between the GOP and Fox over the next couple of days to dial that back, though.

Because probably the last thing you want to be doing is admitting Trump did his darned best to commit a high crime or misdemeanor, but just couldn’t quite manage to close the deal.
posted by darkstar at 8:18 PM on November 14, 2019 [9 favorites]


"You know what — this new guy, Zelenskiy, this former media star" needed to be approached, Jordan said. Once Vice President Pence, Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson and others who attended his inauguration returned saying, " 'This guy is the real deal. He's worth the risk. He's worth the investment, ' " the money was then released, Jordan argued.

Isn't this quote from the Jordan/NPR interview a complete lie? I thought Mike Pence did NOT attend the inauguration and instead Rick Perry was sent in his place. So like WTF NPR journalist? You're just going to let that slide, print it, and not rebut that?
posted by XhaustedProphet at 8:56 PM on November 14, 2019 [1 favorite]


I listened to the full Jim Jordan interview several times (masochist, I know). Although I personally believe there isn't a level of Inferno deep and horrific enough for him, I think we are mistaken if we think he got dunked on. If we put ourselves in the mind of an average, inattentive citizen, let alone a Fox "News" aficionado, a lot of what he said sounds plausible even if perhaps not fully persuasive. We are far from winning the messaging battle so far.
posted by PhineasGage at 9:39 PM on November 14, 2019 [9 favorites]


Word. It'll be a huge mistake if Ds sit back and try to 'let the testimony speak for itself'. They need strategic leaks to keep the press engaged with the message. Continuous, credible narration with a titillating 'anonymous' backstory. At least.
posted by j_curiouser at 9:44 PM on November 14, 2019 [2 favorites]


at least they’re now admitting it was an attempt at bribery

We're two weeks away from the final form of their message: "Yeah, he committed impeachable offenses. What are you gonna do about it, libs?"
posted by Johnny Wallflower at 9:53 PM on November 14, 2019 [23 favorites]


White House budget official is prepared to testify on frozen Ukraine aid (Politico)
Mark Sandy, a senior White House budget official, is prepared to testify Saturday to House impeachment investigators about his knowledge of President Donald Trump's decision to halt nearly $400 million in military aid to Ukraine, his lawyer indicated Thursday. Sandy's lawyer, Barbara Van Gelder — who is also representing former National Security Council aide Tim Morrison — said Sandy intends to testify if he receives a subpoena from lawmakers, a step Democrats have repeatedly taken with other cooperative witnesses to sidestep orders from the White House to refuse to testify.

A series of witnesses have indicated Trump ordered a freeze on military aid in early July, just as he and his personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani were leaning on senior Ukrainian officials to announce investigations of Trump's political rivals. The aid, which Ukraine depends upon to help fend off Russian military aggression in Crimea, was held until Sept. 11, despite unanimous approval from the State Department, Joint Chiefs of Staff, Pentagon, CIA and National Security Council that it should be distributed. [...]

Sandy would become the first official at the White House's Office of Management and Budget to talk to impeachment investigators, a breakthrough that could shed light on how Trump's effort to freeze aid to Ukraine was handled at the highest echelons of the administration. Sandy, according to investigators, signed a document on July 25 formalizing Trump's freeze on military aid — though the move had been revealed internally a week earlier.
posted by katra at 10:31 PM on November 14, 2019 [5 favorites]


WATCH LIVE: The Trump Impeachment Hearings – Day 2 (PBS)
Marie Yovanovitch, the former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine who was ousted from her position, is scheduled to testify Friday in a public hearing as part of the impeachment inquiry against President Donald Trump. The hearing is scheduled to begin at 9 a.m. ET. Watch live
WATCH LIVE: Open Hearing with Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch (U.S. House Intelligence Committee, YouTube)
On Friday, November 15, 2019 at 9 AM EST, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence will hold an open hearing with the Honorable Ambassador Marie “Masha” Yovanovitch, Former Ambassador to Kyiv, Ukraine. This is the second public hearing in the House impeachment inquiry.
Watch LIVE On November 15 | 8am ET | C-SPAN2
The House Intelligence Committee holds an open hearing as part of the ongoing impeachment inquiry. Former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch is slated to testify.
posted by katra at 10:56 PM on November 14, 2019 [8 favorites]


Fun fact: "Ukraine" is pronounced ooh-cry-ee-nah in Ukrainian.

Not quite; the Ukrainian word for “Ukraine” is “Ukraina”, which ends with '-a' as it is feminine. It's as different from the English name as Firenze is from Florence.
posted by acb at 2:07 AM on November 15, 2019 [6 favorites]


Isn't this quote from the Jordan/NPR interview a complete lie? I thought Mike Pence did NOT attend the inauguration and instead Rick Perry was sent in his place. So like WTF NPR journalist? You're just going to let that slide, print it, and not rebut that?

I think it's fatigue + practical issues in dealing with the fact that Republicans Lie ALL THE TIME. The appealing thing with the interview of Jordan is that there was SOME pushback to SOME of Jordan's lies.

I didn't expect to see ANY pushback, so it's refreshing, but still a far cry from the still hypothetical "best-practice" of, "That's a lie, you're acting in bad-faith, so let's move on to... and I'll end the interview immediately if you try to lie to me again"
posted by mikelieman at 2:32 AM on November 15, 2019 [7 favorites]


I suppose it does need to be pointed out that it's incredibly stupid to assert that the people who should be doing that kind of vetting of a wildcard new leader of a country are... the president's personal lawyer, and someone completely new to an ambassadorial post that doesn't even include said country.

By that point in the interview Jordan had gone into full shout-over mode--an obvious "tell" that what he's shouting about is so easily refuted that he can't permit any space for a response.
posted by Sublimity at 3:28 AM on November 15, 2019 [2 favorites]


‘He does nothing without a quid pro quo’ (Daniel Lippman, Politico)
How Trump’s New York negotiating style clashed with the ways of Washington — and landed him on the brink of impeachment.

President Donald Trump has always viewed life through the prism of his next real estate deal, betting he can just bulldoze opponents into giving him what he wants. But Washington doesn’t work that way.

Now, as he battles an impeachment inquiry that sprang from his alleged attempt to bully a foreign leader, those who know Trump say it’s in large measure because he never made the switch from the brash, no-holds-barred New York businessman portrayed in “The Art of the Deal” to the president of a country governed by laws and norms of behavior.
The simplistic behaviors that made him a "successful" NYC businessman don't exactly work the same way in other contexts.
posted by ZeusHumms at 4:53 AM on November 15, 2019 [4 favorites]


Isn't this quote from the Jordan/NPR interview a complete lie? I thought Mike Pence did NOT attend the inauguration and instead Rick Perry was sent in his place. So like WTF NPR journalist?

Some of my more rage filled listens have been to news and radio interviews with Republicans. They lie, or nearly the equivalent, and often get away with it. The things is, the journalists don't know. They're not on as on the ball as most informed citizens.

Many journalists really consider it their job to elicit and put forward a variety of considered opinions without commentary. The people they have on their shows are supposed to be experts, and the assumption is they're honest.

Of course the system has been totally gamed, but journalism has yet to figure out what to do about it. Personally, I think radio and print journalism should stop printing politicians period. Politicians are not experts. They get their information from lobbyists.

One idea would be to get information from non-partisan groups only. Another idea would be to keep a scorecard. If a source of information proves to be factually incorrect, they should have a public rating or something that reflects that. But it's capitalism that drives this too. If the news is driven by ratings, the news is going to keep having controversial guests.
posted by xammerboy at 5:59 AM on November 15, 2019 [5 favorites]


The sartorial choices at these hearings have been A+. First the bowtie, now that beautiful Hermès scarf.
posted by all about eevee at 6:11 AM on November 15, 2019 [6 favorites]


@AndrewDesiderio:
JUST IN: White House releases transcript of Trump’s first call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.
posted by ZeusHumms at 6:18 AM on November 15, 2019 [1 favorite]


If the whistle-blower ever makes an appearance, I recommend a Slayer tee.
posted by j_curiouser at 6:19 AM on November 15, 2019 [8 favorites]


betting he can just bulldoze opponents into giving him what he wants. But Washington doesn’t work that way.

Before Trump's 2016 campaign began, I would have agreed with this.
posted by Rykey at 6:20 AM on November 15, 2019 [4 favorites]


"transcript" - once again, this is a call memo and not a verbatim transcript.
posted by notpace at 6:21 AM on November 15, 2019 [15 favorites]


If the whistle-blower ever makes an appearance, I recommend a Slayer tee.

...And it HAS to be this one.
posted by Rykey at 6:24 AM on November 15, 2019 [3 favorites]


It's not a transcript. (CNBC)
The White House on Friday released a memorandum of an April 21 phone call between President Donald Trump and then-Ukrainian President-elect Volodimyr Zelenskiy.

Trump in the call extended an invitation to bring Zelenskiy to the White House, according to the four-page memo, which notes in a footnote that it is "not a verbatim transcript of a discussion."

"I'd like to invite you to the White House. We'll have a lot of things to talk about, but we're with you all the way," Trump said. The conversation was 16 minutes long, according to the memo.

The U.S. president also told Zelenskiy "When I owned Miss Universe, they always had great people. Ukraine was always very well represented." Trump owned the beauty pageant from 1996 to 2015.
posted by katra at 6:25 AM on November 15, 2019 [4 favorites]


I am liking Schiff shutting down the noise. It's about time.
posted by Harry Caul at 6:29 AM on November 15, 2019 [12 favorites]


I like Schiff in general. Nancy Pelosi chose the right man for the job.
posted by all about eevee at 6:41 AM on November 15, 2019 [5 favorites]


The simplistic behaviors that made him a "successful" NYC businessman don't exactly work the same way in other contexts.

Note also the article's effective admission that business in the United States is not "governed by laws and norms of behavior." And then one recalls just who it that demands the government be run "like a business."
posted by kewb at 6:41 AM on November 15, 2019 [7 favorites]


Coverage of the first impeachment hearing [11/13] illustrates how the media is falling short (Aaron Rupar, Vox)
The proceedings got to the very core of what the office of the presidency is supposed to be about in our country. It was the stuff of history. But to hear Reuters and NBC tell it, one of the major faults of the hearing was that it simply lacked pizzazz.

Both outlets were roundly dragged for posting news analysis stories that focused on the entertainment value (or purported lack thereof) of the hearing. NBC’s piece, authored by Jonathan Allen, claimed that the hearing “lacked the pizazz necessary to capture public attention” — a turn of phrase that quickly became a meme and echoed the talking points Trump family members and administration officials used.
Late night talk shows picked up on this.

‘Is this an impeachment hearing or an episode of ‘Dance Moms?’’: Media roasted for saying event lacks ‘pizazz’
(Allyson Chiu, WaPo)
“Impeachment is like a family reunion,” Noah said Thursday night on his show. “If it’s sexy, something has gone horribly wrong.”

Noah wasn’t the only one Thursday to attack coverage that focused more on the hearing’s entertainment value than the substance of the testimonies from acting U.S. ambassador to Ukraine William B. Taylor Jr. and Deputy Assistant Secretary of State George Kent. Other late-night comics, Democrats and social media commentators also weighed in, and soon, the backlash became a trending Twitter moment.
posted by ZeusHumms at 6:58 AM on November 15, 2019 [18 favorites]


The simplistic behaviors that made him a "successful" NYC businessman don't exactly work the same way in other contexts.

To be fair, there’s actually no other context in which he could lose money freely by inheriting his father’s tax fraud, bankrupt six (not four) businesses, try to steal an infant’s medical insurance, launder russian mob money, misuse charity foundations, bribe state attorneys general and run a fake university.
posted by Harry Caul at 7:15 AM on November 15, 2019 [23 favorites]


Schiff just interrupted her testimony to read Trump's "Everywhere Marie Yovanovitch went turned bad." tweet.
posted by TWinbrook8 at 7:27 AM on November 15, 2019 [2 favorites]


Said tweet:
Everywhere Marie Yovanovitch went turned bad. She started off in Somalia, how did that go? Then fast forward to Ukraine, where the new Ukrainian President spoke unfavorably about her in my second phone call with him. It is a U.S. President’s absolute right to appoint ambassadors.
posted by ZeusHumms at 7:36 AM on November 15, 2019 [1 favorite]


Guardian: Trump smears Yovanovitch's reputation as she testifies
Trump has sent off a two-part tweet questioning the professional reputation of Maria Yovanovitch as the former US ambassador to Ukraine publicly testifies in the impeachment inquiry.
Guardian: It looks like the Democrats on the House intelligence committee intend to incorporate Trump’s disparaging tweet about Maria Yovanovitch into today’s impeachment hearing.
Alayna Treene (@alaynatreene)
.@RepAdamSchiff's staff just handed out printouts of this tweet to Intel members on the dais https://t.co/D9xdNt5xe8 November 15, 2019
Guardian: Yovanovitch defends herself against Trump's smear
Adam Schiff, the Democratic chairman of the House intelligence committee, has just read Trump’s tweet disparaging Maria Yovanovitch as the longtime diplomat testifies in the impeachment hearing.

Reacting to Trump’s claim that “everywhere Marie Yovanovitch went turned bad,” Yovanovitch joked, “I don’t think I have such powers.” Yovanovitch went on to assert that, through their work, she and her fellow diplomats had “demonstrably made things better, both for the US and for the countries I’ve served in.”
posted by katra at 7:37 AM on November 15, 2019 [17 favorites]


Marcy Wheeler (@emptywheel) tweet: "I could witness tamper right in the middle of my own impeachment investigation and get away with it."

Yov better stay the fuck away from Fifth Avenue.
posted by mikepop at 7:41 AM on November 15, 2019 [34 favorites]


One of the defenses of Trump is — literally — a TV-cartoon joke (Bill Oakley, WaPo OpEd)
A former “Simpsons” writer on the “Sideshow Bob defense.”
posted by ZeusHumms at 7:56 AM on November 15, 2019 [10 favorites]




Another good one from Marcy Wheeler:
Hey journalists?!?!?!

Does LIVE WITNESS TAMPERING amount to "pizzazz" in your book?

(Also, any journalists or pundits complaining about the process being "boring" are admitting they are not competent to do their jobs and should be summarily fired.)
posted by Gelatin at 8:05 AM on November 15, 2019 [40 favorites]


Guardian: Fox News anchors described the testimony of Maria Yovanovitch as a “turning point” in the impeachment inquiry against Trump. [...]
Bret Baier (@BretBaier) That was a turning point in this hearing so far. She was already a sympathetic witness & the President’s tweet ripping her allowed Schiff to point it out real time characterizing it as witness tampering or intimidation -adding an article of impeachment real-time. https://t.co/HSCkGMIqmH November 15, 2019
[...]
Toluse Olorunnipa (@ToluseO) Chris Wallace on Fox News: "If you were not moved by the testimony of Marie Yovanovitch, you don't have a pulse." November 15, 2019
posted by katra at 8:05 AM on November 15, 2019 [28 favorites]


"and…he just…he tweeted it out.” is going to be the title of the chapter on the Trump presidency in textbooks some day.
posted by Etrigan at 8:11 AM on November 15, 2019 [19 favorites]


Jordan: "this new guy, Zelenskiy, this former media star"

These guys have absolutely no self-awareness at all.
posted by JackFlash at 8:14 AM on November 15, 2019 [31 favorites]


One of the defenses of Trump is — literally — a TV-cartoon joke (Bill Oakley, WaPo OpEd)

The ultimate irony being that Sideshow Bob is on the phone to the right wing talk host during that joke.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 8:18 AM on November 15, 2019 [20 favorites]


Me: (Also, any journalists or pundits complaining about the process being "boring" are admitting they are not competent to do their jobs and should be summarily fired.)

By the way, remember how the Watergate story broke? Some reporter was doing the boring duty of covering routine arrests when they noticed that several men had been busted for burglarizing the Democratic National Committee headquarters.

And they didn't have to rely on Twitter to notice how important that fact was.

Reporters are supposed to glean the important details from otherwise-boring proceedings, and it's a mark of how far the profession has fallen that more than one of them complains, in print, that they aren't being sufficiently entertained.
posted by Gelatin at 8:24 AM on November 15, 2019 [35 favorites]


The Sideshow Bob joke is highlighted upthread.
posted by ZeusHumms at 8:27 AM on November 15, 2019 [1 favorite]


Jordan rejected the notion that Trump’s tweets amount to witness tampering. “The witness is testifying. She wouldn’t even know about the quote if Mr. Schiff hadn’t read the tweet,” Jordan said.

Same excuse as for the bribery. They claim that Zelensky didn't know about the bribery, therefore it wasn't a crime.

Trump: "I be crimeing, but the victims didn't know so it's all okay."
posted by JackFlash at 8:43 AM on November 15, 2019 [5 favorites]


WaPo: 11:25 AM EST Democrats say Trump’s tweet could be basis for another article of impeachment
Rep. Jackie Speier (D-Calif.), who sits on the Intelligence Committee, tweeted: “.@POTUS tampering with and intimidating a witness in real time while testifying is shocking and beneath any office, let alone the Office of the President.”

“The president just demonstrated witness intimidation & obstruction of justice in real time. Yuvanovitch is a dedicated, truth-telling, career foreign service official who knows how to put country first, over partisanship. Trumps actions are truly dangerous,” wrote Rep. Pramila Jayapal (Wash.) (Yovanovitch’s name was misspelled.)

And Rep. Ted Lieu (Calif.) tweeted: “Why is @realDonaldTrump engaging in witness intimidation of Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch while she testifies during the #ImpeachmentHearings? Because her testimony is devastating to @POTUS.”
Guardian: Democrats say they will consider Trump's smear for articles of impeachment
Representative Eric Swalwell, one of the Democratic members of the House intelligence committee, said that Trump’s attack on Maria Yovanovitch “will be considered” for one of the articles of impeachment. One of Swalwell’s fellow Democrats on the panel, Andre Carson, similarly said the committee would “look into” whether Trump engaged in witness intimidation.
posted by katra at 8:44 AM on November 15, 2019 [9 favorites]


Imagine if the President of the United States asked the Attorney General to open an investigation into a political rival, and the Attorney General said “No”.

Then imagine that the President said, if you do it, I’ll give you four hundred-million dollars.

That would be bad, right?

Now, replace the U.S. Attorney General with the President of Ukraine.

And replace the four hundred-million dollars of the President’s money with four hundred-million dollars of U.S. taxpayer money which the Congress had legally mandated should go to Ukraine, so Ukraine can defend itself against an ongoing Russian invasion.

Is that any better? Because that is what happened.
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 8:47 AM on November 15, 2019 [73 favorites]


There's at least one other instance of OMB funding weirdness that has all the outward appearances of the Ukraine aid decisions prior to late September of this hear.

I would be super-interested to know why Mulvaney's OMB diverted funds in 2018 from the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program (GCDAMP) and Grand Canyon Monitoring and Resource Center (GCMRC). The decision at the time was regarded as entirely inscrutable, but there was very little press coverage. I seem to recall that funding was somehow later restored, but I can find zero press coverage about how the issue was ultimately resolved.

These programs both supported jobs in Arizona, and neither of Arizona's senators got along well with Trump. Mulvaney also had a history with one of our senators: John McCain was the only Republican senator to vote against Mulvaney's confirmation to head OMB.

Funding was diverted in summer of 2018, about two months after McCain criticized Trump’s family separation policy. Flake was also critical of the decision. (In the most extremely mild sense of the word "critical.")

I’m not sure when funding was restored, but I absolutely would not be surprised to learn that it was after McCain died. GCDAMP and GCMRC are both the result of the Grand Canyon Protection Act, legislation that was sponsored by John McCain.

Was the funding diversion punitive? An attempt to gain something of value? Maybe it was for other totally bonkers or vindictive reasons. It would be nice to know. But the appearance of the funding decision is consistent with what was publicly known about Ukraine aid prior to coverage of the whistleblower’s report in September of this year. Funds that had already been authorized by Congress were blocked by Mulvaney’s OMB for inscrutable reasons, and then funds were restored when it was no longer politically expedient to continue blocking them.
posted by compartment at 8:49 AM on November 15, 2019 [16 favorites]


Roger Stone, uh . . so guilty.
posted by Harry Caul at 8:51 AM on November 15, 2019 [48 favorites]


Guess theyre gonna have to . . . Lock Him Up!
posted by Exceptional_Hubris at 8:53 AM on November 15, 2019 [15 favorites]


First they came for the self-identified “dirty tricksters”, which kinda makes sense if you think about it
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 8:55 AM on November 15, 2019 [26 favorites]


Roger Stone, uh . . so guilty.

This is a big deal because Roger Stone is a direct link between Trump and the Russian hackers. Stone literally discussed this with Trump on the phone.

This is the step in the collusion conspiracy that Mueller failed to make because he was pressured to file his report before the Stone trial.
posted by JackFlash at 8:58 AM on November 15, 2019 [17 favorites]


...And because he was denied the ability to interview many people including the President.
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 8:59 AM on November 15, 2019 [15 favorites]


Roger Stone Is Found Guilty in Trial That Revived Trump-Russia Saga (NYT)
In one of the trial’s most revealing moments, Rick Gates, Mr. Trump’s deputy campaign chairman, recounted a July 31, 2016, phone call between Mr. Stone and Mr. Trump, just days after WikiLeaks had released a trove of emails embarrassing the Clinton campaign. As soon as he hung up with Mr. Stone, Mr. Gates testified, Mr. Trump declared that “more information” was coming, an apparent reference to future releases from WikiLeaks that would rattle his political rival.

Mr. Gates’s testimony called into question Mr. Trump’s answers to queries from the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, who conducted a criminal inquiry into Russia’s election interference. Mr. Trump, who agreed to respond to questions only in writing rather than sit for an interview, said he could not recall the specifics of any of 21 conversations he had with Mr. Stone in the six months before the election. Mr. Stone told House investigators that he never discussed his conversations with an intermediary to WikiLeaks with anyone involved in the Trump campaign. [...]

Because Mr. Stone misled them, prosecutors said, lawmakers failed to pursue promising leads and arrived at inaccurate conclusions in their final report on Russia’s election interference. For instance, they said, the committee never discerned the full scope of contacts between Mr. Stone and the Trump campaign about WikiLeaks.
posted by katra at 9:05 AM on November 15, 2019 [7 favorites]


If I had my druthers, I would not want to do prison time with a giant grinning tattoo of Richard Nixon on my back.
posted by JackFlash at 9:06 AM on November 15, 2019 [3 favorites]


Idk, it could become a gang thing. Don’t mess with the Stoners.
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 9:10 AM on November 15, 2019


emptywheel tweet: And, minutes after the President witness tampers in real time, his rat-fucker is found guilty of witness tampering.

Roger Stone joins Trumps' former campaign chairman, deputy campaign chairman, personal attorney, and National Security advisor in the Convicted Felon box.
posted by RedOrGreen at 9:10 AM on November 15, 2019 [47 favorites]


I’m waiting for the Trump tweet where he says he barely knew Mr Stone, he worked with him for a handful of decades, if that.
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 9:12 AM on November 15, 2019 [6 favorites]


Roger Stone joins Trumps' former campaign chairman, deputy campaign chairman, personal attorney, and National Security advisor in the Convicted Felon box.

Cue the Trump tweet that he hardly knows Stone, too.
posted by Gelatin at 9:13 AM on November 15, 2019


"POTUS tampering with and intimidating a witness in real time while testifying is shocking and beneath any office, let alone the Office of the President.”

Does witness intimidation violate Twitter's TOS?
posted by bz at 9:16 AM on November 15, 2019 [14 favorites]


The prosecutor who gave the opening statement in the Roger Stone trial was Aaron Zelinsky. What's it called when the present starts rhyming with itself?

Also, that pic of Roger Stone in the yahoo news article reminded me of the Twitter thread I always think of whenever Stone comes up (if you've never scrolled through the entire thing before, I truly envy you).
(Edit: if you're on your phone, be sure to click on the picture of him to get full enjoyment)
posted by mabelstreet at 9:17 AM on November 15, 2019 [21 favorites]


This is the step in the collusion conspiracy that Mueller failed to make because he was pressured to file his report before the Stone trial.

Mueller didn't have time to talk with Rick Gates, Trump’s deputy campaign chairman, about Stone, who everyone knew was involved with WikiLeaks, during his long investigation?

Because Mr. Stone misled them, prosecutors said, lawmakers failed to pursue promising leads and arrived at inaccurate conclusions in their final report on Russia’s election interference.

If you were investigating Russian collusion, would you believe Roger Stone to be a credible source of truthful information?
posted by xammerboy at 9:26 AM on November 15, 2019 [7 favorites]


If you were investigating Russian collusion, would you believe Roger Stone to be a credible source of truthful information?

Maybe not, but I would certainly be glad for the chance to seize all his stuff and go through it with a fine-toothed comb.
posted by wenestvedt at 9:31 AM on November 15, 2019 [6 favorites]


Guardian: Republicans on the intelligence committee began their questioning of Maria Yovanovitch by attempting to violate the House resolution outlining procedures in the impeachment inquiry. [...]
Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) NUNES intentionally violates the impeachment inquiry rules by yielding to STEFANIK. They know this violates the process set out for the impeachment inquiry and then pretend to be shocked when Schiff gavels them down. November 15, 2019
posted by katra at 9:44 AM on November 15, 2019 [18 favorites]


Modern Republicans: they run the gamut from Pizza-gate to pizzazz-gate.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 9:45 AM on November 15, 2019 [6 favorites]


Republicans on the intelligence committee began their questioning of Maria Yovanovitch by attempting to violate the House resolution outlining procedures in the impeachment inquiry.

Obviously this stunt was designed to play to the Republican/Fox News base (but I repeat myself), but I wonder if it means Republicans perceive Trump is such bad trouble over the facts that they have to gin up a "the process is UNFAIR!!!1!" soundbite.

Republicans may have voted unanimously against the open hearings (despite having demanded them), but by participating they consent to the rules. If they don't like the rules, they can walk out and let the Democrats and witnesses talk without histrionics. (And they know that'd go even worse for them.)
posted by Gelatin at 9:51 AM on November 15, 2019 [3 favorites]


Obviously this stunt was designed to play to the Republican/Fox News base (but I repeat myself), but I wonder if it means Republicans perceive Trump is such bad trouble over the facts that they have to gin up a "the process is UNFAIR!!!1!" soundbite.

They were doing similar "This whole HEARING is out of order!" crap on Wednesday too. They're shotgunning "UNFAIR" soundbites to see what works.
posted by Etrigan at 9:55 AM on November 15, 2019 [5 favorites]


Mueller didn't have time to talk with Rick Gates, Trump’s deputy campaign chairman, about Stone, who everyone knew was involved with WikiLeaks, during his long investigation?
Within the Trump Campaign, aides reacted with enthusiasm to reports of the hacks. [redacted] discussed with Campaign officials that WikiLeaks would release the hacked material. Some witnesses said that Trump himself discussed the possibility of upcoming releases [Redacted] .... Michael Cohen, then-executive vice resident of the Trump Organization and special counsel to Trump, recalled hearing [redacted]. Cohen recalled that Trump responded, "oh good, alright," and [redacted]. Manafort said that shortly after WikiLeaks July 22 2016 release of hacked documents, he spoke to Trump [redacted]. Manafort recalled that Trump responded that Manafort should [redacted] keep Trump updated. Deputy campaign manager Rick Gates said that Manafort was getting pressure about [redacted] information and that Manafort instructed Gates [redacted] status updates on upcoming releases. Around the same time, Gates was with Trump on a trip to an airport [redacted] , and shortly after the call ended Trump told Gates that more releases of damaging information would be coming. [Redacted] were discussed within the Campaign, and in the summer of 2016, the Campaign was planning a communications strategy based on the possible release of Clinton emails by WikiLeaks.
Mueller Report, vol II, pp 17-18

Emphasis mine.

We know that some of that redacted material was about Stone (eg Cohen has publicly said he overhead Stone tell Trump on the phone that more releases were coming.) The redactions are all coded "Harm to Ongoing Matter" and were presumably mostly left out so that the could be revealed at Stone's trial rather than in the report.

In any case, what you heard at Stone's trial is absolutely stuff that Mueller uncovered and mostly stuff that was in the report. It is worth reading that report or one of the many adaptations of it before buying into Barr's BS spin that it is exculpatory for Trump. It is not.
posted by OnceUponATime at 9:56 AM on November 15, 2019 [24 favorites]


Roger Stone Is Found Guilty in Trial That Revived Trump-Russia Saga

Oh frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!

Seriously, the way that Stone has gotten away with everything in his life, I was certain he was going to find one juror to believe him. This almost makes up for Roy Cohn never being convicted.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 9:59 AM on November 15, 2019 [10 favorites]


So what is the expected sentence for Stone? And is he expecting a pardon?
posted by gwint at 10:13 AM on November 15, 2019


Anybody got time today to write up a FOIA request for unredacted copies of the portions of the Mueller report that were previously redacted for "harm to ongoing matter"?
posted by mabelstreet at 10:25 AM on November 15, 2019 [5 favorites]


Regarding Roger Stone:
Relevant Doonesbury
posted by Emmy Noether at 10:30 AM on November 15, 2019 [14 favorites]


Anybody got time today to write up a FOIA request for unredacted copies of the portions of the Mueller report that were previously redacted for "harm to ongoing matter"?

Congress has already sued to get the unredacted report. Bill Barr is fighting it. The case has been going on for months since the release of the redacted report. A federal judge ruled just a couple weeks ago that the unredacted material must be released, but Barr has appealed. It will probably take another 6 months to work its way to the Supreme Court.

Bill Barr is doing everything in his power as Trump's personal attorney to prevent the release of a report that he says "totally exonerates" Trump.
posted by JackFlash at 10:39 AM on November 15, 2019 [12 favorites]


while congress is considering witness tampering charge for today's tantrum, i hope they remember those tweets at michael cohen and family.
posted by 20 year lurk at 10:47 AM on November 15, 2019 [7 favorites]


From 538's liveblog

Devin Dwyer 1:52 PM
If there was any doubt how damaging Republicans believe the president's real-time tweet attack on Yovanovitch could be, just listen to them lavish her with empathy and gratitude one by one. After Trump suggested Yovanovitch messed up every place she served -- and was "bad news" in Ukraine -- Stefanik comes out and says the foreign service is "lucky to have you;" Conaway hails her "exemplary service;" and Wenstrup acknowledges the hardships she has faced in her decades of service. Softening the touch on a very compelling female witness at a time when Republicans can't afford to alienate suburban women voters.
posted by ZeusHumms at 11:13 AM on November 15, 2019 [15 favorites]


Now that Stone is found guilty, what happens to Credico? I would hope he gets the book thrown at him for not cooperating, but.
posted by C'est la D.C. at 11:44 AM on November 15, 2019


Trump blows up effort to blunt impeachment damage (Politico)
To start the day, the White House insisted Trump was too busy working to track Friday's hearing, which featured testimony from Marie Yovanovitch, the ousted ambassador to Ukraine. And it released a document summarizing Trump's first phone call with newly elected Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in April of this year, seeking to bolster its claim that Trump did nothing wrong in his dealings with the Eastern European leader, the subject of the House's impeachment inquiry. [...]

The tone of that April 21 call, which was blasted out moments before ousted ambassador Yovanovitch began testifying, was much more congratulatory, taking place hours after Zelensky's historic landslide election. [...] Notably, the document released Friday does not include a mention of Ukrainian corruption, even though a readout of the the White House issued in April said the two leaders discussed implementing “reforms that strengthen democracy, increase prosperity, and root out corruption.”

The White House did not respond to a list of questions on Friday, including a request to explain that discrepancy. [...]

Several administration officials have testified in closed-door depositions with House impeachment investigators that they eventually came to see mentions of investigating “corruption” in Ukraine as code for the Biden and 2016 election investigations.
posted by katra at 11:45 AM on November 15, 2019 [8 favorites]


Who among us has not occasionally made a phone call without committing any crimes?
posted by sjswitzer at 11:50 AM on November 15, 2019 [15 favorites]


Notably, the document released Friday does not include a mention of Ukrainian corruption, even though a readout of the the White House issued in April said the two leaders discussed implementing “reforms that strengthen democracy, increase prosperity, and root out corruption.”

It's not just the constant lies, it's that they are so bad at the lying. Their own readout and 'transcript' don't match on the single most important detail. Normally I'd say you can't guess which is the lie, but when the readout happened the fact that 'corruption' was code for fabricating lies about political opponents wasn't widely known, so it seems without a doubt that something damning was said and then removed from that 'transcript.
posted by bcd at 11:52 AM on November 15, 2019 [4 favorites]




Who among us has not occasionally made a phone call without committing any crimes?

What? Calling up a world leader and bragging about "owning" the Miss Universe pageant and how hot the Ukrainian women are isn't a crime?
posted by JackFlash at 12:04 PM on November 15, 2019


Softening the touch on a very compelling female witness at a time when Republicans can't afford to alienate suburban women voters.

Someone in my Facebook feed pointed out that Trump didn't attack the two male witnesses from Wednesday so rudely.
posted by Gelatin at 12:06 PM on November 15, 2019 [31 favorites]


As this horror show slowly unravels, I so desperately want to know what Trump said to Putin during their private meetings, but I suppose we will never know.
posted by effluvia at 12:18 PM on November 15, 2019 [7 favorites]


As this horror show slowly unravels, I so desperately want to know what Trump said to Putin during their private meetings, but I suppose we will never know.

Don't despair. At the rate we're going, he'll be Tweeting the transcript line by line before Christmas.
posted by Mayor West at 12:22 PM on November 15, 2019 [12 favorites]


If I had my druthers, I would not want to do prison time with a giant grinning tattoo of Richard Nixon on my back.

On the other hand, Nixon is finally behind bars.
posted by los pantalones del muerte at 12:45 PM on November 15, 2019 [73 favorites]


Softening the touch on a very compelling female witness at a time when Republicans can't afford to alienate suburban women voters.

Someone in my Facebook feed pointed out that Trump didn't attack the two male witnesses from Wednesday so rudely.


Note that his attack on her was, at its base, that she simply did not belong in the corridors of power, couched in "She's always been bad at her job." It was as dog-whistley as Trump ever gets: affirmative-action hire, promoted past her ability.
posted by Etrigan at 12:47 PM on November 15, 2019 [10 favorites]


Note that his attack on her was, at its base, that she simply did not belong in the corridors of power,

Fascists love to thin the top of the pyramid on a last-in first-out basis.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 12:54 PM on November 15, 2019 [1 favorite]


So I hear Roger Stone is going to prison
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 1:21 PM on November 15, 2019 [7 favorites]


I really wonder how Stone is going to act if he doesn't get the pardon he expects.
posted by 1970s Antihero at 1:24 PM on November 15, 2019 [3 favorites]


So.... What else is needed to prove Trump colluded with Russia? I'm seriously asking.
posted by xammerboy at 1:24 PM on November 15, 2019 [8 favorites]


That depends on what you mean by "collude." In the legal sense, collusion is by far mostly used as an anti-trust offense, so it has never really been the right word to use in this context.

Now, if you want to talk "conspiracy," we'll have to wait and find out whether there was something that they were conspiring to do. But it seems like things are going in that direction, though I don't have much sense of which veils need to be pierced. S'pose that's more of a problem for Mulvaney and Barr.
posted by rhizome at 1:32 PM on November 15, 2019 [4 favorites]


What else is needed to prove Trump colluded with Russia?

The shortest route to showing a criminal conspiracy would be (I think) to link Kilimnik to IRA and then show that Manafort acted at Trump's direction or with his foreknowledge in sharing polling data with Kilimnik. They're not like super hard dots to connect in informal "yeah, this is probably what happened" terms but the government hasn't (as far as I know) shown evidence for those connections.

I don't know if Roger Stone's underlying conduct was necessarily illegal- just the subsequent coverup. Publicizing emails or optimizing the response to the emails for campaign purposes... I don't know of anything illegal about that. But in the colloquial sense it was super collude-y.
posted by a snickering nuthatch at 1:36 PM on November 15, 2019 [1 favorite]


I read the praise the Rs heaped on Yovanovitch totally differently. It was backhanded praise that served the different sub-narratives they're trying to push:

"Are you OK these days? You're now at Georgetown, making the same salary, so that's good" = "See, it wasn't that horrible to be reassigned"

"I totally empathize with your being uprooted from your post. Why, I remember being called up for duty in Iraq..." = "It happens when you serve your country, you're overreacting, get over it"

"I'm sorry you've been made to be part of this show trial" = "I'm a festering blossom of maggots, feasting on reptile feces, wrapped inside a skinsuit, just the way my base likes it"
posted by Rykey at 1:40 PM on November 15, 2019 [30 favorites]


I don't know if Roger Stone's underlying conduct was necessarily illegal

Stone was text messaging directly with Guccifer 2.0 and Guccifer 2.0 was asking Stone what more he could do for Stone to help him with the Trump campaign (that is, hacking documents). Stone was then coordinating this personally with Trump. That seems like a criminal conspiracy.
posted by JackFlash at 1:51 PM on November 15, 2019 [28 favorites]


we'll have to wait and find out whether there was something that they were conspiring to do.

I'd thought that was fairly clear.

For Russia: de-stabilize the connection between Ukraine and the West, thus enabling Putin to sweep in (overtly or covertly) and re-establish Ukraine as a client state.

For Russia: Discredit the Mueller report (and IC assertion) in its claims that Russia interfered with the 2016 election by direct hacking of the DNC servers and social media campaign, thus justifying cancelling the sanctions that keep Russian oligarchs from being able to park/launder their money in the US.

For Manafort: establish that the proof of his tax fraud was a forgery of "corrupt" Ukrainian prosecutors, thus justifying a pardon for him.

For Trump: Discredit the Mueller report, which threatens his ego about how he won the 2016 election. Also he's probably laundered money from Russia for decades, and the sanctions on Russia may be interfering with his cash flow. Plus he likes "strongmen" to like him, so catering to their cupidity is fine by him.

For Firtash: another oligarch, likely to benefit if the US stops supporting anti-corruption efforts in Ukraine and elsewhere.

For Rudy: keeps the money flowing from and through said oligarchs.

There's some sketchy business with the Ukrainian oil/gas industry that I haven't really dug into, but Rick Perry wanted to appoint some Texans to a major Ukrainian board, so I'm sure there's some dirt there as well.

One of the more impressive things is how far in advance Sarah Kendzior saw a lot of this.
posted by suelac at 2:32 PM on November 15, 2019 [43 favorites]


According to NPR's top-of-the-hour newscast, the Republicans' defense of Trump's conduct regarding Ambassador Yovanovitch is that ambassadors serve at the pleasure of the President and Trump has the power to hire or fire them at will.

NPR did not point out that the issue at hand was not whether Trump had that power, but whether he abused it, and that this Republican talking point is silent on the notion of abuse of power -- it isn't the rebuttal NPR presented it as by "balancing" the evidence established by the Democrats with the spaghetti flung at the wall by Republicans.

It's like trying to defend someone against a murder charge by noting they have a legal right to fire a gun. Yeah, just not into someone.
posted by Gelatin at 2:33 PM on November 15, 2019 [41 favorites]


(So as not to abuse the edit window: NPR also didn't examine the other implication of the Republican legislators' position, which is to embrace the concept that the President is indeed above the law, and that the fact that he has a power means that he can freely exercise it for whatever corrupt motive he chooses.)
posted by Gelatin at 2:37 PM on November 15, 2019 [7 favorites]


the Republicans' defense of Trump's conduct regarding Ambassador Yovanovitch is that ambassadors serve at the pleasure of the President

You kill this by asking, "What did Ambassador Yovanovitch do to displease the President?"
posted by mikelieman at 3:21 PM on November 15, 2019 [21 favorites]


So if Dumbo fired a gun on 5th Avenue (and it went through someone's skull), he had the power to do that. The gun serves at his pleasure.
posted by Dashy at 3:39 PM on November 15, 2019 [1 favorite]


Holmes testimony: Sondland told Trump that the Ukranian President would do "anything you ask him to," and then he confirmed the Ukrainians were going to "do the investigation."

“While Ambassador Sondland’s phone was not on speakerphone, I could hear the President’s voice through the earpiece of the phone. The President’s voice was very loud and recognizable, and Ambassador Sondland held the phone away from his ear for a period of time, presumably because of the loud volume,” Holmes testified.

Holmes said Sondland responded Trump only cares about “big stuff.” When Holmes said that the Ukraine war was big, Sondland responded “‘big stuff’ that benefits the President, like the Biden investigation that Mr. Giuliani was pushing,” Holmes said.

Wow. Sondland, you are screwed.
posted by xammerboy at 4:01 PM on November 15, 2019 [29 favorites]


David Holmes opening statement.

Read it. JFC.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 4:02 PM on November 15, 2019 [42 favorites]


Sondland told Trump: "[Zelensky] would do anything for you. He loves your ass."
posted by xammerboy at 4:08 PM on November 15, 2019 [2 favorites]




Yes, Mr. President, I am on my personal cellphone and at a public restaurant, as you requested . Yes, sir, this will certainly throw off the deep state. Can you speak really loudly though? It's hard to hear you. You want me to put you on speaker? No problem.
posted by xammerboy at 4:19 PM on November 15, 2019 [9 favorites]


Wow. That Holmes statement. So yeah some shit about the president being able to look the kardashians in the eye is now a part of the official record

coolcoolcoolcoolcool
posted by lazaruslong at 4:28 PM on November 15, 2019 [9 favorites]


How a Tweet from Trump Scrambled the GOP’s Impeachment Strategy

With his tweet, Trump not only buttressed her credibility, but turned her into a sort of martyr.
posted by 1970s Antihero at 4:30 PM on November 15, 2019 [7 favorites]


I am flipping back and forth between this tab and A Bored Panda tab that is all teacher collected quotes from school children and it is all blurring into one big thread in my mind and really it is not much different from a normal potus45 thread.
posted by srboisvert at 4:42 PM on November 15, 2019 [2 favorites]


Read the Holmes statement. At the end, I felt tears welling.
This is just the second day of hearings, and the Republicans have already lost control of the message. I'm still not ready to hope. Just taking notes.
posted by mumimor at 4:54 PM on November 15, 2019 [17 favorites]


Trump is that kid the teacher catches red handed with a cheat sheet and then the kid says he can't possibly be guilty of cheating when he still failed the test--because even the cheat sheet he wrote up was all wrong.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 4:55 PM on November 15, 2019 [4 favorites]


Sondland is utterly fucked come Wednesday.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 5:00 PM on November 15, 2019 [12 favorites]


He does nothing without a quid pro quo’ (Daniel Lippman, Politico)
posted by Zeushumms, I think.

The point in that article is that the construction business is like that, and we all have to deal with it. But in real life, the corruption and mob interests that encourage that approach are what make construction ineffective, bad quality, and in the worst cases also dangerous. (I should make a post about this).
posted by mumimor at 5:15 PM on November 15, 2019 [13 favorites]


Nancy Pelosi says Trump's attacks on witnesses "very significant" to impeachment probe
"Because he knows — well, he made a mistake and he knows her strength. And he was trying to undermine it," Pelosi replied.

She added, "Of course, presidents appoint ambassadors, but people don't insult people, especially when they're giving testimony before the Congress of the United States. I think even his most ardent supporters have to honestly admit this is the wrong thing for the president to do."
...
"He should not frivolously throw out insults, but that's what he does. I think part of it is his own insecurity as an imposter. I think he knows full well that he's in that office way over his head. And so he has to diminish everyone else," she added.
Ceterum censeo, Trumpo delenda est
posted by kirkaracha at 5:20 PM on November 15, 2019 [43 favorites]


A source familiar with WH discussions said aides to the president are not happy that Sondland apparently shared his call with Trump with others: “the president speaks loudly. Sondland should know that.”

Soooo...they're confirming Holmes's account?
posted by notsnot at 5:38 PM on November 15, 2019 [8 favorites]


Speaker Pelosi is getting so far into Tr*mp's head he might 'splode before he's impeached...
posted by PhineasGage at 5:39 PM on November 15, 2019 [21 favorites]


Yovanovich testified today that at the very moment she received the call that Trump was dismissing her, she was attending a memorial for a 33-year-old anti-corruption activist who had been attacked on the street by hired goons with sulfuric acid. She suffered and died of her burns three months later.

The corrupt people who ordered the attack are the guys Trump was trying to protect by firing Yovanovich because they were willing to give Trump what he wanted in Ukraine.
posted by JackFlash at 5:56 PM on November 15, 2019 [55 favorites]


I don't like living in the Upside Down.
posted by kirkaracha at 5:58 PM on November 15, 2019 [10 favorites]


JackFlash > ...Calling up a world leader and bragging about "owning" the Miss Universe pageant and how hot the Ukrainian women are isn't a crime?

The Donald may think being Daddy Universe was cool, but he’ll never be as cool as Paul McCartney singing Back in the USSR in Moscow’s Red Square, May 24, 2003, entertaining Putin in the crowd (0:14) with Ukraine girls really knock me out, they leave the West behind.” (1:30ff).
posted by cenoxo at 6:51 PM on November 15, 2019 [5 favorites]




After private White House meeting, Giuliani associate Lev Parnas said he was on a 'secret mission' for Trump

This was the other bribery scheme. Trump was running the same scam with Zelensky's predecessor and election opponent, President Poroshenko. He was promising Poroshenko an appearance at a White House state dinner, which would be a political coup right before his upcoming election. This was in exchange for doing the long-sought Biden investigations. This all fell apart when Pororshenko went down in a landslide. So Trump had to crank up a brand new bribery scheme with Zelensky.

Giuliani and his two sidekick clowns just couldn't seem to close the deal.
posted by JackFlash at 7:20 PM on November 15, 2019 [5 favorites]


Eventually, according to what Parnas told his confidants, the topic turned to Ukraine that night. According to those two confidants, Parnas said that "the big guy," as he sometimes referred to the President in conversation, talked about tasking him and Fruman with what Parnas described as "a secret mission" to pressure the Ukrainian government to investigate Joe Biden and his son Hunter.

In the days immediately following the meeting, Parnas insinuated to the two people he confided in that he clearly believed he'd been given a special assignment by the President; like some sort of "James Bond mission," according to one of the people.
posted by xammerboy at 7:21 PM on November 15, 2019 [2 favorites]


Trump ran the oval office like some third rate mafia don...
posted by xammerboy at 7:24 PM on November 15, 2019 [3 favorites]


I have this fantasy that Melania is running a Hogan's Heroes like resistance out of tunnels beneath the White House.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 7:37 PM on November 15, 2019 [3 favorites]


If Melania ends up in prison, I REALLY DON'T CARE. DO U?
posted by benzenedream at 7:51 PM on November 15, 2019 [20 favorites]


This was the other bribery scheme.

Which would have probably gone off without a hitch and we would have never known about it. Secret mission destroy democracy accomplished. Interesting that this went from the offer of a simple dinner to holding all Ukraine hostage in the blink of an eye. Trump wants what Trump wants.
posted by xammerboy at 8:00 PM on November 15, 2019 [1 favorite]


I hope at some point in the hearings, Schiff or someone takes the time to point out that this corruption of the office has been a steady pattern since day 1 of the Trump administration, and there are strong echoes of the Mueller investigation. Replace Giuliani, Mulvaney and Sondland with Cohen, Flynn, and Manafort and you have similar conspiring and cover-ups along with the same removals of career officials like Yates and Comey who were not on board.

It's worth pointing out because we've all been seeing and calling these acts out repeatedly, but the GOP Senate, and former GOP House were entirely complicit by enabling the corruption and refusing to acknowledge facts that have been staring them in the face all along. The rot runs deep and next election day, the public needs to remember how the GOP did nothing to stop this despite access to all the classified corroborating evidence.
posted by p3t3 at 8:18 PM on November 15, 2019 [8 favorites]


Exclusive: After private White House meeting, Giuliani associate Lev Parnas said he was on a 'secret mission' for Trump, sources say.
Ok, so he's on a secret mission for the President of the United States and he stops to confide that fact to his two (checks notes) acquaintances.

The. Best. People.
posted by Horkus at 8:20 PM on November 15, 2019 [9 favorites]


Exclusive: After private White House meeting, Giuliani associate Lev Parnas said he was on a 'secret mission' for Trump, sources say.

Despite CNN claiming that Parnas feels betrayed by Trump and that he's sniping at Giuliani, I wouldn't trust a single word he says without two confirming witnesses, especially if he claims to have the goods on Trump. This is to important to be messed up by some low-level goon whose made a profession out of lying.
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 8:52 PM on November 15, 2019 [9 favorites]


The. Best. People.

Not a bad enough dude to rescue Donnie
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 9:11 PM on November 15, 2019 [6 favorites]


Giuliani offered the Guardian a seemingly bizarre explanation for why he had used the words “current” and “active agents” in October 2016 that strongly suggested he had insider knowledge about a secret FBI investigation into Clinton’s handling of classified information:
In short, he suggested that when he used the word “current” agent he meant that the FBI agents were retired but still in the broader US workforce, and that when he said they were “active” agents, he meant they were retired but still physically youthful and able-bodied.
posted by autopilot at 12:31 AM on November 16, 2019 [9 favorites]


’A White House readout of an April call between Trump and Zelensky that does not match the rough transcript released Friday was drafted before the call occurred and was never updated, according to a person briefed on the call.
The official readout — which said Trump “expressed his commitment” to work with the newly elected president to “strengthen democracy, increase prosperity, and root out corruption” — was based on talking points that the president did not follow, the person said.
After the call, the White House staff did not update the readout to reflect what Trump actually said — and what he left out, the person said.
In response to questions about the discrepancy Friday, deputy White House press secretary Hogan Gidley blamed National Security Council Ukraine expert Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, who he said prepared the readout.
But Vindman was not responsible for making the final update to the readout, according to a person familiar with his account, who said he recalls that then-press secretary Sarah Sanders held onto the readout before turning it over for public release.’ <<WaPo
posted by Harry Caul at 3:13 AM on November 16, 2019 [13 favorites]


So basically, trying to blame Vindman is a botched coverup of a botched coverup.
posted by darkstar at 3:18 AM on November 16, 2019 [5 favorites]


That classic phrase uttered by Hal Holbrook in All the President’s Men strikes again.
posted by darkstar at 3:22 AM on November 16, 2019 [8 favorites]


I guess Sarah Sanders can also tell the Kardashians that she tried.
posted by Harry Caul at 5:28 AM on November 16, 2019 [2 favorites]


Here’s a more readable version of Holmes’s opening statement.
posted by mbrubeck at 6:43 AM on November 16, 2019 [11 favorites]


With all the lawyers around Trump, no one has explained to him about freedom of speech rights? Or is Trump just yelling to try and distract from impeachment testimony. Or is he just stupid? (allowed comment according to the First Amendment).

"You know what? I have the right to speak. I have freedom of speech just as other people do, but they've taken away the Republicans rights," the President said.
posted by baegucb at 6:48 AM on November 16, 2019 [1 favorite]


Key excerpt from the Holmes testimony:
The four of us went to a nearby restaurant and sat on an outdoor terrace. I sat directly across from Ambassador Sondland and the two staffers sat off to our sides. [...]

During the lunch, Ambassador Sondland said that he was going to call President Trump to give him an update. Ambassador Sondland placed a call on his mobile phone, and I heard him announce himself several times, along the lines of "Gordon Sondland holding for the President." It appeared that he was being transferred through several layers of switchboards and assistants. I then noticed Ambassador Sondland's demeanor change, and understood that he had been connected to President Trump. While Ambassador Sondland's phone was not on speakerphone, I could hear the President's voice through the earpiece of the phone. The President's voice was very loud and recognizable, and Ambassador Sondland held the phone away from his ear for a period of time, presumably because of the loud volume.

I heard Ambassador Sondland greet the President and explain that he was calling from Kyiv. I heard President Trump then clarify that Ambassador Sondland was in Ukraine. Ambassador Sondland replied, yes, he was in Ukraine, and went on to state that President Zelenskyy "loves your ass." I then heard President Trump ask, "So, he's gonna do the investigation?" Ambassador Sondland replied that "he's gonna do it," adding that President Zelenskyy will do "anything you ask him to." [...]

After the call ended, Ambassador Sondland remarked that the President was in a bad mood, as Ambassador Sondland stated was often the case early in the morning. I then took the opportunity to ask Ambassador Sondland for his candid impression of the President's views on Ukraine. In particular, I asked Ambassador Sondland if it was true that the President did not "give a s—t about Ukraine." Ambassador Sondland agreed that the President did not "give a s—t about Ukraine." I asked why not, and Ambassador Sondland stated that the President only cares about "big stuff." I noted that there was "big stuff" going on in Ukraine, like a war with Russia, and Ambassador Sondland replied that he meant "big stuff" that benefits the President, like the "Biden investigation" that Mr. Giuliani was pushing.
posted by mbrubeck at 6:54 AM on November 16, 2019 [33 favorites]


From the info that's come out so far, Sondland was already coming across really badly: buying his way into an ambassadorial job, meddling in affairs outside of his assignment (Ukraine is not in the EU), the stuff about "a businessman wants to get what he's owed", "revising" his testimony after the fact. Then the portrayal that came out Friday about him regarding that July 26 cell phone call (language, using a personal cell phone in public to contact the president) is even worse.

But man, after the testimony this week from Kent, Taylor, and Yovanovich, each of them rock-solid professionals with decades of patriotic service? He's going to walk out of there looking like a two bit used car salesman.
posted by Sublimity at 6:59 AM on November 16, 2019 [6 favorites]


Holmes: Is it true that Trump doesn't give a shit about Ukraine?
Sondland: Did you just hear me explain to the president that Kyiv is in Ukraine?
posted by xammerboy at 7:14 AM on November 16, 2019 [20 favorites]


It's so weird to me that it's been so clear from the very beginning that this is how Trump operates, that it's been a total illegal clusterfuck of bribery since long before Day One, and yet it's taken this long to pin down actual testimony. Having the legislative branch in his pocket for two years sure helped, but it sure underlines how MIND-NUMBINGLY CORRUPT the entire Republican party is that it put all its resources into protecting his treasonous acts. Every Republican politician and voter is on the hook for this. How can we reclaim any kind of democratic structure to government when such a great swath of people prefer a corrupt dictatorship?
posted by rikschell at 7:22 AM on November 16, 2019 [29 favorites]


Holmes statement reads like someone who cannot believe they have to get involved in this and he even says as much. He seems to genuinely care about promoting free and fair government and is probably torpedoing his career and ability to do something he clearly loves just so because he was diligent enough to chase down Sondland and be at the lunch. He knew there was funny business and he was trying every which way to get someone, anyone to pay attention.

i hope his and Yovanovich’s testimony truly helps impeachment happen and that’s it not all for naught.
posted by affectionateborg at 7:31 AM on November 16, 2019 [17 favorites]


"You know what? I have the right to speak. I have freedom of speech just as other people do, but they've taken away the Republicans rights," the President said.

This pearl-clutching/"we're the victims" ties directly into the Jordan/Stefanik thing yesterday where they tried to abuse points of order, and recognition to create Fox News worthy clips and Schiff was not having any of it gaveling like a mofo.
posted by mikelieman at 7:38 AM on November 16, 2019 [5 favorites]


The entire Holmes testimony is great. It conveys how diplomacy is supposed to work (slow, methodical, information is shared) while showing how the Giuliani/Sondland back-channel completely messed up the flow.
posted by Wulfhere at 7:44 AM on November 16, 2019 [6 favorites]


We are not in a world in which facts matter.

The actual attempts at defense of Trump are painfully shoddy. The aid came through! Because the blackmail was exposed. Yovanovich never saw a crime! Because she was removed so that she wouldn't.. It's all hearsay! Firsthand witnesses are either in hiding or ordered not to testify by Trump himself.. Ukraine, not Russia, did the meddling! Ukraine leaders didn't want Trump as POTUS... Just like every other non-Putin, non-insane leader didn't.

But the Mirror Universe Media ecosystem ensures that if the GOP expends even token energy towards blackwhite denialism and victimhood and projection, a third of America will believe it on faith. And the mainstream media ensures that another third won't care enough to investigate further.
posted by delfin at 7:53 AM on November 16, 2019 [15 favorites]


This pearl-clutching/"we're the victims" ties directly into the Jordan/Stefanik thing yesterday where they tried to abuse points of order, and recognition to create Fox News worthy clips and Schiff was not having any of it gaveling like a mofo.
But remember at Thanksgiving to take slow time to explain to your uncle that both Stefanik and Jordan got plenty time later, as planned.
Yesterday I was at a dinner with far-left but not paying attention people, and even while I agreed with their basic opinions it was stunning how little they understood about what is actually happing. Which is why those stunts work. My friends think they would never fall for stunts like those of Jordan and Stefanik yesterday, because they are suspicious of the right. But they do fall for them, because they don't pay attention and because they are equally suspicious of centrist Democrats (which is also fair enough). And to be honest, I don't feel every citizen should hang around in the MeFi politics threads several hours a day.
posted by mumimor at 8:21 AM on November 16, 2019 [11 favorites]


This long Washington Post article from this morning is a good, clear recap of the major facts so far. Useful if you know someone who hasn't been following the story closely and wants to catch up, or for anyone who could use help tracking all the different participants and their roles.
posted by mbrubeck at 8:29 AM on November 16, 2019 [8 favorites]


(I am not sure if this link will work.) This WaPo email newsletter The 5-minute Fix is a special weekend edition day-by-day layout of the past week of impeachment. It's been a crazy week.
posted by carsonb at 8:40 AM on November 16, 2019 [2 favorites]


anecdatum:

last weekend a very astute and reasonably engaged friend of mine stated "if the president can articulate a legitimate interest in hunter then it doesn't matter whether it would hurt joe or not. the president as a matter of law could demand investigation," and shortly thereafter offered some "but clinton" bullshit with no indication of shame. i was not very kind to him.

on tuesday he asked "did the arms really ship AFTER the whistleblower complaint?" and on wednesday he called me up after the kent/taylor testimony and said that the fact that there was copious aid delivered in 2017, 2018, continuing the standard policy of aid, but that corruption did not become a reason to delay/withhold aid until biden was running for president this year revealed to him that the president's interest in corruption or hunter could not be legitimate.

so it it working. a little bit. on a perhaps very small set of terribly reasonable people. or maybe just that one person i know.

separately, it remains baffling to me that that class of people obviously sitting in front of c-span programming waiting for a chance to call in to the partisan rant line at the break can remain so ill-informed.
posted by 20 year lurk at 8:51 AM on November 16, 2019 [15 favorites]


POLITICO Playbook: Why Gordon Sondland’s testimony matters
THE LATE-DAY TESTIMONY yesterday from DAVID HOLMES, an official in the U.S. embassy in Kyiv, that he, too, heard President DONALD TRUMP quiz GORDON SONDLAND about investigations into the Bidens is significant. [...] BUT WE DID A ROUND OF CALLS last night to Republicans on Intel and other committees involved in impeachment, and they made this point: unless someone heard the president say ‘do not give up aid until this investigation is announced,’ this is an interesting detail, but not incriminating for Trump. Of course, this is a big shift in position for Republicans, who first said that Trump never asked for an investigation of the Bidens, and now say they need to have the president saying the quid pro quo aloud. Democrats see this as proof positive of the scheme they are trying to prove -- the firsthand information that both sides have been in search of. This illustrates the important chasm between the two parties as the impeachment process churns on.

THAT ALL SAID … These facts remain: Republicans have not been able to change the arc of the story Democrats are building. They’ve been able to muddy the waters, a bit, but the facts remain: the president was focused on an investigation into the Bidens, the aid was withheld and the president’s personal lawyer was running around, trying to dismantle the career of the ambassador to Ukraine, smearing her publicly and forcing her to return to Washington before the appointed time.

THIS ALL MAKES Sondland’s testimony some of the most important moments in the Trump presidency. THE PLAY FROM REPUBLICANS will be to make Sondland out to be a political hack who wanted to gain the president’s favor. A longtime political donor, who would do anything to be liked. [...]

HAPPENING TODAY … It’s eerily quiet in the Capitol today with just a few reporters and cameramen and photographers on duty, our own Andrew Desiderio reports. MARK SANDY, a longtime career White House Office of Budget and Management, arrived in the Capitol this morning for his deposition.

-- ANDREW DESIDERIO: “Mark Sandy’s closed-door appearance alone was a breakthrough for Democrats, who have struggled to obtain testimony about what other officials have described as an order by the president to withhold the U.S. military assistance meant for Ukraine. [...]"
posted by katra at 8:55 AM on November 16, 2019 [1 favorite]


Fact check: A list of 45 ways Trump has been dishonest about Ukraine and impeachment
posted by adamvasco at 9:17 AM on November 16, 2019 [4 favorites]


Trump personally kept pressure on Ukraine, says impeachment inquiry witness (Guardian)
David Holmes, diplomat at the US embassy in Kiev, says Trump did not ‘give a shit’ about Ukraine and only cared about what would benefit him politically
The Trump-Sondland phone call was first revealed on Wednesday by Bill Taylor, the acting ambassador to Kyiv, who told investigators Holmes had informed him about it. The significance of the Holmes testimony is that it proves Trump was personally directing the pressure being exerted on Zelenskiy, and that Sondland was reporting to him on a daily basis. After Sondland amended his own testimony to admit that military aid to Ukraine was being made conditional on the specific investigations, Trump had sought to distance himself, claiming “I hardly know the gentleman”.
How a CIA analyst, alarmed by Trump’s shadow foreign policy, triggered an impeachment inquiry (WaPo)
[at a gathering of world leaders on Sept. 1 in Warsaw] The Ukrainians were flummoxed by Pence’s evasion. “You’re the only country providing us military assistance,” one of Zelensky’s aides told him. “You’re punishing us.”

Sondland, who had also traveled to Poland, used a side conversation in a hotel with one of Zelensky’s advisers to fill in the blanks. He laid out the transaction in the starkest terms to date: To get the funding and a White House meeting, Zelensky had to commit publicly to investigating Burisma in an interview with CNN that would be seen in the United States.
posted by katra at 9:44 AM on November 16, 2019 [8 favorites]


Zelensky planned to announce Trump’s ‘quo’ on my show. Here’s what happened. (Fareed Zakaria, WaPo Opinion)
On Sept. 13, I met with Zelensky in Kyiv, on the sidelines of the conference. [...] It’s a testament to Zelensky’s skill that he did not let on in any way the immense pressure he was under. As we now know, for months the Trump White House had been mounting an intense campaign to force him to publicly announce the election-related investigations. He had tried to resist and put them off in various ways, but ultimately decided he would have to give in, according to the Times. His team apparently concluded that since he was planning an interview with me anyway, that would be the forum in which he would make the announcement, though neither he nor any of his team ever gave us any inkling that this was their plan. However, after my meeting with him in Kyiv, my team began to discuss potential logistics of the interview with his team — time and place. [...]

Imagine Zelensky’s dilemma. By the time I met with him in Kyiv, he knew the aid had been released, but the backstory had not yet broken into public view. Ukrainian officials I spoke to about the release of the aid were delighted but a little surprised and unsure as to what had happened. Zelensky and his team were probably trying to figure out whether they should still do the interview.

A few days later, on Sept. 18 and 19, The Post broke the story wide open. The interview was called off. We are, of course, still trying to get it.
posted by katra at 10:09 AM on November 16, 2019 [14 favorites]


Trump sees foreign aid not as a tool we use to help our allies and advance our interests, but as a way that countries take advantage of us and use us and laugh at us. I'm not surprised that he finds the idea of just disbursing it without getting some sort of kickback intolerable, and it would be sweet indeed if this were to be his undoing. Petard, hoisted, all that.
posted by thelonius at 10:12 AM on November 16, 2019 [27 favorites]


She added, "Of course, presidents appoint ambassadors, but people don't insult people, especially when they're giving testimony before the Congress of the United States. I think even his most ardent supporters have to honestly admit this is the wrong thing for the president to do."

I’m flabbergasted, disturbed, and scared that this is even a thought from a leading Democrat in 2019. I mean, come on! Was Bush’s bully pulpit a freaking illusion?

They're fucking going to stay the course
posted by JoeXIII007 at 10:41 AM on November 16, 2019 [1 favorite]


people don't insult people

An accurate observation of america in 2019
posted by Rust Moranis at 10:52 AM on November 16, 2019 [2 favorites]


"Anyway, Jay Leno was there"
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 11:00 AM on November 16, 2019 [1 favorite]


I'm thinking Sondland will either absent himself or he will take the Fifth.
posted by rhizome at 11:12 AM on November 16, 2019 [2 favorites]


I’m imagining Sondland’s next round of testimony in full existential meltdown. Just laughing as he eats wings and drinks a yard long margarita, stopping every once in a while to ask, “I’m so fucked, right? Like totally fucked?”, and then pausing to softly cry into his hot sauce.
posted by schadenfrau at 11:49 AM on November 16, 2019 [10 favorites]


“I paid a million dollars for this. This is a million dollar margarita of sadness, and it’s not even that good. I want another one.”
posted by schadenfrau at 11:50 AM on November 16, 2019 [18 favorites]


“I’m so fucked, right? Like totally fucked?”, and then pausing to softly cry into his hot sauce.

In the voice of Greg Hirsch/Roy. Also,

"I'm like, not in a good place right now?"
posted by ishmael at 12:10 PM on November 16, 2019 [2 favorites]


Of course, presidents appoint ambassadors, but people don't insult people, especially when they're giving testimony before the Congress of the United States.

One of the most powerful points of Yovanovich's testimony was when she said:

"What I'd like to say is, while I obviously don't dispute that the President has the right to withdraw an ambassador at any time for any reason, but what I do wonder is why it was necessary to smear my reputation ... falsely?"

She is conceding the Republican point that Trump can fire an ambassador. All Trump has to do is send a message to recall her -- done. But instead Giuliani and Trump insulted and lied and smeared her reputation for months before. Trump even trashed talked this distinguished member of the US diplomatic service directly to a foreign world leader in his July phone call. And then again live while she testified before congress. All completely unnecessary.

It's the deliberate and unnecessary cruelty that is the hallmark of the Trump administration. He isn't satisfied with just power over someone's life or career. He has to hurt them cruelly, make them suffer, as well. It's a sickness.
posted by JackFlash at 12:12 PM on November 16, 2019 [40 favorites]


I want to hear a lot more about making bad people eat super spicy buffalo wings while testifying, but I have a very important request:

Can they perhaps be vegan buffalo wings? Like really bad, awful vegan buffalo wings?
posted by loquacious at 12:38 PM on November 16, 2019 [7 favorites]


With ranch?
posted by GCU Sweet and Full of Grace at 1:01 PM on November 16, 2019 [7 favorites]


Ranch? What kind of monster are you?
posted by kirkaracha at 1:10 PM on November 16, 2019 [8 favorites]


Now I am craving Buffalo wings and the only place near me that had them has been taken over by vegans. Life is cruel.

This is the Washington Post's summary of events:
How a CIA analyst, alarmed by Trump’s shadow foreign policy, triggered an impeachment inquiry
“In the course of my official duties,” he wrote, “I have received information from multiple U.S. government officials that the President of the United States is using the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country in the 2020 U.S. election.”
There is much, much more. Most of it is known to megathread Mefites, but still, it is a powerful summary.
posted by mumimor at 1:30 PM on November 16, 2019 [9 favorites]


Of course Sondland is in serious physical danger. There is a serious physical danger caravan that he paid handsomely for the privilege of lying on the road in front of.

Would it feel better to imagine him surrounded by armed security guards in an undisclosed location, sipping a glass of red wine morosely, and quoting Rosencrantz and Guildenstern?

"There must have been a moment, at the beginning, where I could have said -- no. But somehow I missed it."
posted by delfin at 1:49 PM on November 16, 2019 [12 favorites]


Another anecdatum...

I am not on Facebook, but an old college buddy of mine is. He’s become a super-conservative Republican over the past thirty years.

But last night, a mutual friend texted me a screen cap of our old college buddy’s Facebook page. On it, he had posted a passionate appeal to his fellow Republican friends, urging them to read Holmes’ testimony and see what kind of corruption is going on in the Trump Administration.

He concluded by saying “We have to ask ourselves: Are we patriots, or are we Republicans?”
posted by darkstar at 2:15 PM on November 16, 2019 [78 favorites]


Fact check: A list of 45 ways Trump has been dishonest about Ukraine and impeachment
The President is dissembling about so many different topics at once that it can be difficult to keep track of what is true and what isn't. To help you fight Trump-induced dizziness, here are brief fact checks of 45 separate false claims Trump has made on the subject of Ukraine or impeachment.
posted by kirkaracha at 2:58 PM on November 16, 2019 [3 favorites]


He concluded by saying “We have to ask ourselves: Are we patriots, or are we Republicans?”

Odds on the latter are good. They’ve shown it over and over. They’re capable of knowingly betraying their values because they never really valued any of that “America” bullshit, just the white power it stands for. I mean I’m glad a couple might come around. And I am sure they exist and maybe old Republican friend is one of them. But at this point if you’re still in Trump’s camp, you’re...what’s the word?... deplorable.

None of this is news.
posted by spitbull at 3:12 PM on November 16, 2019 [6 favorites]


Rather than vegan buffalo wings, I think I would prefer it be those sad little celery and carrot spears.
posted by box at 3:12 PM on November 16, 2019


Sondland said he was acting on Trump’s orders, aide told investigators (Politico)
The testimony of Tim Morrison places the president’s envoy to Brussels in an even more precarious spot ahead of Wednesday’s open hearing.
Tim Morrison, a top White House national security aide, told impeachment investigators that Gordon Sondland — a U.S. ambassador at the center of the Ukraine scandal imperiling Donald Trump’s presidency — claimed to be acting on Trump’s orders, and in fact was regularly in touch with him.

Though other impeachment witnesses have suggested Sondland has overstated his relationship with the president, Morrison said he was repeatedly able to confirm that the envoy did speak directly with the Trump.

“Every time you went to check to see whether he had, in fact, talked to the president, you found that he had talked to the president?” one lawmaker wondered, according to a transcript of Morrison’s testimony released Saturday.

“Yes,” Morrison replied.
posted by katra at 3:18 PM on November 16, 2019 [6 favorites]


They’re capable of knowingly betraying their values because they never really valued any of that “America” bullshit, just the white power it stands for.

This is what I don't get. Say conservatives do win the culture war. What then? Rich, white men have their hegemony back, Kaloo fucking Kalay! But the thing is, chances are most of these guys aren't rich. The people that just got this hegemony back are the same assholes that sold the heartland's manufacturing jobs to China over the past 40 years. You think they give a flying fuck about their countrymen living in squalor? Hell no. When they deport all the Muslims and Mexicans they'll just scapegoat the Italians, Irish, and Catholics. Or it's God™ looking down on you and you're just a bad person.

Like what's the end game here beyond spite for liberals trying to make their lives better?
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 3:23 PM on November 16, 2019 [9 favorites]


Like what's the end game here beyond spite for liberals trying to make their lives better?
"If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you." - LBJ
posted by jammer at 3:27 PM on November 16, 2019 [44 favorites]


Pence aide testified that Trump’s efforts to pressure Ukraine were 'inappropriate' (Politico)
Jennifer Williams, who serves as Pence’s special adviser for Europe and Russia, told investigators in early November that she took notes while she listened in on Trump’s July 25 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky from the White House Situation Room, adding that she viewed Trump’s requests for investigations as politically motivated.

“I found the specific references to be — to be more specific to the president in nature, to his personal political agenda, as opposed to a broader … foreign policy objective of the United States,” Williams said, according to a transcript of her closed-door deposition released Saturday. [...] Williams and Vindman are scheduled to testify side-by-side at a public hearing on Tuesday morning. [...]

Pence told Zelensky that the U.S. fully supports Ukraine, but said he wanted an update on corruption reform efforts “that he could then convey back to the president,” according to Williams. Pence also said he wanted to “hear if there was more that European countries could do to support Ukraine.”

Zelensky responded by saying that “any hold or appearance of reconsideration of such assistance might embolden Russia to think that the United States was no longer committed to Ukraine.”
Also, Morrison's transcript is here.
posted by katra at 3:31 PM on November 16, 2019 [4 favorites]


Transcripts put Sondland at center of Trump Ukraine block (AP)
In particular Morrison described a meeting Sondland held with a top Zelenskiy aide, Andriy Yermak, on the sidelines of a summit in Warsaw. Morrison said he witnessed the exchange and that afterward Sondland bounded across the room to tell him what was said.

Sondland told him that “what could help them move the aid was if the prosecutor general would go to the mike and announce that he was opening the Burisma investigation,” Morrison testified. The prosecutor general is Ukraine’s top legal official. “My concern was what Gordon was proposing about getting the Ukrainians pulled into our politics,” Morrison said. He added: “It was the first time something like this had been injected as a condition on the release of the assistance.” [...]

Rep. Adam Schiff, the chairman of the impeachment panel, returned home Saturday to California where thousands of Democratic activists greeted him like a rock star at the state party’s fall convention. “It’s been an eventful week,” he told the crowd before saying that his remarks about impeachment were no cause for celebration.

“There is nothing more dangerous than an unethical president who thinks that he is above the law,” Schiff said. “This is a time of great peril.”
posted by katra at 3:51 PM on November 16, 2019 [8 favorites]


Like what's the end game here beyond spite for liberals trying to make their lives better?

Isn't that enough?

On a financial level, yes, deplorables are not at all likely to benefit. They can cheer for tax cuts all they like, choosing to ignore how trickle-down economics is repeatedly and demonstrably false and does more to screw them over than to help them. But they are told over and over that they are _already_ part of that in-group, they are already those who should be reaping the benefits and financial windfalls, and THEY (insert identity of THEY here, you know all the usual suspects) are stealing it all away.

But there is more in play than that. There are those who want to pull a Kim Davis and declare that their God is more important than your civil rights. There are those who want to pull a Stephen Miller and declare that their racial privilege is more important than your anything. There are those who are happy to control their local township, or their school board, or their city council, or their neighborhood, or simply to ensure that those of whom they do not approve are unable to prosper and exercise THEIR rights. Even if that means that they do without themselves.
posted by delfin at 4:02 PM on November 16, 2019 [13 favorites]


Regarding Sondland: "Let me just tell you: I hardly know the gentleman," Trump told reporters on the South Lawn of the White House.

Once again, we know Trump is lying. And of course, that implies the question, why would he lie about that relationship?

Here's the evidence, first from Morrison:
Though other impeachment witnesses have suggested Sondland has overstated his relationship with the president, Morrison said he was repeatedly able to confirm that the envoy did speak directly with the Trump.

And then from Holmes, listening in on the conversation as Sondland manages to get a direct line into the President in two minutes:
Zelenskyy "loves your ass."
Ambassador Sondland told the President that the rapper was "kind of f----d there


You don't use that kind of language with President of the United States unless you are on quite familiar and friendly terms with him.

Trump is lying about his relationship with Sondland. Within a few minutes of his meeting with Zelensky, Sondland was on the phone with Trump to update him on Zelensky's agreement to comply. Trump was in regular communications with Sondland as the point man for advancing his bribery scheme.

This is how the FBI takes down Mafia mobsters. Within minutes of a hit, they intercept a phone call to the godfather confirming it. They really need to put the screws to Sondland. He should be scared. Lying to congress is what Roger Stone was just convicted of.
posted by JackFlash at 4:21 PM on November 16, 2019 [23 favorites]


I imagine Elise Stefanik's antics are playing well with Trump's base, but I'm not sure she thought that Tedra Cobb, her Democratic opponent, would raise $500K in 24 hours from 22,000 individual donations. Holy cow.
posted by gwint at 4:31 PM on November 16, 2019 [32 favorites]


I think we might need a new thread for next week.
I think we might need a new thread for next Wednesday. :/
posted by sexyrobot at 4:49 PM on November 16, 2019 [2 favorites]


Mod note: impeachment news only, please
posted by Eyebrows McGee (staff) at 5:27 PM on November 16, 2019 [7 favorites]


not sorry people like him would be facing mortal peril for their actions

not minding the speculative mortal peril sondland may fear, i, for one, would like to see him live long enough to be confronted by his dishonest testimony in closed-door hearings and later incomplete correction and to offer a full honest account in live, televised testimony. not too certain how likely it is that he would be ... (can you even call it) forthright (after having been caught in lies and prevarication?) at this point, but i wouldn't mind seeing him squirm. (seems as though, having already incriminated himself by testifying incompletely, at best, his access to the fifth-amendment shield should be significantly degraded).

sondland, if you're listening, attend well to how the president has taken care of those mendacious bastards who are in jail for carrying his water so far.
posted by 20 year lurk at 7:10 PM on November 16, 2019 [8 favorites]


KNUS radio host Craig Silverman says he was fired mid-show for criticizing Trump (Denver Post)
Craig Silverman, a former chief deputy district attorney in Denver and talk-show host on the conservative 710 KNUS radio station, said he was fired mid-show Saturday after criticizing President Donald Trump.

Silverman was in the middle of a segment about Roy Cohn, Trump’s former personal attorney, when he suddenly was interrupted by network news, he told The Denver Post. Silverman’s producer threw his hands up in the air, indicating it wasn’t him. Instead, program director Kelly Michaels came through the door.

“You’re done,” Silverman recounted Michaels as saying. The former prosecutor, who has hosted “The Craig Silverman Show” from 9 a.m. to noon on Saturdays for more than five years, responded to the sudden firing on Twitter.

“I cannot and will not toe strict Trump party line. I call things as I see them,” he tweeted. “I see corruption and blatant dishonesty by President and his cronies. I also see bullying/smearing of American heroes w/courage to take oath and tell truth. Their bravery inspires me.” [...]

Silverman’s last segment of the hour, before he was taken off the air, was to “observe how toxic Trump is in Colorado,” he said in a text. “And to continue my show theme today that Democrats are making a strong case at the House impeachment hearing.”
posted by katra at 8:48 PM on November 16, 2019 [25 favorites]


Trump casts Louisiana vote as impeachment referendum (Fox News)
TRUMP CASTS LOUISIANA VOTE AS IMPEACHMENT REFERENDUM
USA Today: “President Donald Trump returned to the campaign trail Thursday to stump in Louisiana for the second time in as many weeks, using a raucous rally to mock two U.S. diplomats who raised questions about his dealings with Ukraine at the center of an impeachment inquiry. … ‘The people of this country aren't buying it – you see it because we're going up and they're going down,’ Trump said. ‘Let's keep it going for a while.’ … Stung by Kentucky Gov. Matt Bevin's loss last week to Democrat Andy Beshear, Trump is putting considerable emphasis on Louisiana. Republican businessman Eddie Rispone is challenging Democratic incumbent Gov. John Bel Edwards in a Nov. 16 runoff election. … ‘You gotta give me a big win please,’ Trump told the crowd. ‘Please.’”
Democrats hold on to Louisiana governor’s seat despite Trump (AP)
posted by katra at 9:35 PM on November 16, 2019 [37 favorites]


From katra's AP article:

In a victory rally of his own late Saturday, Edwards thanked supporters who danced, sang and cheered in celebration, while he declared, “How sweet it is!”

He added, “And as for the president, God bless his heart” — a phrase often used by genteel Southerners to politely deprecate someone.


Emphasis mine.
posted by medusa at 9:47 PM on November 16, 2019 [15 favorites]


This is how a drug deal works:

Let’s say you want to buy some crack. You drive up to the block where you are going to make your purchase and you pass a member of the team that is running the sale. This member is called the lookout. Let’s call him Mick. He never touches either the drugs or the money and he carries no weapon. Mick’s sole task is to watch for police and send a signal if the cops show up.

You stop your car outside the designated house with your window rolled down and a foot soldier approaches you and accepts your money. Let’s call him Rudy. He then withdraws and takes the money to a secure location, usually the house where the team leader—let’s call this gentleman Donald—is supervising the activity while other one or two other members of the team—just for fun, let’s call them Lev and Igor—package the merchandise.

A third foot soldier then approaches your car and hands you the drugs. Let’s call him Gordon. You drive off. Gordon goes away. Everyone is happy....


A surprisingly insightful article found on The Bulwark, the online magazine founded by the odious Bill Kristol.
posted by growabrain at 12:51 AM on November 17, 2019 [19 favorites]


I've seen The Wire, but drug deal as an analogy didn't really make sense to me until I read that snippet description just now.
posted by xammerboy at 4:05 AM on November 17, 2019 [1 favorite]


I don't think that the Louisiana gubernatorial race was about impeachment. I was in New Orleans last week and the ads I saw were all anti-Hillary. I have no idea what Hillary Clinton has to do with the Louisiana governor's race and apparently neither did a majority of the electorate.
posted by rdr at 4:44 AM on November 17, 2019 [5 favorites]


The analogy for "drug deal" works. But the initial use (by Bolton?) is just slang for "some shady thing that is not SOP".
posted by Meatbomb at 5:36 AM on November 17, 2019 [11 favorites]


Great, now people are going to be conflating Bolton's "drug deal" remark with this street drug analogy.
posted by ryanrs at 5:37 AM on November 17, 2019 [1 favorite]


KNUS radio host Craig Silverman says he was fired mid-show for criticizing Trump (Denver Post)

Note that Silverman was fired for espousing conservative positions but not Republican ones. I'll wager we won't hear the usual concern trolling about "freedom of speech" from the usual conservative suspects.
posted by Gelatin at 5:50 AM on November 17, 2019 [14 favorites]


Heather Cox Richardson is a history professor at Boston College who's been posting nightly recaps of the day's impeachment news in context. You can read them on Facebook or at substack.com. They are really, really good and worth reading along every day.

But the post for yesterday is worth reading for the way she relates the impeachment proceedings to Barr's speech to the Federalist society. He is completely, frighteningly off the rails:
The big story, in terms of its ability to frame the crazy events coming at us at top speed, happened last night, when Attorney General William Barr gave a speech to the Federalist Society, a group of conservative and libertarian lawyers who argue for an originalist interpretation of the Constitution. The conviction of members of the Federalist Society that courts should not do anything that is not listed in the original Constitution makes them great friends to business and to white men, since they focus on the protection of property and deny that laws can regulate business, provide a basic social safety net, or protect minority or women’s rights. The Federalist Society organized in 1982 to push back against what its members felt was an activist court system that tried to reorganize society from the bench. It has been extraordinarily successful in taking over the courts: currently five members of the nine-member Supreme Court are current or past Federalist Society members: Clarence Thomas, John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh.

In his speech, Attorney General William Barr claimed he was going truly to be an originalist, and explained by taking American history back to its roots. In contrast to every single American historian in, well, American history, Barr argued that Americans had rebelled not against King George III in 1776, but rather against Parliament. What the Founders feared, he said, was not a strong executive, but rather a strong Parliament. (You can tell where this is going, right?) Barr was setting up the idea that Congress has grown far too strong lately (in fact, virtually every scholar will tell you that it is the Executive that has grown terribly strong since 1981) and that it is badly hampering the president’s ability to do his job. The president should be able to act on his own initiative, and not be checked by either congressional or judicial oversight, Barr insisted, in a theory known as that of the “unitary executive.”

Barr did not stop there, though. He went on to blame “The Resistance” for sabotaging the Trump administration, and claimed that its members were “engaged in a war to cripple, by any means necessary, a duly elected government.” More, he claimed “the Left” is “engaged in the systematic shredding of norms and the undermining of the rule of law.” Conservatives, he said, were at a disadvantage against progressive’s “holy war” because they “have more scruple over their political tactics” especially when facing “a hyper-partisan media.” (You might want to reread those last two sentences.)

Richard Painter, who was George W. Bush’s ethics lawyer, called this a “lunatic authoritarian speech.” Attorneys General are supposed to be non-partisan, and Barr lumped all opposition to Trump as the dangerous far left. The “Left,” in America, generally refers to those few people who advocate for communism—a system in which the government owns and controls all industries and businesses-- or anarchy, a system in which there is no central authority at all. It’s actually a pretty small group. But Barr, and other recent Republicans, have included in “the Left” everyone who believes that the government has any role to play in regulating business, providing a basic social safety net, and promoting infrastructure, all those things the Federalist Society opposes. In fact, most of us, regardless of whether we vote Republican or Democratic, want some basic regulations, social welfare programs, and infrastructure development.

But now the Attorney General, who is charged with overseeing our justice system, has declared that anyone standing in the way of Trump is not just a member of “the Left” but also is waging war against America. Painter is quite right: this is the language that enables a leader to imprison people he considers his enemies.
posted by Sublimity at 6:06 AM on November 17, 2019 [60 favorites]


Barr did not stop there, though. He went on to blame “The Resistance” for sabotaging the Trump administration, and claimed that its members were “engaged in a war to cripple, by any means necessary, a duly elected government.”

Congress is also a coequal member of this duly elected government (indeed, as Congress, not the President, has its powers defined first in the Constitution, it's arguably first among equals in the Founders' eyes), and what's more, this Congress was elected in 2018 explicitly to act as a check on Trump.

That the so-called "originalists" of the Federalist Society listened to this claptrap reveals that their aims are far from as lofty -- or Constitutional -- as they like to pretend.
posted by Gelatin at 6:13 AM on November 17, 2019 [10 favorites]


Reading that excerpt above about how Barr thinks Congress is the problem is really fucking similar to what goes down in The Testaments. I’m reading it right now and the fact and fiction are blurring mightily in a very uncomfortable way.
posted by affectionateborg at 6:28 AM on November 17, 2019 [4 favorites]


We always knew Barr was a Royalist. His confirmation hearings were a victory of Republican disingenuousness and Democratic naivete.
posted by PhineasGage at 6:54 AM on November 17, 2019 [7 favorites]


In his speech, Attorney General William Barr claimed he was going truly to be an originalist, and explained by taking American history back to its roots. In contrast to every single American historian in, well, American history, Barr argued that Americans had rebelled not against King George III in 1776, but rather against Parliament.

He's...not wrong? It was Parliament that passed the Stamp Act and the "Intolerable Acts"; the King didn't go to Lord North and say "now this is what you're going to do". The UK has been a constitutional monarchy since the Glorious Revolution of 1688; George III may have been the embodiment of sovereign power and a useful focus for rhetoric from tax-dodging colonists, but true sovereignty rested with Parliament. (The ignorance of most American historians regarding this fact is a little depressing but not especially surprising.)
posted by Pseudonymous Cognomen at 7:08 AM on November 17, 2019 [3 favorites]


Ladies and gentlemen of the Federalist Society, it is my pleasure to introduce the Attorney General of the the United States, the reanimated corpse of Roy Cohn.
posted by benzenedream at 7:16 AM on November 17, 2019 [7 favorites]


Impeachment inquiry: Trump ally must choose between loyalty and saving himself (Guardian)
“Hey Ambassador Sondland,” tweeted Joe Scarborough, a former congressman turned TV host, “Roger Stone lied to Congress for Trump and is now going to jail. Just like his campaign manager and lawyer. Are you next? Your call, Gordy.” [...]

Matthew Miller, former chief spokesperson for the justice department, said: “I think Sondland’s testimony is incredibly important because if you look at his last appearance before the committee in private, it seems pretty year he was withholding facts on a number of occasions. He claims to not remember conversations that it was implausible for him to forget.”

Sondland told the committee that he never discussed investigating Biden with anyone at the White House or state department, Miller noted. “Now you have this reported conversation where he gets off the phone and says to a staffer that Biden is the most important thing. If that’s true, he just clearly lied to the committee. That is as clear cut a lie as you can catch someone in.”

The consequences for Sondland could be dire if he maintains blind loyalty to Trump. Miller, now a partner at management consultancy Vianovo, added: “If I was him, I would be very worried about a referral to the committee for a criminal charge and I would be trying to get on the right side of the committee to prevent that happening. The committee now has a lot of leverage over him to get him to tell the truth.

“Throughout the Mueller inquiry [into alleged collusion with Russia], there were a lot of witnesses who thought they could stick with Trump and get a pardon. Paul Manafort and Michael Cohen are now in prison and Roger Stone has just been convicted. So that’s a pretty dangerous gamble to make.”
Giuliani: House investigation ‘a travesty’ (Politico)
"I think over the weekend Mr. Sondland has to decide whether his primary loyalty is to America or whether his primary loyalty is to the President of the United States,” [Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.)] said.
posted by katra at 7:38 AM on November 17, 2019 [3 favorites]


> "He's...not wrong?"

Well... according to the Declaration of Independence:

"The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations... He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good. He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance... He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature... He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records... He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly... He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected... He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers... He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries... He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power... He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution... [etc. etc. etc.]... In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people."

Compared to the mention of Parliament:

"Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us."

Let's say I'm not sure that can be legitimately described as being against a strong Parliament but in favor of a strong monarch.
posted by kyrademon at 7:44 AM on November 17, 2019 [30 favorites]


And yes, I know your comment included the idea that he was only a useful focus for rhetoric, but I still think a battle cry of "No taxation without representation!" and the eventual creation of a democratic republic cannot possibly be interpreted as meaning "parliaments are bad, an all-powerful monarch is better!"
posted by kyrademon at 7:50 AM on November 17, 2019 [6 favorites]


Mod note: Let's not get too far afield, folks. thanks.
posted by restless_nomad (staff) at 7:54 AM on November 17, 2019 [1 favorite]


"I think over the weekend Mr. Sondland has to decide whether his primary loyalty is to America or whether his primary loyalty is to the President of the United States,” [Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.)] said.

It's pretty clear that Sondland's primary loyalty is to Sondland. That will determine which of the second two choices comes next. Who has more power to hurt him - Trump or the law?
posted by JackFlash at 8:31 AM on November 17, 2019 [7 favorites]


Barr's federalist speech is whoa *bad*... Attorney General of the United States, the reanimated corpse of Roy Cohn Lavrenty Beria.
posted by j_curiouser at 9:42 AM on November 17, 2019 [3 favorites]


What Was Truly Unprecedented in This Week’s Impeachment Hearings? (Politico Magazine)
We’ve seen impeachment proceedings before—but not like this. We rounded up 5 experts on the process to tell us what we should have been paying attention to.
First, one historian noted that the way we consumed the news this week was completely unprecedented: Unlike any previous impeachment, we were all able to follow along with the inquiry as it unfolded and witnesses revealed new information. Second, never before, two of the experts pointed out, has an impeachment turned directly on matters of national security. By any normal standard that should strip the domestic politics out of the proceedings—except, as another historian pointed out, the Republicans in Congress have chosen to act as his legal defense rather than as serious fact-finders about his conduct, which is another historical outlier.

During Friday’s testimony another piece of history got made: The president, in real time, weighed in with a tweet about the witness while she was being questioned, a move that would not only have been impossible at any other historical time but very unadvisable, since it had the appearance of witness intimidation—as the committee chairman quickly pointed out.
posted by katra at 9:53 AM on November 17, 2019 [7 favorites]


Trump’s ‘West Point Mafia’ Faces a Loyalty Test (Politico Magazine)
A close cohort from the military academy’s Class of ’86 has risen to astonishing power in the U.S. government. Are they using it for the president, or the nation?
“Pompeo’s been caught lying, which horrifies me,” said Fred Wellman, a 1987 grad who retired as a lieutenant colonel and has been one of the more vocal detractors of his fellow cadets now running the government. “So I’ve been discouraged by what I’ve seen coming out of the military academy graduates involved in the administration.”

Wellman is among multiple West Point alums who have raised such doubts about their brethren, either privately or on social media. The academy’s honor code, which they are expected to uphold both in the Army and beyond, reads: "A cadet will not lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do." It is the basis of the academy’s strict honor system, which doesn’t allow wiggle room in the definition of words like “lie”: “quibbling, evasive statements, or the use of technicalities to conceal guilt are not tolerated at West Point,” reads an Academy white paper about the system. [...]

A retired senior Army officer singled out what he considers Pompeo’s double-speak about whether he was on the July 25 call between Trump and Ukraine’s president that is at the center of the impeachment probe. Pompeo initially gave the impression he did not participate before admitting he listened in on the controversial call.

“It’s been very disappointing to see it, because it goes in the face of everything we were taught at the academy,” said the retired officer, who asked not to be identified to speak freely. “It’s dispiriting to see how easy it is to quibble when it’s convenient. That’s a West Point word, used to mean dissemble,” or tell half-truths, the officer said, noting that he’s seen “a lot of talk” among fellow graduates on social media about Pompeo’s handling of the Ukraine affair.

“It’s not just that he’s a West Point grad,” he added. “It’s that it’s part of his brand and he brings it out all the time.”
posted by katra at 9:56 AM on November 17, 2019 [18 favorites]


Trump has "every opportunity to present his case" on impeachment, Pelosi says (CBS News)
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi refuted Republicans' claims that President Trump has not had the opportunity for due process in the impeachment inquiry, saying that the president has "every opportunity to present his case."

"The president could come right before the committee and talk, speak all the truth that he wants if he wants," Pelosi said in an exclusive interview with "Face the Nation" moderator Margaret Brennan that aired Sunday. "He has every opportunity to present his case."

Pelosi also said that she believed the president's actions were worse than those of former President Richard Nixon.

"But it's really a sad thing. I mean, what the president did was so much worse than even what Richard Nixon did, that at some point Richard Nixon cared about the country enough to recognize that this could not continue," Pelosi said. Mr. Nixon resigned before the House could vote on impeachment.
Transcript: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on "Face the Nation"
posted by katra at 11:51 AM on November 17, 2019 [21 favorites]


i would figure out how to watch that live no matter where i was or what time. she knows how to tweak his nose and he’s probably begging his handlers to let him go and say his stuff.

we’d probably find out about 28 more crimes in the first 30 seconds.
posted by affectionateborg at 12:08 PM on November 17, 2019 [6 favorites]


Who has more power to hurt him - Trump or the law?

Wonder how many minds are going to be changed with Trump's hospital visit regarding the calculus involved in hitching their fate with his. As prisoners' dilemmas go it seems fairly clear cut what the safest move is. Not that these are people known for making good choices.
posted by Buntix at 12:10 PM on November 17, 2019 [2 favorites]


"The president could come right before the committee and talk, speak all the truth that he wants if he wants," Pelosi said in an exclusive interview with "Face the Nation" moderator Margaret Brennan that aired Sunday. "He has every opportunity to present his case."

The story does not note whether Pelosi pointed out that Trump is having many key members of his administration defy Congressional subpoenas, nor whether the supposedly "elite" political journalists on MTP pointed out this entirely relevant fact.

The Democratic talking point should be, as long as Trump refuses to honor our subpoenas, he doesn't get to claim about "due process," because he's the one violating it.
posted by Gelatin at 12:18 PM on November 17, 2019 [8 favorites]


I gotta hand it to the Speaker, how she defines words in-sentence: "If he has information that is exculpatory, that means ex, taking away, culpable, blame, then we look forward to seeing it."
posted by notsnot at 12:47 PM on November 17, 2019 [18 favorites]


Trump attacks Pence aide as "Never Trumper" after impeachment testimony (Axios)
In a tweet on Sunday, President Trump attacked Jennifer Williams, an aide to Vice President Mike Pence, for her closed-door testimony in the impeachment inquiry, calling her a "Never Trumper."
"Tell Jennifer Williams, whoever that is, to read BOTH transcripts of the presidential calls, & see the just released ststement [sic] from Ukraine. Then she should meet with the other Never Trumpers, who I don’t know & mostly never even heard of, & work out a better presidential attack!"
[...] Williams is not the only career official and impeachment witness who President Trump has attacked or denied knowing, despite the fact that they serve in his administration. He has also lobbed insults at top U.S. diplomat in Ukraine Bill Taylor, former Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch and National Security Council official Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman.
Sen. Chris Murphy says Ukraine won't admit pressure because of reliance on U.S. (Axios)
Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) argued on CNN's "State of the Union" on Sunday that Ukrainian officials will not say that President Trump conditioned military aid on their announcement of political investigations because "they are presently reliant on the goodwill of Donald Trump."
"Now, the Ukrainians are always going to try to put a good spin on this. The Ukrainians aren't going to come out and accuse the president of extortion. Why? Because they are presently reliant on the goodwill of Donald Trump in order to keep that country safe. They can't take on the president because at any moment he could stop the security aid once more. So nobody should be surprised when the Ukrainians are trying to put as good a spin on this as possible, are trying to stay in the president's good graces. Because right now the president still holds enormous leverage over that country's independence and sovereignty."
posted by katra at 1:44 PM on November 17, 2019 [11 favorites]


Trump can't be impeached if he's no longer president (by 'stepping down' due to health reasons): Trump's visit to Walter Reed 'not protocol' for routine visit, source says (CNN, Nov. 17, 2019)
His two previous physical exams in office were announced ahead of time by the White House and noted on his daily public schedule, but a source with knowledge of the matter told CNN Saturday that the President's unannounced trip to the medical center was not even on the President's internal schedule as of Saturday morning. [...]

[White House press secretary] Grisham on Saturday said Trump decided to get parts of his physical done early because he had a "free weekend" in Washington, but did not responded to questions about why Trump did not get his full physical exam -- which typically takes 4 hours -- done this weekend. Grisham also denied the President had any health issue.

Trump, Grisham said Saturday, underwent a "quick exam and labs." Several experts familiar with White House medical procedures said that Trump can get routine labwork done at the White House's on-site clinic, indicating Trump needed tests that can't be done there.

Trump tweeted Sunday morning that he does not plan to finish his physical until next year.
Trump Chest Discomfort Claim After Walter Reed Visit (Heavy.com, Nov. 17, 2019) (The 'claim' is via this tweet by Andrew Vernon, contributor to The Hill & a former coordinator and cardio-pulmonary rehabilitation therapist with the Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Service at the VA: #BreakingNews Sources tell me from Walter Reed the President was being checked out for chest discomfort. No other information is available at this time, posted 4:47 PM - 16 Nov 2019)
posted by Iris Gambol at 2:20 PM on November 17, 2019 [9 favorites]


Trump can't be impeached if he's no longer president

He actually can. There are three possible votes in the impeachment: 1) The base conviction; 2) Removal from office; and 3) Disqualification from holding office in the future. 1 and 3 would be the important ones if he's out of office.
posted by rhizome at 4:58 PM on November 17, 2019 [21 favorites]


yeah but you know congress will just immediately drop everything
posted by ryanrs at 6:17 PM on November 17, 2019 [2 favorites]


An interesting thought though. Everybody seems to assume that a new VP would just be appointed by Pence if he were to become President. But the 25th Amendment requires a simple majority in both the House and Senate to ratify a VP nomination. The House could keep the seat empty as long as they wanted. Like maybe, until they finish investigation into this Ukraine matter which Pence also seems to be more than trivially enmeshed in. Extra points if they phrase it similarly to McConnell’s bullshit SC refusal back when Scalia died.
posted by notoriety public at 6:40 PM on November 17, 2019 [24 favorites]


If Pence becomes president does that mean there is no tie breaker in the Senate until a new VP is confirmed?
posted by Mitheral at 7:53 PM on November 17, 2019 [2 favorites]


I just wanted to drop a reminder about Impeachment.fyi, a mostly daily updated summary of whatever buggfuckery has been going on in this crazy timeline.
posted by SecretAgentSockpuppet at 8:08 PM on November 17, 2019 [9 favorites]


If Pence becomes president does that mean there is no tie breaker in the Senate until a new VP is confirmed?

Correct. The President Pro Tempore of the Senate (Chuck Grassley) would be the presiding officer.
posted by Etrigan at 4:05 AM on November 18, 2019


The GOP still has a majority in the Senate, so ties would be rare, but without the VP's tie-breaking superpower, a tie causes the motion voted on to fail.
posted by Huffy Puffy at 5:17 AM on November 18, 2019


The GOP still has a majority in the Senate, so ties would be rare, but without the VP's tie-breaking superpower, a tie causes the motion voted on to fail.

Ties would be rarer still, because McConnell won't bring anything to the floor that isn't a Republican priority that he wants to pass, but the slimmer margin will give so-called "moderates" like Susan Collins less wiggle room to cast a meaningless vote against something they know is going to pass.
posted by Gelatin at 5:38 AM on November 18, 2019 [3 favorites]


Trump says he will ‘strongly consider’ testifying in writing in impeachment probe
President Trump said Monday that he will “strongly consider” testifying in writing as part of the impeachment inquiry at the outset of a week in which eight current and former officials are scheduled to publicly testify about his controversial actions regarding Ukraine.

In morning tweets, Trump said he might take up House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on a suggestion she made over the weekend.
Ceterum censeo, Trumpo delenda est
posted by kirkaracha at 7:20 AM on November 18, 2019 [3 favorites]


I'm picturing Nancy Pelosi overseeing the field of battle through binoculars, growling "Trump, you magnificent bastard! I READ YOUR BOOOOOK!!"
posted by wabbittwax at 7:27 AM on November 18, 2019 [17 favorites]


This would actually be even dumber than Spicer on Dancing With The Stars. Which sounds about right.
posted by Harry Caul at 7:35 AM on November 18, 2019 [4 favorites]


Sondland kept senior administration officials aware of Ukraine pressure campaign (Guardian)
The Wall Street Journal reports:

Several witnesses have testified to impeachment investigators that they were alarmed by what they perceived as dual channels of U.S. policy on Ukraine—one traditional, and the other led by Mr. Sondland and Rudy Giuliani, the president’s personal attorney, which focused on the president’s push for certain investigations. Mr. Sondland kept several top officials—including acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney and Energy Secretary Rick Perry—apprised of that push, according to the emails reviewed by the Journal, in the weeks leading up to Mr. Trump’s July 25 phone call with his Ukrainian counterpart that spurred a whistleblower complaint and, ultimately, the impeachment probe.
Emphasis added.
posted by katra at 7:36 AM on November 18, 2019 [9 favorites]


Guardian: A CNN reporter noted that it is smart to be skeptical of Trump’s claim that he might testify in the impeachment inquiry, given the president’s repeated (and unrealized) promises to answer questions from special counsel Robert Mueller.
Manu Raju (@mkraju) Trump claimed for months he was going to sit down with Mueller’s team, then gave written responses, which the special counsel found inadequate. He also has directed his WH not to turn over docs or agree to testify. Now claims he will “strongly consider” testifying himself https://t.co/6MfZNmddBR November 18, 2019
Jim Jordan Accuses Trump of Lying to Mueller in Latest Defense Against Impeachment (Marcy Wheeler, emptywheel)
Among the efforts Republicans employed to excuse the President’s inexcusable behavior in yesterday’s impeachment hearing, they tried to lay out reasons why Trump could legitimately think Ukraine was out to get him. Among the things Steve Castor laid out includes an op-ed Ukraine’s then Ambassador to the US Valeriy Chaly placed in the Hill in early August 2016, laying out how outrageous it was that Trump had recently suggested he would entertain recognizing Russia’s annexation of Crimea. [...] “That’s a tremendously sensitive issue in Ukraine,” Marie Yovanovitch explained, as if it weren’t evident.

In spite of how obvious that explanation for the op-ed is, Jim Jordan nevertheless returned to this attack, claiming that the op-ed was an example of an Ambassador trying to influence a host country election and suggesting Yovanovitch was negligent in not telling Ukraine to stop defending its territorial integrity. [...] Chaly’s op-ed could only be viewed as an attack on Trump if he did, in fact, advocate recognizing Russia’s annexation of Crimea. Otherwise, the op-ed would simply be a matter of policy, as Yovanovitch patiently explained to Castor.

And it turns out that Trump has represented, in an answer submitted under oath to Robert Mueller, that he had no policy stance on Crimea. Mueller asked whether the very comments that the Chaly op-ed addressed represented an intention to recognize Russia’s annexation of Crimea. [...] And while this answer was the most unresponsive among a slew of unresponsive answers, Trump nevertheless stated, under oath, that his statement did not amount to a policy position.
My statement did not communicate any position.
Republicans can’t have this both ways. The only way this op-ed could be an attack on Trump is if Trump really was supporting annexation of Crimea. He may well have been — except he has stated, under oath, that he was not.
posted by katra at 7:47 AM on November 18, 2019 [8 favorites]


Sen. Johnson says whistleblower’s sources ‘exposed things that didn’t need to be exposed’ (Felicia Sonmez, Karoun Demirjian and Douglas MacMillan; WaPo)
Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) said Sunday that the Trump administration officials who provided information to the anonymous whistleblower about the president’s efforts to pressure Ukraine “exposed things that didn’t need to be exposed.”

“This would have been far better off if we would’ve just taken care of this behind the scenes,” Johnson said in an interview on NBC News’s “Meet the Press.” “We have two branches of government. Most people, most people wanted to support Ukraine. We were trying to convince President Trump.”

Johnson’s comments come days after the first public hearings in the impeachment inquiry. Democrats are seeking to prove that Trump leveraged military assistance and an Oval Office meeting in exchange for investigations into former vice president Joe Biden and a debunked theory concerning purported Ukrainian interference in the 2016 presidential election.
posted by ZeusHumms at 7:50 AM on November 18, 2019 [4 favorites]


“This would have been far better off if we would’ve just taken care of this behind the scenes,” Johnson said in an interview

If I were a prosecutor, my ears would have visibly perked up at this, and I would start asking Mr. Johnson, under oath, if he could provide me with any examples of other things that had been taken care of behind the scenes.
posted by Etrigan at 7:54 AM on November 18, 2019 [51 favorites]


"This would have been a lot better if we hadn't got caught."
posted by wabbittwax at 7:55 AM on November 18, 2019 [43 favorites]


it is smart to be skeptical of Trump’s claim...

...given that he is Trump and lies constantly.

FTFY.

It's been three years of this shit, that he is lying should be assumed by everyone and it makes me feel like a crazy person that it's not assumed by journalists, headlines, and the public generally.
posted by VTX at 8:00 AM on November 18, 2019 [23 favorites]


“This would have been far better off if we would’ve just taken care of this behind the scenes,” Johnson said in an interview

Coincidence? From the WaPo article posted by ZeusHumms:
In recent weeks, Johnson has emerged as the member of Congress most closely involved in the Ukraine saga. The Wisconsin Republican met in July with a former Ukrainian diplomat who has circulated unproven claims that Ukrainian officials assisted Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign.

Johnson and Murphy also met with Zelensky in September, at a time when U.S. aid to the country was still being held up.
posted by katra at 8:01 AM on November 18, 2019 [11 favorites]


From the Washington Post's impeachment calendar:

Monday 18 November: Nothing

Tuesday 19 November:
- Pence aide Jennifer Williams scheduled to testify publicly
- NSC Europe expert Alexander S. Vindman to testify publicly
- Special envoy to Ukraine Kurt Volker to testify publicly
- Former NSC Russia expert Timothy Morrison to testify publicly

Wednesday 20 November:
- EU ambassador Gordon Sondland to testify publicly
- Pentagon official for Ukraine and Russia Laura Cooper to testify publicly
- State Department official David Hale to testify publicly

Thursday 21 November:
- Former Russia adviser Fiona Hill to testify publicly
- 21 November is also the deadline for passage of funding bills needed to keep the government open.

This is a fairly busy week for the inquiry.
posted by ZeusHumms at 8:06 AM on November 18, 2019 [19 favorites]


Majority of Americans support ousting Trump from office, new poll shows (Politico)
Seventy percent of Americans said President Donald Trump was wrong to pressure Ukraine’s leader to pursue probes into his political opponents, according to a new survey, and more than half of respondents indicated he should be removed from office.

An ABC News/Ipsos poll published Monday found that 51 percent of those surveyed believed Trump should be impeached by House lawmakers, as well as convicted by the Senate. Six percent said that while Trump’s actions were wrong and that he should be impeached, he should not be ousted by the Senate. An additional 13 percent also deemed the president’s push for foreign investigations of his rivals to be wrong, but believed he should neither be impeached nor convicted by Congress. A quarter of respondents, 25 percent, said Trump did nothing wrong.

[...] The Ipsos poll, conducted Nov. 16-17, was randomized and included a sample of 506 adults nationwide. The margin of error is plus or minus 4.8 percentage points.
posted by katra at 8:07 AM on November 18, 2019 [21 favorites]


That WaPo impeachment calendar is daunting. I hope we are all very productive today. It's going to be hard to get any work done the rest of the week.
posted by PhineasGage at 8:17 AM on November 18, 2019 [15 favorites]


One of the interesting things about impeachment which just occurred to me is the historical quirk of how the vice president is chosen. When the rules for impeachment were produced, the vice president was the 2nd place candidate, rather than being a hand picked jr president, as is done today. If you carry this forward to today, the original concept of impeachment would result in a Clinton presidency if convicted. This seems even more impossible in today's climate but it makes a whole lot more sense than putting the president's chosen successor in charge after removing them due to crimes.
posted by feloniousmonk at 8:25 AM on November 18, 2019 [23 favorites]


Trump says he will ‘strongly consider’ testifying in writing in impeachment probe

In morning tweets, Trump said he might take up House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on a suggestion she made over the weekend.

Trump suggests in tweets that he's "considering" doing things he has no intention of doing all the time. That way it doesn't look to his base like he's running away, and he can feel like he accepted the challenge without having done so (story of his life).

Unless Trump's testimony is under oath, it's of little value. There is a statute against lying to Congress oath or no oath, of course, and I'm looking forward to Trump's lawyers telling the courts that he is Constitutionally able to lie to Congress with impunity.
posted by Gelatin at 8:31 AM on November 18, 2019 [10 favorites]


Republicans condemned for smearing impeachment witnesses born abroad (Victoria Bekiempis, Guardian)
Trump tactic suggesting Marie Yovanovitch and Alexander Vindman have mixed loyalties criticized as bigoted […]

The attacks were brought up in the hearings last week.

George Kent, the deputy assistant secretary of state who leads Ukraine policy, ended his initial statement with a resounding defense of his colleagues.

“I would like to conclude my opening remarks with an observation about some of my fellow public servants who have come under personal attack,” Kent said to the House intelligence committee, naming Yovanovitch, Vindman, and Hill.

“Masha, Alex, and Fiona were born abroad before their families or they themselves personally chose to immigrate to the United States. They all made the professional choice to serve the United States as public officials, helping shape our national security policy, towards Russia in particular. And we and our national security are the better for it.”
posted by ZeusHumms at 9:06 AM on November 18, 2019 [12 favorites]


Ties would be rarer still, because McConnell won't bring anything to the floor that isn't a Republican priority that he wants to pass, but the slimmer margin will give so-called "moderates" like Susan Collins less wiggle room to cast a meaningless vote against something they know is going to pass.

Trumpo, Republicano, "Independent"-o, "Moderate"-o, Root-and-Branch-o, delenda est.
posted by ishmael at 9:07 AM on November 18, 2019 [1 favorite]


They say Trump lies. They say he's racist. But they still won't call him out for misogyny (Dan Froomkin, Salon/Press Watch)
We all understood the sexist subtext of Trump's tweets about Marie Yovanovitch. So why won't reporters say so? […]

Donald Trump’s Twitter assault on former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch, coming even as she testified on Capitol Hill on Friday about feeling threatened by his earlier attacks, was notable not just because it was an act of witness intimidation in plain view and real time.

It was also the latest obvious example of how easily Trump is triggered by strong women who don’t let him have his way — and how personally and viciously he lashes out at them. […]

I don’t expect much, if any, of the clearly misogynistic nature of Trump’s attack to make it into the news reports produced by our major news organizations.

That’s because political reporters don’t write from the heart. They run their thoughts and observations through a series of familiar filters and algorithms to create a work product that conforms to certain expectations, chief among them that you don’t take sides.

But that expectation is highly limiting — one might even say self-censoring — in the Trump era.

Calling out misogyny is outside reporters' comfort zone.
posted by ZeusHumms at 9:09 AM on November 18, 2019 [18 favorites]


Not that Trump is alone in his misogyny, nor is he alone in expressing it.
posted by ZeusHumms at 9:10 AM on November 18, 2019 [4 favorites]


No disagreement re: misogyny, but c'mon they've done a pretty shitty job of calling him out on the lies and the racism.
posted by mcstayinskool at 9:30 AM on November 18, 2019 [15 favorites]


in contrast, the right is trying to flog misogyny claims against rep. schiff for holding rep. stefanik to the hearing rules during yovanovich hearing, per wapo columnist monica hesse.
posted by 20 year lurk at 9:32 AM on November 18, 2019 [4 favorites]


Mad props to that Hesse article for having at its core an intelligible and unmistakably true thesis: "sexism exists, and it's not exclusively a problem of the right wing, but this particular incident isn't an example of it."

(Also, I missed that Nunes called her a "young lady". That's patronizing and faintly creepy.)
posted by jackbishop at 9:41 AM on November 18, 2019 [10 favorites]


in contrast, the right is trying to flog misogyny claims against rep. schiff for holding rep. stefanik to the hearing rules during yovanovich hearing, per wapo columnist monica hesse.

It may have been inevitable that some in the so-called "liberal media" would fall for what was obviously a bad faith stunt, but it was probably also inevitable that Stefanik's Democratic opponent would raise a pile of money after the "moderate" threw in her lot with the lunatics running the Republican asylum.

It's significant that the Republicans are so desperate to come up with anything to distract from the steady drumbeat of evidence of Trump's guilt that they seem willing to sacrifice Stefanik's seat (R+4, hardly a comfortable margin) for even a brief respite in the bad headlines.
posted by Gelatin at 9:50 AM on November 18, 2019 [7 favorites]


No disagreement re: misogyny, but c'mon they've done a pretty shitty job of calling him out on the lies and the racism.

True, but more could be done for all three.
posted by ZeusHumms at 9:58 AM on November 18, 2019


Can we back up to the part where the esteemed Senator from Wisconsin talks about our two branches of government?
posted by Iris Gambol at 10:08 AM on November 18, 2019 [39 favorites]


The fact that "Trump Says He Might Testify" gets any headlines or column space at all is an indictment of how this whole thing is being covered. Everyone knows that's not going to happen. It's not worth more than a sentence or two within a larger and more significant story. This getting the "breaking news" treatment shows a lack of perspective on the impeachment story and the broader dumpster fire of this era.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 10:22 AM on November 18, 2019 [13 favorites]


> Coincidence?

Guardian: Two House Republicans are requesting information from a Senate Republican on conversations he reportedly had with Trump and Gordon Sondland, the US ambassador to the EU, about the frozen military aid to Ukraine.
Jeremy Herb (@jeremyherb) In a letter to Sen. Johnson, Reps. Jordan and Nunes "reluctantly write to request any firsthand information you have about President Trump’s actions toward Ukraine between April and September 2019." pic.twitter.com/ge93iaul5X November 18, 2019
"“Because the Democrats have abandoned fundamental fairness and objectivity in their ‘impeachment inquiry,’ we reluctantly write to request any firsthand information you have about President Trump’s actions toward Ukraine between April and September 2019,” representatives Jim Jordan and Devin Nunes wrote to senator Ron Johnson."
posted by katra at 10:24 AM on November 18, 2019 [4 favorites]


ahahaha, more like:

We reluctantly write to you in search of exculpatory testimony, even though in all likelihood, it will only expose more crimes.
posted by ryanrs at 10:29 AM on November 18, 2019 [9 favorites]


House investigating whether Trump lied to Mueller (Guardian)
The House told a federal court that it is investigating whether Trump lied to Robert Mueller as the Justice Department seeks a stay on lawmakers receiving grand jury material from the special counsel’s investigation. [...] The president provided Mueller with written answers to some of the special counsel’s questions but refused to sit for an interview with his team. Mueller also wrote in his final report that he considered some of Trump’s answers to be incomplete or imprecise.
Guardian: Lawyers for the House suggested in a previous court filing that the grand jury material from Robert Mueller’s investigation could help them determine whether Trump was truthful in his answers to the special counsel.
“Not only could those materials demonstrate the president’s motives for obstructing the special counsel’s investigation, they also could reveal that Trump was aware of his campaign’s contacts with WikiLeaks,” the lawyer’s wrote in the late September filing.

They added, “Those materials therefore have direct bearing on whether the president was untruthful, and further obstructed the special counsel’s investigation, when in providing written responses to the special counsel’s questions he denied being aware of any communications between his campaign and WikiLeaks.”
posted by katra at 10:32 AM on November 18, 2019 [8 favorites]


The fact that "Trump Says He Might Testify" gets any headlines or column space at all is an indictment of how this whole thing is being covered.

Perhaps some ambitious journalist could present the evidence for/against the idea that it's even up to him?

'Cause my gut reaction if I were in Adam Schiff's shoes would be to issue a statement like, "Thank you for that consideration Mr. President, I'll consider whether or not the inquiry is willing to accept written answers from you." And then put that asshat on the stand. It might be too early to open that can of worms since Trump would likely fight it harder than anything else he has so far but that's at least where I'd start and then I might tone things down from there.
posted by VTX at 10:34 AM on November 18, 2019 [3 favorites]


...my gut reaction if I were in Adam Schiff's shoes would be to issue a statement like, "Thank you for that consideration Mr. President, I'll consider whether or not the inquiry is willing to accept written answers from you

...after your administration has honored all the subpoenas the House has already issued, including your tax returns."

Of course, by publicly suggesting he might testify, Trump undermined the fig leaf arguments his administration has been making against various Democratic inquiries -- that they're illegitimate. Trump just tacitly recognized the legitimacy of the House inquiries, and so he doesn't get to pick and choose which subpoenas he'll obey.
posted by Gelatin at 10:43 AM on November 18, 2019 [10 favorites]


He could start a war.

He just killed the two state solution so it looks like we're off to a great start.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 11:12 AM on November 18, 2019 [5 favorites]


I'd really love to see Josh Marshall's framing get more play among the left-leaning commentariat.

Everyone knows that Trump is a waddling impeachable offense; the real question being raised here is whether the Republicans have any shred of moral fiber left. Just how far will they prostrate themselves for the sake of this farce?

I think this is not only a good framing tactically, it's also a much healthier way to view the whole thing.

Like, whatever nonsense Jim Jordan and Devin Nunes spout isn't itself meaningful, what's meaningful is that the Republicans decided to have Jordan and Nunes spout their nonsense, and what does that say about the party's preparedness to acknowledge basic facts?

And if/when the Republicans fail to hold Trump accountable, that's not a defeat for Democrats, beyond the way it's a defeat when you hold an intervention for someone and they go off on an epic bender right afterward.
posted by bjrubble at 11:47 AM on November 18, 2019 [22 favorites]


Calling out misogyny is outside reporters' comfort zone.

Hasn't misogyny been called out and associated with him since day one? That's one of the things he's known for. Kinda like Jimmy Carter was a peanut farmer.. Reagan liked Jelly Beans... Trump is a sexist bigot.
posted by Liquidwolf at 12:01 PM on November 18, 2019 [3 favorites]




The Supreme Court as issued a temporary stay to allow Trump to keep his tax returns secret.

Guardian: Supreme Court issues temporary stay on House receiving Trump's financial records
Greg Stohr (@GregStohr) NEW: Supreme Court issues administrative stay blocking House subpoena for Trump financial records. This comes after the House said it would agree to a delay until the end of the month. Order from Chief Justice Roberts applies until "further order." November 18, 2019

The House’s top lawyer previously said lawmakers would consent to a 10-day delay to allow for the filing of all applicable briefs in the case, but the counsel emphasized that a longer delay should not be necessary.
posted by katra at 12:12 PM on November 18, 2019 [1 favorite]


Guardian: Pelosi releases 'Dear Colleague' letter on impeachment inquiry
Heather Caygle (@heatherscope) Speaker Pelosi sends letter to Dems disputing GOP defenses, including that Trump didn’t do anything wrong bc aid eventually came pic.twitter.com/FVe60hF5pJ November 18, 2019

[...] The House speaker went on to lay out the accusations against Trump, once again using the term “bribery” to describe the president’s alleged efforts to pressure Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden. “The facts are uncontested: that the President abused his power for his own personal, political benefit, at the expense of our national security interests,” Pelosi wrote.

“There are also some who say that no serious wrongdoing was committed, because the military assistance to Ukraine was eventually released. The fact is, the aid was only released after the whistleblower exposed the truth of the President’s extortion and bribery, and the House launched a formal investigation.”
posted by katra at 12:18 PM on November 18, 2019 [16 favorites]


There must be something truly horrible in those tax returns.
posted by Gelatin at 12:18 PM on November 18, 2019 [27 favorites]


Josh Marshall, TPM: The Holmes Prepared Testimony Is a Way Bigger Deal Than Expected

Highlights key sections of David Holmes' pre-written testimony from last week.
posted by ZeusHumms at 12:19 PM on November 18, 2019 [8 favorites]


I don't know why, but that Pompeo presser had me wanting to jump through the screen and start punching.
posted by angrycat at 12:25 PM on November 18, 2019 [3 favorites]


The Supreme Court as issued a temporary stay to allow Trump to keep his tax returns secret.

The 10-day stay is no big deal and expected. The next step is for the Supreme Court to decide to hear the case or else reject it and leave the lower court rulings requiring the tax return disclosures. By all common sense and Supreme Court precedent, the Supreme Court should just toss it. But it only take four justices to agree to hear the case, which pushes the case out to probably next summer for oral arguments and after the next election for a decision.

What are the odds that they can find four justices among Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh to decide to accept the case and slow walk it until after Trump's election?
posted by JackFlash at 12:28 PM on November 18, 2019 [15 favorites]


And by the way, thank you so much, so-called "elite national political media," for not drawing the completely obvious conclusion in 2015-2016 that Trump was hiding his tax returns because he believed something in them would prevent his election.

The proper response to "lol I won't release my tax returns" is "then we'll find out what you're hiding, sucker," not ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.
posted by Gelatin at 12:29 PM on November 18, 2019 [29 favorites]


So the people on Earth who already know what is in his tax forms are: His accountant, and probably numerous people at the IRS? How has the secret been kept?
posted by Liquidwolf at 12:43 PM on November 18, 2019 [6 favorites]


For all the smear attempts against the IRS from the Republicans, the folks who work there have a remarkably strong ethic re: integrity and confidentiality.
posted by PhineasGage at 12:50 PM on November 18, 2019 [14 favorites]


So the people on Earth who already know what is in his tax forms are: His accountant, and probably numerous people at the IRS? How has the secret been kept?

I've been wondering for a while why Anonymous hasn't popped up with something like that. Are they still around?
posted by Snowishberlin at 12:52 PM on November 18, 2019


What are the odds that they can find four justices among Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh to decide to accept the case and slow walk it until after Trump's election?

It takes four to agree to hear a case, but it takes five to do the slow-walk. Majority rules in schedule-setting, and the House would surely ask for expedited review.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 12:53 PM on November 18, 2019 [2 favorites]


So the people on Earth who already know what is in his tax forms are: His accountant, and probably numerous people at the IRS? How has the secret been kept?

Because if any of these people betray the trust that has been placed in them, they will lose everything they have worked hard to gain in their careers.

Because if they spill the beans, they will be hounded to the ends of the earth by a rabid pack of fools on Twitter.

Because they believe that privacy is a basic human right.

Because they take pride in keeping their mouths shut, even if doing so doesn't suit their ends.

Pick your reason: there's plenty of good ones.
posted by springo at 1:01 PM on November 18, 2019 [7 favorites]



I've been wondering for a while why Anonymous hasn't popped up with something like that. Are they still around?


Yeah WTF happened to them? They seemed to disappear in 2015 around the time Russia took over Wikileaks. Any connection?
posted by Liquidwolf at 1:02 PM on November 18, 2019 [4 favorites]


...Pick your reason: there's plenty of good ones.

Sure those seem like fabulous reasons for IRS employees but someone who Trump hired to do his accounting? Maybe not.
posted by Liquidwolf at 1:06 PM on November 18, 2019 [4 favorites]


When Trump first started making it on the scene in a somewhat serious way, his doctor was a mob doctor, his lawyer was a mob lawyer, his banker was a mob banker. The reason no one has leaked his tax returns is probably that he has a mob accountant, too. He's not taking them down to H&R Block.
posted by feloniousmonk at 1:12 PM on November 18, 2019 [8 favorites]


I've been wondering for a while why Anonymous hasn't popped up with something like that. Are they still around?

Yeah WTF happened to them? They seemed to disappear in 2015 around the time Russia took over Wikileaks. Any connection?


"Anonymous" was the name for the loose collection of people on 4chan and allied communities who cared about doing something to change the world, or really anything other than shitposting. Gamergate sucked up all of that energy and turned it into the alt-right, and anyone who didn't care to belong to that movement quit in disgust or faded away.
posted by J.K. Seazer at 1:12 PM on November 18, 2019 [26 favorites]


So the people on Earth who already know what is in his tax forms are: His accountant, and probably numerous people at the IRS? How has the secret been kept?

David Farenthold pretty much single-handedly started the destruction of Trump's phony foundation by asking questions.

If memory serves me correctly, the NYT (to its credit) got hold of some of Trump's state returns that were public record as a part of a lawsuit.

We don't need civil servants to sacrifice their careers to hand the press a story on a silver platter, we need the press to be worthy of their careers, not whine about how hard and boring real reporting is.
posted by Gelatin at 1:17 PM on November 18, 2019 [21 favorites]


His accountant: Allen Weisselberg Is the Key to Trump's Finances. Here's What to Know. (Esquire, Feb. 27, 2019) Weisselberg testified in the Cohen trial, about the payoffs; he'd been granted immunity.

Weisselberg was also the treasurer for the Trump Foundation. New York files civil suit against President Trump, alleging his charity engaged in ‘illegal conduct’ (WaPo, June 14, 2018):

"[Attorney General Barbara] Underwood said that oversight of spending at Trump’s foundation was so loose that its board of directors hadn’t met since 1999, and its official treasurer wasn’t even aware that he was on the board."
posted by Iris Gambol at 1:21 PM on November 18, 2019 [4 favorites]


So the people on Earth who already know what is in his tax forms are: His accountant, and probably numerous people at the IRS? How has the secret been kept?

As far as the IRS goes, personal financial information there is likely to be under the kind of locks and keys that are different for every employee with any kind of access. Furthermore, because I would do this, they also know which user (or account) retrieved so much as a directory listing on any of those systems, and, more importantly, who touched what files or database rows and what did they do to them.

Yeah yeah, "The IRS Computer" is famously older than most of us, but that's not the only computer they have, and to whatever degree it participates in the functions we're talking about here it would also be behind lock and key, under its own security as well as in the systems and networks that are connected to it.

"The Mob" or a similar ethic probably indeed accounts for all of the civilian access to his papers.
posted by rhizome at 1:30 PM on November 18, 2019 [3 favorites]


Even if Trump's tax returns were pinned to the bulletin board in the employee break room:

After Budget Cuts, the IRS’ Work Against Tax Cheats Is Facing “Collapse” (ProPublica, Oct. 1, 2018) Audits and criminal referrals are down sharply since Congress cut the tax agency’s budget and management changed priorities.

The IRS Admits It Doesn’t Audit the Rich Because It’s Too Hard (GQ, Oct. 3, 2019) Only poor people have to pay back unpaid taxes.

(While he's not as rich as he claims, and never has been, he's not that poor, either.)
posted by Iris Gambol at 1:37 PM on November 18, 2019 [6 favorites]


McConnell Still ‘Can’t Imagine A Scenario’ Where Trump Is Removed From Office (Summer Concepcion, TPM)
According to a Louisville Courier-Journal report Monday, McConnell said that he “can’t imagine a scenario” where the Senate would vote to remove Trump from office. McConnell spoke during an appearance in Louisville to receive this year’s “Distinguished Rural Kentuckian” award from the Kentucky Electric Cooperatives.

[…] Despite his confidence in the Senate impeachment trial’s outcome, McConnell said that he wasn’t sure how long it would last.
posted by ZeusHumms at 2:10 PM on November 18, 2019 [2 favorites]


US official in Kiev added to Thursday's public impeachment hearing
The House Intelligence Committee will have David Holmes, the counselor for political affairs at the US Embassy in Ukraine, testifying alongside former White House official Fiona Hill on Thursday, according to a Democratic aide. The addition of Holmes means nine individuals will testify publicly as witnesses in the House impeachment probe this week.
posted by kirkaracha at 2:38 PM on November 18, 2019 [11 favorites]


man this year's turkey pardon is going to be as awkward af
posted by angrycat at 2:49 PM on November 18, 2019 [33 favorites]


BREAKING: both turkeys have been subpoenaed
posted by Huffy Puffy at 2:56 PM on November 18, 2019 [57 favorites]


Someone--likely to be his first wife, Marla Maples, who was married to him at the time--anonymously sent the New York Times a copy of Donald Trump's 1995 tax returns. The NYT had tax experts review them and, not surprisingly, they appear shifty as hell--though hard to tell without being analyzed in context of the rest of his returns.
posted by Sublimity at 2:56 PM on November 18, 2019 [5 favorites]


There must be something truly horrible in those tax returns.

Well, we know he didn't report the 130k to Stormy Daniels on his financial disclosure form, so there's likely that bit of fraud carried over at least.
posted by mikelieman at 3:03 PM on November 18, 2019 [1 favorite]


Marla Maples was his second wife, with whom he cheated while still married to Ivana, his actual first wife.
posted by rikschell at 3:09 PM on November 18, 2019 [3 favorites]


Not to be confused with Melania Knauss, his third wife, with whom he cheated while still married to Marla, his second wife.
posted by kirkaracha at 3:11 PM on November 18, 2019 [10 favorites]


Thanks for the clarification. All those unfortunate women!
posted by Sublimity at 3:16 PM on November 18, 2019 [4 favorites]


Mod note: One deleted; please let's keep the thread about impeachment.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 3:27 PM on November 18, 2019 [4 favorites]


reserving my sympathy for those many women whose contacts with that man did not involve their consent or agency.
posted by 20 year lurk at 3:35 PM on November 18, 2019 [15 favorites]


Ron Johnson's reply to Jordan and Nunes' request for first hand information regarding Trump and Sondland. It's an 11 page PDF. I haven't finished it entirely, but it contains the opinion that "Foreign policy is what the president determines it to be", which may come as a surprise to many in Congress.
posted by Sparx at 3:38 PM on November 18, 2019 [4 favorites]


Curiously, Ron Johnson's statement is not under oath. It is worth about as much as you would think.
posted by JackFlash at 3:59 PM on November 18, 2019 [3 favorites]


Jeff Stein and Tom Hamburger , WaPo:

"IRS whistleblower case advances as Senate staff looks at whether political appointee meddled with audit of Trump or Pence"
Two senators are looking into a whistleblower’s allegations that at least one political appointee at the Treasury Department may have tried to interfere with an audit of President Trump or Vice President Pence, according to two people with knowledge of the matter, a sign that lawmakers are moving to investigate the complaint lodged by a senior staffer at the Internal Revenue Service.

Staff members for Sens. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) and Ron Wyden (Ore.), the chairman and ranking Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, met with the IRS whistleblower earlier this month, those people said. Follow-up interviews are expected to further explore the whistleblower’s allegations.

It could not be learned to what extent the senators consider the whistleblower a credible source. Trump administration officials have previously played down the complaint’s significance and suggested that it is politically motivated.

The whistleblower, a career IRS official, initially filed a complaint in July, reporting that he was told that at least one Treasury political appointee attempted to improperly interfere with the annual audit of the president’s or vice president’s tax returns. In recent weeks, the whistleblower filed additional documentation related to the original complaint, which was given to congressional officials in July, the two people said. These people spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the complaint, which pertains to a confidential IRS audit that cannot be disclosed under federal law.

The contents of the additional information provided by the whistleblower were not known.

The IRS whistleblower complaint was first disclosed in an August court filing by Rep. Richard E. Neal (D-Mass.), the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee. It raises the prospect that Trump administration officials at Treasury tried to improperly interfere with the IRS audit process. That process is supposed to be walled off from political interference.
posted by OnceUponATime at 4:32 PM on November 18, 2019 [12 favorites]


(The case for Congress getting Trump's tax returns to exercise oversight of the IRS presidential audit is rock solid. And that IRS whistleblower complaint is part of it. The Supreme Court would have to be completely shameless to deny access. Neal has dotted every i and crossed every t, to the consternation of impatient activists. I don't think Roberts or even Gorsuch is shameless enough to rule in favor of Trump, though I am worried about a delay that goes past the election.)
posted by OnceUponATime at 4:38 PM on November 18, 2019 [16 favorites]


Stop Assuming Republican Senators Will Do the Right Thing (Dahlia Lithwick, Salon)
A new genre of impeachment fantasy theorizes that Trump accomplices will suddenly find their spines. Don’t buy it.
Articles such as “There’s a Surprisingly Plausible Path to Removing Trump From Office" [Politico] fantasize possible tweaks in interpreting the Constitution that would lead to conviction. Constitutional scholars are quick to point out reasoning errors in such thinking [tweetstorm], and there's the larger issue of diminishing rules of accountability and transparency to give Senate Republicans cover to do the right thing [National Review] which would not guarantee anything.
[...] Republicans who can no longer even explain why they will vote to acquit Donald Trump [NBC News] will do it anyway, but despite all the cover, and the wishing, and the convenient off-ramps we devise, nothing will lead them to avail themselves of the opportunity to dump this president. So instead of twisting ourselves into taffy sculptures to see if there are any procedural tricks we can use to make it easy for them to do the right thing, we should acknowledge that, based on everything we have seen over the past three years, the most likely scenario is the simplest: Senate Republicans were never coming together to help Democrats save constitutional norms, values, or institutions, and they won’t do so now. [...]
posted by ZeusHumms at 5:54 PM on November 18, 2019 [8 favorites]


Yes, these high-minded fantasies are silly. But I'm still predicting the Senate will convict, out of naked self-interest. Selfquote:
Until now Trump was a useful idiot and helpful diversion so the Republican leadership could pursue their long-standing goals. But now, 1) he is actively working against their beliefs & interests, and 2) he is a multiplying force to get the *Democratic* base to turn out.

Mitch McConnell sees that his Senate Majority is at greater risk if Trump stays in office and continues to rile up Democratic turnout. Pence will know to be a do-nothing President through next November, and with Trump gone a big share of voters will breathe a big sigh and revel in the chance to pay less attention. Which will improve Republican changes to keep the Senate.

Not sure I'd wager a ton of money on this, but it feels increasingly plausible each day - again, purely for Republican self-interest.
posted by PhineasGage at 6:45 PM on November 18, 2019 [4 favorites]


The problem is not that Republicans are too dumb to see Trump as a liability, it's that they know if Trump is impeached the cult will implode and 40% of their voters will stay home on election day or support a White Nationalist third party candidate.
posted by benzenedream at 7:00 PM on November 18, 2019 [15 favorites]


holmes transcript.
hale transcript.
source: just security's document clearinghouse (posted somewhere above, too).
posted by 20 year lurk at 7:01 PM on November 18, 2019 [6 favorites]


Senate Republicans were never coming together to help Democrats save constitutional norms, values, or institutions, and they won’t do so now.

I'm not even sure they will get 47 Democrats. Remember that Doug Jones, Joe Manchin, and Kyrsten Sinema all voted to approve the constitutional norm breaking Attorney General Bill Barr, bucking their own party leaders. These three have just as much to fear from a Trump backlash as the Republican senators. Maybe more.
posted by JackFlash at 7:19 PM on November 18, 2019 [6 favorites]


Senate Republicans were never coming together to help Democrats save constitutional norms, values, or institutions, and they won’t do so now.

Lindsey Graham announces hearing with DOJ inspector general (Politico)
Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham announced Monday that he will hold a hearing on Dec. 11 featuring Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz. Horowitz's scheduled appearance before the committee comes as the inspector general is wrapping up an investigation into the origins of the FBI probe into the 2016 Trump campaign's dealings with Russia.

The IG report, which is expected to be released imminently, will examine whether the FBI violated surveillance laws or policies by obtaining a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrant to look into Carter Page, a Trump campaign adviser, who drew scrutiny from the intelligence community for his ties to Moscow. [...]

The South Carolina Republican added that Horowitz "will deliver a detailed report of what he found regarding his investigation, along with recommendations as to how to make our judicial and investigative systems better."
posted by katra at 7:28 PM on November 18, 2019


lol dec 18th? that's like six months from now in trumpworld years. that has about as much weight for me as trump's "seriously considering doing xyz..." garbage. maybe it will happen, maybe not, but like as not Graham is just feeling the need to make sycophantic noises regularly to keep Gramps happy. and there's no cost to keeping some "deep state will be revealed next episode!" bullshit smoldering in order to capture as much of a news cycle as you can while secure in the knowledge that cancelling later, if the political circumstances change which they most certainly will, also has no cost.
posted by lazaruslong at 7:52 PM on November 18, 2019 [2 favorites]


WATCH LIVE: The Trump Impeachment Hearings – Day 3 (PBS)
Four more witnesses are scheduled to testify Tuesday before the House Intelligence Committee in what will be the third day of public impeachment hearings. The PBS NewsHour is hosting live coverage of the hearings Tuesday beginning at 9 a.m. ET. [Watch live]
WATCH LIVE: Open Hearing with Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman and Jennifer Williams (U.S. House Intelligence Committee)
On Tuesday, November 19, 2019 at 9 AM EST, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence will hold an open hearing with Ms. Jennifer Williams, Special Advisor for Europe and Russia, Office of the Vice President and Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, Director for European Affairs, National Security Council.
Watch LIVE On November 19 | 8am ET | C-SPAN3
Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman and Jennifer Williams, an aide to Vice President Pence, publicly testify as part of the House Intelligence Committee’s impeachment inquiry into President Trump.
Watch LIVE On November 19 | 2:30pm ET | C-SPAN3
Kurt Volker, the former U.S. special envoy to Ukraine, and Tim Morrison, National Security Council director for Russia, publicly testify as part of the House Intelligence Committee’s impeachment inquiry.
posted by katra at 8:27 PM on November 18, 2019 [9 favorites]


AP Exclusive: US officials knew of Ukraine’s Trump anxiety (AP)
U.S. State Department officials were informed that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy was feeling pressure from the Trump administration to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden even before the July phone call that has led to impeachment hearings in Washington, two people with knowledge of the matter told The Associated Press.

In early May, officials at the U.S. Embassy in Kyiv, including then-Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch, were told Zelenskiy was seeking advice on how to navigate the difficult position he was in, the two people told the AP. He was concerned President Donald Trump and associates were pressing him to take action that could affect the 2020 U.S. presidential race, the two individuals said. They spoke on condition of anonymity because of the diplomatic and political sensitivity of the issue.

State Department officials in Kyiv and Washington were briefed on Zelenskiy’s concerns at least three times, the two sources said. Notes summarizing his worries were circulated within the department, they said. The briefings and the notes show that U.S. officials knew early that Zelenskiy was feeling pressure to investigate Biden, even though the Ukrainian leader later denied it in a joint news conference with Trump in September.

Congressional Republicans have pointed to that public Zelenskiy statement to argue that he felt no pressure to open an investigation, and therefore the Democrats’ allegations that led to the impeachment hearings are misplaced. [...] The U.S. briefings — and contemporaneous notes on Zelenskiy’s early anxiety about Trump’s interest in an investigation — suggest that Democrats have evidence in reach to contradict Republican arguments that Zelenskiy never felt pressure to investigate Biden.
posted by katra at 8:32 PM on November 18, 2019 [11 favorites]


House staffers on a summer trip to Ukraine learned U.S. aid was frozen. Stunned, here's what they did next. (NBC News)
As legendary Chicago mobster Al Capone found out when he was put away for tax evasion, accountants are quick to catch on when something is amiss. All across Washington this summer, in the sleepy offices of the federal government infrastructure, red flags were raised. The same thing was happening at the U.S. embassy in Kyiv. In some cases, the hands being raised belonged to officials within the Trump administration who worried that the suspension of aid was illegal.

The hunt to find out why the money wasn't moving played out on Capitol Hill and across several federal agencies at the same time the whistleblower complaint was quietly winding its way through separate government channels in August and early September, and it illustrates the difficulty anyone connected to the administration would have in hiding a purported plot to withhold federal funds. [...]

In the weeks since the whistleblower's complaint was made public in late September, along with a White House summary of a July 25 Trump call with Zelenskiy in which the leaders discussed both U.S. support for Ukraine's defense and the Bidens, a parade of current and former U.S. officials have testified that Trump and a rump group of his hand-picked political emissaries conducted a shadow foreign policy with Ukraine that focused on boxing Zelenskiy into a simple trade.

If Zelenskiy wanted the money, he had to publicly announce the opening of investigations that would cast aspersions both on Biden and on the U.S. intelligence community's finding that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to help Trump win the White House, the officials have said under oath. The latter would require Ukraine's president to fictitiously implicate his own nation and exonerate its mortal enemy in service of Trump.

While Trump and his allies argue there's "no harm, no foul" because Ukraine ultimately got its aid, the behind-the-scenes machinations in Congress reveal just how tenuous the situation became, with the flow of aid not resuming until after lawmakers began asking questions.

The crisis wasn't fully averted, because there wasn't enough time left to spend all of the funds before the fiscal year ended on Sept. 30, as government budget officials ultimately told Congress. [...] Even now, as Trump faces potential impeachment in the House, it's not clear that all of the funds have yet made it to Ukraine.
posted by katra at 9:32 PM on November 18, 2019 [19 favorites]


they know if Trump is impeached the cult will implode

Could we please distinguish between impeachment (which is done by the House) and conviction (which is done by the Senate)?

Trump is going to be impeached by the House. There's too much evidence, with more to come, for the House not to impeach him. And then the Senate will almost certainly not convict him.

I have to admit I was intrigued by the secret Senate vote idea, but a secret ballot is a bad idea and I want the Republicans in the Senate to be on record like the House Republicans are.
posted by kirkaracha at 9:44 PM on November 18, 2019 [16 favorites]


What? Per katra's AP link, on May 7th, Zelenskiy met with a couple of "top aides" and "Andriy Kobolyev, head of the state-owned natural gas company Naftogaz, and Amos Hochstein, an American who sits on the Ukrainian company’s supervisory board," on the pretext of energy issues but in actuality to voice his concerns.

Then Hochstein separately briefed two U.S. Embassy officials, Suriya Jayanti (present during that ridiculous lunch meeting in Kyiv, when Sondland phoned Trump and everyone and their country overheard the latter's keen interest in a Biden investigation) and Joseph Pennington, about those concerns. (They kindly take notes.) Then, Hochstein hotfoots it to DC to update Yovanovitch, who's already been recalled and is "relieved of her duties" on May 20th.

AP News notes that Jayanti and the third lunch witness, Tara Maher, haven't been interviewed, and Hochstein (a former diplomat who advised Biden on Ukraine matters during the Obama administration) "has also not been questioned in the impeachment proceedings."

Okay, but Yovanovitch was questioned. On Friday. For hours. She got a round of applause at the end. That the president of Ukraine wasn't really fussed in July is one of the four pillars of the Republicans' defense of Trump; is this "officials knew" info now being leaked strategically, or could the Dems really not have known? (They've been doing fairly well? Considering? Maybe?)
posted by Iris Gambol at 9:48 PM on November 18, 2019 [1 favorite]


While Trump and his allies argue there's "no harm, no foul" because Ukraine ultimately got its aid

This story would have done its readers a service by pointing out that this position moves the goalposts from the Republicans insisting there was no quid pro quo -- they now admit there was, but claim it's okay because Trump did not follow thru after he got caught. Quoting only the current feeble Republican defense omits the context that they keep having to change their defense as new facts come to light, which is a strong indicator that Trump is guilty and the Republicans know it.

By the way, Trump asking Zelensky to investigate Biden as a "favor" is an impeachable offense all by itself, and the White House's own released call summary admits that.
posted by Gelatin at 2:38 AM on November 19, 2019 [18 favorites]


The 22 defenses Trump’s allies have floated on Ukraine and impeachment (JM Rieger, WaPo)

Example:
8. Trump is incapable of a quid pro quo

Who: Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.)

What he said: “What I can tell you about the Trump policy toward Ukraine: It was incoherent. It depends on who you talk to. They seem to be incapable of forming a quid pro quo,” Graham said Nov. 6.

Context: Graham’s comments echo a defense first floated by the Wall Street Journal editorial board in October: “Impeachment for incompetence would disqualify most of the government, and most Presidents at some point or another in office.”

Not only did Trump reportedly complain about the Journal op-ed (“If I wanted to do quid pro quo, I would’ve done the damn quid pro quo”), but it was Trump in 2014 who proposed impeaching President Barack Obama for the same thing his defenders now attribute to him: incompetence.
With two more defenses, a full 5x5 bingo card can be created.
posted by ZeusHumms at 6:52 AM on November 19, 2019 [16 favorites]


From the 538 Impeachment Live Blog, Day Three:

Rick Klein 9:42 AM:
[…] the Republicans are focusing on the fact that witnesses aren’t condemning the president’s actions as “impeachable.” But that’s obviously not their job, and even if they did go there, it wouldn’t be of value to Democrats anyway. The power of today’s witnesses, at least potentially, is that they are firsthand witnesses, not relying on what others told them.
posted by ZeusHumms at 6:55 AM on November 19, 2019 [8 favorites]


Republicans are focusing on the fact that witnesses aren’t condemning the president’s actions as “impeachable.” But that’s obviously not their job

It's a great Catch-22 question - if the witness says "yes", then the Repugs can be outraged that they are weighing in on what is a properly a question for the House; if they don't, then they can claim that the witnesses aren't saying these are impeachable.

The only correct response is "that isn't my question to answer, it's yours."
posted by nubs at 7:38 AM on November 19, 2019 [23 favorites]


Rick Klein 10:44 AM
Oh snap. "It's Lt. Col. Vindman, please," he informs Nunes.
posted by ZeusHumms at 8:12 AM on November 19, 2019 [33 favorites]


The GOP counsel keeps on asking witnesses what they know about Hunter Biden. When, exactly, are the Republicans going to detail an actual accusation about his conduct?

Unlike the whistleblower, who detailed specific actions by the president that were possibly illegal (Narrator: They were definitely illegal.), the GOP’s accusations against the Biden’s seems to amount to - Hunter joined the Burisma board -> *furious handwaving* -> Corruption!
posted by Big Al 8000 at 8:24 AM on November 19, 2019 [8 favorites]


The GOP is the party of Support Our Troops unless they say anything politically inconvenient, or if they get sexually assaulted, or if we have any excuse to deport them, or if we can cut costs with bullshit other-than-honorable discharges...but let's definitely keep the war criminals.

Because it needs to be said, though: I'm seeing a lot of non-Republicans make a big deal out of Lt. Col. Vindman showing up in uniform as if that's some statement of integrity or gravitas. Soldiers can be good or bad or in between--gosh, it's like they're ordinary people like the rest of us. He's career military and it's literally in the rules that he has to wear his uniform to this. Please nobody amplify this, it's a nonsense detail.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 8:27 AM on November 19, 2019 [20 favorites]


Folks impacted by the fact that Vindman is in uniform probably don't recall Ollie North.
posted by OHenryPacey at 8:31 AM on November 19, 2019 [12 favorites]


Oh, they remember North...they just don't care.

It's the hypocrisy, stupid!
posted by notsnot at 8:41 AM on November 19, 2019 [5 favorites]


Charles Pierce on Twitter: The Ollie North gambit turned to good.

This is kind of what I mean. Vindman is taking big personal and career risks--but so is everyone else who has stepped up to testify. The military being what it is makes those risks a little different in a structural sense, but that's not anything people are really staring at when someone says, "Oooh, a uniform!" Especially not people who should know better like Charles Pierce.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 8:45 AM on November 19, 2019 [2 favorites]


Radcliffe now accusing the Democrats of repeatedly moving the impeachment goalposts, by listing the ways the Republicans have tried to move the goalposts.
posted by Harry Caul at 8:56 AM on November 19, 2019 [5 favorites]


Oh snap. "It's Lt. Col. Vindman, please," he informs Nunes.

The Republican lawyer just spent 10 minutes trying to establish that Vindman is not a real American because he was born in the former Soviet Union Ukraine and immigrated to the US at the age of 3. Insinuating dual loyalties to a country he has no memory of.

20 years in the Army. Served in the Iraq war. Received a Purple Heart for wounds in an IED attack. But not American enough for Republicans.

Republicans are coming for everyone who is not a native born white Christian. No one is safe.
posted by JackFlash at 9:30 AM on November 19, 2019 [69 favorites]


It's not even that they're "coming for everyone who isn't a native-born white Christian". Do you really think they'll avoid going after native white Christians who get in their way?

They're bullshitting. That's their style. If it's 2019 and you haven't read "On Bullshit" yet, you really need to catch up, because its definition of bullshit defines Republicans to a tee: the mistake is trusting that anything they're saying is a sincerely-held belief. They'll turn racist or sexist or nationalist if they see an in-road, but they don't "believe" in their racism or sexism or nationalism, they just use those things to further their real aim—which Donald Trump, the man who only tells the truth about the things he's supposed to lie about, succinctly and correctly calls "winning".

The written rules only matter inasmuch as the written rules let them win a game whose rules are up for grabs. The decorum, the "rightness", only matters when it benefits them.

Sartre said it about the Nazis, and it still holds true today:
“Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.”
Bullshit is their weapon of choice. And bullshit isn't unbeatable, but you can't beat it until you stop trying to play the game they're bullshitting about playing. The entire point of bullshit is to make you think they're playing a game they're not. Because then you'll waste your time trying to beat them on it, when the fact remains that they don't care whether or not they win or lose. Not on that front.

We used to smugly point out all their purported hypocrisies. Now we point to them in horror. But they're not hypocrites: they're bullshitters. Either we learn to bullshit them back, or we refuse to play their game altogether. What's not an option is insisting that that particular game holds meaning. The only reason they play it is because it doesn't mean a thing—to them, anyway, regardless of whether or not it holds meaning to us. (Though I, personally, am wary of holding military credentials as proof of Americanness, or of honor, or of much of anything.)
posted by rorgy at 9:47 AM on November 19, 2019 [81 favorites]


Army Reportedly Ready to Move Vindman Family Onto Base if They’re in ‘Physical Danger’ After Impeachment Testimony (Tommy Christopher, Mediaite)
But in a sobering development, the Army is concerned for the safety of Vondman and his family once he testifies publicly for the first time Tuesday, according to The Wall Street Journal:
The U.S. Army is prepared to move Col. Vindman and his family onto a military base in the area to ensure their security if it is determined that they are in physical danger, according to U.S. officials.

Army security officials in recent weeks conducted a security assessment at Col. Vindman’s request, reviewing both his and his family’s physical security and their online security, according to U.S. officials.

Army security officials have also been monitoring Col. Vindman and his family around the clock to make sure there aren’t any imminent threats, officials said.

“The Army will make sure he’s safe, and the Army is actively supporting any safety needs as deemed necessary,” an official said. “It’s hard that he has been catapulted into the public eye. He served his country honorably for 20 years, and you can imagine this is a tough situation for him and his family.”
posted by ZeusHumms at 9:54 AM on November 19, 2019 [16 favorites]


I take your point that there is a lot of bullshitting but if you think that there aren't large numbers of Republicans -- governors, senators, congress members and Trump himself -- who are not deadly serious racist nationalists and eliminationists, you are fooling yourself. They aren't just bullshitting.
posted by JackFlash at 9:59 AM on November 19, 2019 [11 favorites]


Politico: Vindman says he told Zelensky not to meddle in U.S. politics
Vindman revealed that he directly gave Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky some blunt advice while visiting for his inauguration: Stay out of U.S. politics.

Asked why he felt it was necessary to warn Zelensky, Vindman told House impeachment investigators that it had become clear to him by March of this year that “there were public actors, non-governmental actors that were prompting the idea of investigations into 2016 Ukrainian interference.”

The revelation is jarring because it suggests that Zelensky was made aware by a U.S. official as early as May that there might be efforts to use him as a political pawn, shedding new light on recent reports that Zelensky raised concerns internally, with his staff, about the pressure he was feeling from Rudy Giuliani and other unofficial actors.

Vindman testified that he gave two pieces of advice during a bilateral meeting: “To be particularly cautious with regard to Russia and its desire to provoke Ukraine, and to stay out of U.S. domestic" politics.
posted by katra at 10:01 AM on November 19, 2019 [9 favorites]




We used to smugly point out all their purported hypocrisies.

Republicans revel in their hypocrisies -- just listen to Mitch McConnell speak on basically any subject -- because it gives them a feeling of smug superiority to think that they tricked us into believing that they care. The only thing they care about, from the point of view of their supporters, is tribalism, and the way they signal their tribalism is to show their contempt for anything liberals believe in, like process, consistency, reason, justice, and equality.

The hypocrisy, like the cruelty, is the point.
posted by Gelatin at 10:03 AM on November 19, 2019 [22 favorites]


Guardian: Committee chairman Adam Schiff pushed back against Republican representative John Ratcliffe’s line of questioning, which was meant to argue that none of the impeachment witnesses had testified to a bribery scheme in Trump’s communications with Ukraine. [...]
Alana Abramson (@aabramson) Anddddd Chairman Schiff is laying out exactly what bribery is. "The reason we don't ask witnesses who are fact witnesses about whether a crime or bribery has been committed...is you're fact witnesses. It will be our job to decide if the impeachable act of bribery has occurred" November 19, 2019
posted by katra at 10:07 AM on November 19, 2019 [26 favorites]


I take your point that there is a lot of bullshitting but if you think that there aren't large numbers of Republicans -- governors, senators, congress members and Trump himself -- who are not deadly serious racist nationalists and eliminationists, you are fooling yourself. They aren't just bullshitting.
Right, and the Nazis wanted to exterminate the Jews. "On Bullshit" spends a lot of time making it clear that bullshitting is not the same as lying. Trump didn't lie about his campaign promises, for instance: he just didn't particularly care about keeping them. Which isn't to say he isn't a nationalist immigrant-hating sexist scumbag, just that his ideology is incoherent and he doesn't feel the need to make it cohere.

Bullshitting, in other words, isn't deception. It's a disregard for the value of truth altogether. Deception and lies generally respect the truth, then deviate from it. Bullshit is unconcerned with truth altogether. Do the Republicans support the troops? Yes, unless it means providing healthcare to veterans or slandering soldiers who get in their way. The point isn't that they don't "mean it", it's that the meaning changes to suit their needs.

Impeachment itself follows this rule. I'm genuinely curious how many people are swayed by, say, Lindsay Graham's hypocrisy regarding Clinton's impeachment vs. Trump's. But I'm positive that not a single Republican senator or congressperson gives a shit. Graham's stance suited them in the 90s, and Graham's stance suits them now. Why would they care that he did a 180? In the only way that matters to them—party gain—he hasn't wavered in the slightest.
posted by rorgy at 10:10 AM on November 19, 2019 [39 favorites]


Fox News Hosts Urge Trump: ‘Don’t Tweet’ During Impeachment Hearings (Summer Concepcion, TPM)

Guardian: White House Twitter account attacks Vindman's judgement
The White House Twitter account has just sent a message raising doubts about the judgement of Lt Col Alexander Vindman as the NSC official testifies in the impeachment inquiry. [...] The White House tweet quoted the closed-door testimony from Tim Morrison, who was Vindman’s superior on the national security council.

However, asked about Morrison’s testimony earlier, Vindman cited his glowing performance review from former White House official Fiona Hill, who praised the Iraq war veteran’s “brilliant” and “unflappable” demeanor.
posted by katra at 10:12 AM on November 19, 2019 [12 favorites]


NYT: Vindman and Williams testified that not a single national security official supported freezing Ukraine’s security aid.
Colonel Vindman and Ms. Williams both testified that they were never aware of any other national security officials in the United States government who supported the decision to withhold nearly $400 million in security aid for Ukraine, which both said was directed the White House chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney. Both witnesses said withholding the military assistance from Ukraine was damaging to relations between the two countries and to Ukraine’s ability to confront Russian aggression. Representative Mike Quigley of Illinois asked Colonel Vindman whether anyone else supported the decision to freeze the aid.

“No one from the national security?” Mr. Quigley asked.

“None,” Colonel Vindman said.

“No one from the state department?”

“Correct.”

“No one from the department of defense?

“Correct.”

Ms. Williams testified that President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine told Vice President Mike Pence during a September 1 meeting that continuing to withhold the aid would indicate that United States support for Ukraine was wavering, giving Russia a boost in the ongoing conflict between the two countries. “Any signal or sign that U.S. support was wavering would be construed by Russia as potentially an opportunity for them to strengthen their own hand in Ukraine,” Ms. Williams said, relating what Mr. Zelensky told Mr. Pence.
posted by katra at 10:17 AM on November 19, 2019 [19 favorites]


AP FACT CHECK: Nunes asserts a Biden crime that wasn’t (AP)
REP. DEVIN NUNES, the top Republican on the committee, speaking of the news media: “You’d think they would be interested in Joe Biden threatening to withhold U.S. loan guarantees unless the Ukrainians fired a prosecutor who was investigating Burisma. That would be a textbook example of bribery.”

THE FACTS: The prosecutor wasn’t investigating the company at the time. Moreover, the United States and Europe wanted Ukraine to do a broader, more aggressive investigation of corruption in the country, and Biden was among the international leaders who considered the prosecutor ineffective.
Takeaways from Day 3 of House impeachment hearings (AP)
Republicans have consistently criticized the House impeachment inquiry by saying that witnesses did not have firsthand knowledge of President Donald Trump’s role in trying to persuade Ukraine to investigate a chief political rival. On Day 3 of the proceedings, that posture is suddenly far more difficult to maintain.

The two witnesses in Tuesday morning’s session each listened to the July 25 phone call in which Trump prodded his Ukrainian counterpart to investigate Democratic rival Joe Biden.

Jennifer Williams, a senior adviser to Vice President Mike Pence, said she immediately considered the call “unusual” since it “involved discussion of what appeared to be a domestic political matter.”

Alexander Vindman, an Army lieutenant colonel who arrived for the hearing in military uniform adorned with medals, went even further in describing his firsthand concerns. He considered it “improper,” and, acting out of “duty,” reported his alarm to the chief lawyer for the National Security Council.
posted by katra at 10:30 AM on November 19, 2019 [18 favorites]


Guardian: "Moments ago, Lt Col Alexander Vindman dismissed a conspiracy theory that Ukraine interfered in the 2016 presidential election as a “Russian narrative that President Putin has promoted.” [...] The US intelligence community has thoroughly confirmed that Russia interfered in the 2016 election, but Republicans on the House intelligence committee have attempted to resurface the baseless allegations against Ukraine during the public impeachment hearings."
posted by katra at 10:35 AM on November 19, 2019 [19 favorites]


Five Parts of Gordon Sondland’s Story That Don’t Fit (Jeremy Stahl, Salon)
The EU ambassador needs to reconcile his pro-Trump claims with what the other witnesses have testified.
posted by ZeusHumms at 11:21 AM on November 19, 2019 [2 favorites]


Jimmy Finkelstein, the owner of the Hill newspaper, has stayed out of the impeachment headlines, despite playing a crucial role in the saga. From CNN: “Finkelstein was [John] Solomon's direct supervisor at The Hill and created the conditions which permitted Solomon to publish his conspiratorial stories without the traditional oversight implemented at news outlets. And he has kept a watchful eye on the newspaper's coverage to ensure it is not too critical of the President. As one former veteran employee of The Hill told CNN Business, ‘Solomon is a symptom of the larger problem of Jimmy Finkelstein.’ … The paper's editor-in-chief sent staff a note Monday morning notifying employees that editors ‘are reviewing, updating, annotating with any denials of witnesses, and when appropriate, correcting any [of Solomon's] pieces referenced during the ongoing congressional inquiry.’ … Finkelstein has been friends with Trump for decades. In fact, according to a former employee at The Hill, he ‘boasts that he's a close friend’ of the President."
John Solomon is now a contributor to Fox News. From: The Daily 202: What Sondland allegedly said after Trump hung up on July 26 badly undercuts him and the president (WaPo)

See also: The Hill is reviewing the work of former opinion contributor John Solomon (Erik Wemple, WaPo)
posted by ZeusHumms at 12:27 PM on November 19, 2019 [6 favorites]


wouldn't it be great if Schiff could yank Nunes outta there with a giant hook, just, yoink
posted by angrycat at 12:39 PM on November 19, 2019 [19 favorites]


Volker is driving the bus slowly over Rudy, reversing, backing up, running over him again
posted by angrycat at 12:59 PM on November 19, 2019 [19 favorites]


Volker is just demolishing every single Republican talking point and distraction...
posted by PhineasGage at 1:09 PM on November 19, 2019 [12 favorites]


Isn't he a GOP called witness?
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 1:11 PM on November 19, 2019 [12 favorites]


Nov 18. Chart: Side-by-Side Comparison of Kurt Volker’s vs Other Witnesses’ Testimony in Impeachment Inquiry (Ryan Goodman & Just Security)
Comparing Volker’s testimony to other witnesses raises very serious concerns about Volker’s truthfulness before Congress. To be more specific, it appears that Mr. Volker lied to Congress in violation of federal criminal law (18 USC 1001). The most serious instances include his flat denial that the Ukraine “investigations” were discussed in a July 10 meeting at the White House, his denial of his own knowledge or involvement in efforts to urge Ukraine to investigate Biden, his denial of his own knowledge or involvement in a quid pro quo scheme, and his claim that efforts to get Ukraine to make a public statement about the investigations ended in mid-to-late August.

Volker now has a choice to make before he appears before Congress and the public on Tuesday. He might be best advised to invoke his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. Alternatively, he may want to issue a supplemental declaration of his own. Or he could include a “clarification” related to his prior statements during his prepared opening remarks at the Tuesday afternoon hearing.

None of this necessarily casts blame on Volker for his actions on behalf of the United States. It appears he was caught in the middle of a complex problem not of his own making. As a seasoned diplomat he tried to steer the situation toward an endpoint in which Ukraine could meet the demands of the President to maintain U.S. support. As Volker said in his prepared remarks last month, “I therefore faced a choice: do nothing, and allow this situation to fester; or try to fix it. I tried to fix it.” With Congress now in a full blown impeachment inquiry, Volker has a second opportunity to explain with complete candor what really happened over the course of the past several months.
posted by ZeusHumms at 1:18 PM on November 19, 2019 [6 favorites]


538 blog: Galen Druke 4:10 PM
It seems that Volker is much more concerned about clearing his own name than he is about giving fodder to either Republican or Democratic lawmakers.
posted by ZeusHumms at 1:27 PM on November 19, 2019 [9 favorites]


Isn't he a GOP called witness?

Yeah, but the GOP called him when his story was significantly more favorable to Trump. Schiff front-loaded the witnesses whose testimony contradicted his, putting him in...oh, let's call it "a public box."
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 1:45 PM on November 19, 2019 [44 favorites]


"Tell the lawyers" should be the headline of every paper coast to coast.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 1:55 PM on November 19, 2019 [5 favorites]


Politico: Volker's refreshed memory
The ex-envoy appeared to change portions of his testimony in Tuesday's opening statement, including details about a July 10 meeting he attended at the White House with Sondland, Ukrainian officials and others.

In his closed-door deposition last month, Volker categorically denied that the issue of “investigations” had come up in that meeting. But in his new statement, Volker says Sondland did make “a generic comment about investigations,” which “all of us thought was inappropriate.”

Volker also claims in his opening statement, “I did not know about the strong concerns expressed by then-national security adviser John Bolton to members of his NSC staff regarding the discussion of investigations.” But he acknowledges participating in the meeting which, according to the testimony of several other witnesses, Bolton angrily cut short once Sondland began discussing political probes.

Despite his efforts to connect Trump’s lawyer Rudy Giuliani with a top aide to Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky — and his drafting of a statement that would commit Zelensky to the investigations Trump demanded — Volker has sought to portray himself as out of the loop on much of the backchannel diplomacy Sondland and Giuliani were pursuing.

He also said he did not understand until recently that “Burisma” was linked to Hunter Biden, despite discussing with Giuliani on July 19 the possibility that Joe Biden might have been influenced by his son's role in the Ukrainian gas company as vice president — which Volker described as a “conspiracy theory.”
posted by katra at 2:03 PM on November 19, 2019 [7 favorites]


hard to believe that vollker could have heard that whole when a businessman writes a check he wants to make sure he gets what he's paying for line but never heard any indication of the proposed exchange of a thing of value for an official act, quid pro quo or bribery.
posted by 20 year lurk at 3:26 PM on November 19, 2019 [4 favorites]


volker's still dissembling a bit for self-preservation.

morrison is outright lying to cover up criminal misclassification of the 7/25 call memo. Nobody fucking moves shit like that by accident - not to a SCIF server.
posted by j_curiouser at 3:48 PM on November 19, 2019 [8 favorites]


When I first heard it, I thought Morrison was saying he was told the classification was an administrative error--not that he did it himself. That leaves room for an "Oh this was wrong but I figured it'd be fixed" interpretation, which was maybe the point? I haven't been able to watch or listen to the whole thing. I take it the rest of his testimony doesn't point to deserving that kind of benefit of a doubt?
posted by scaryblackdeath at 4:00 PM on November 19, 2019


Someone pointed out in the Crooked Media live blogging that Morrison only worked in that position for four months. Isn't that rather brief?
posted by TWinbrook8 at 4:06 PM on November 19, 2019


Vindman Shuts Down GOP Rep. Jim Jordan’s Attack on Him
[Referencing Morrison's testimony] “Your former boss, Dr. [Fiona] Hill, had concerns about your judgment,” Jordan added. “Your colleagues had concerns about your judgment and your colleagues felt that there were times when you leaked information. Any idea why they have those impressions, Colonel Vindman?”

Vindman, meanwhile, pulled out the last performance evaluation that Hill had given him, dated this past July.

“Alex is a top 1% military officer and the best Army officer I have worked with in my 15 years of government service,” Vindman read from the document. “‘He is brilliant, unflappable, and exercises excellent judgment’ [Jordan attempts to interrupt]—I’m sorry—‘Was exemplary during numerous visits,’ so forth and so on. I think you get the idea.”

Jordan, seemingly a bit shaken, quickly moved on to asking Vindman if he ever leaked information, something the veteran denied.
Brilliant.
posted by zakur at 4:07 PM on November 19, 2019 [51 favorites]


I thought Morrison was saying he was told the classification was an administrative error--not that he did it himself.[my bold, ed.]
Yes. This is correct. My suggestion is that Morrison is actively helping support the 'administrative error' fairy tale.

We need testimony from the specific individual that moved the memo, and how that activity was directed.
posted by j_curiouser at 4:13 PM on November 19, 2019 [5 favorites]


Every day, the MeFi Greatest Hits refrain plays in my head: "Surely this..."
posted by PhineasGage at 4:13 PM on November 19, 2019 [10 favorites]


WaPo: Volker says he should have recognized push for probe into Ukrainian company was connected to Biden
Volker’s opening statement largely mirrors the testimony he gave in the closed session with one exception. In the public session, Volker admitted that he should have recognized Trump’s true motives in demanding an investigation of Burisma, which tapped Biden’s son to fill a lucrative board seat in 2014. “I should have seen that connection differently, and had I done so, I would have raised my own objections,” Volker said. He added that he did not think Biden acted in ways designed to favor Burisma or his son.
WaPo: Nunes says Trump ‘alone’ has authority to set policy toward Ukraine, overlooking role of Congress
Nunes’s attack on the idea of an interagency consensus echoes right-wing conspiracy theories about a “deep state” of rebellious government officials bent on thwarting Trump’s agenda and removing him from office.
WaPo:Morrison says Sondland told him security assistance was conditioned on Ukraine statement
On this call, Morrison testified, Sondland “related that there was no quid pro quo but President Zelensky had to make the statement [about investigations] and he had to want to do it.” Asked if he understood the statement related to Biden and the 2016 investigation, Morrison said, “I think I did, yes.” He also affirmed he understood that making such a statement was a condition for the security aid to be released.
WaPo: Volker says he told Zelensky, ‘I think we have a problem’
Rather than seek to reduce Giuliani’s influence, Volker testified that he introduced the former New York mayor to one of Zelensky’s top advisers, Andriy Yermak, in hopes that Giuliani could be convinced his skepticism about the government in Kyiv was unfounded. Instead, Giuliani used the subsequent meeting with Yermak in Madrid to call for a public statement from Zelensky pledging to investigate alleged Ukrainian interference in the 2016 U.S. election and Burisma.
posted by katra at 4:48 PM on November 19, 2019 [5 favorites]


NYT: Former officials testified that focus on “conspiracy theories” detracted from national security.
“I don’t think that raising 2016 elections or Vice President Biden or these things I consider to be conspiracy theories that have been circulated by the Ukrainians” were “things that we should be pursuing as part of our national security strategy with Ukraine,” Kurt D. Volker, the president’s former special envoy for Ukraine, told the House Intelligence Committee.

“We should be supporting Ukraine’s democracy, reforms, its own fight against corruption domestically and the struggle against Russia and defense capabilities and these are at the heart of what we should be doing and I don’t think pursuing these things serves a national interest,” he added.

[...] During later questioning, Daniel S. Goldman, the Democratic counsel, asked: “But you would agree, right, that asking a foreign government to investigate a domestic political rival is inappropriate, would you not?”

“It is not what we recommend the president discuss,” Mr. Morrison replied curtly.
posted by katra at 4:55 PM on November 19, 2019 [7 favorites]


Guardian: "Time Magazine is reporting that Mike Pompeo has told three prominent Republicans that he plans to resign as secretary of state to run for senate in Kansas in the 2020 election. The Republicans told Time that Pompeo initially planned to stay on as secretary of state until next year, but is now rethinking his decision amid the impeachment inquiry."
posted by katra at 6:01 PM on November 19, 2019 [11 favorites]


Sinking ship...


...rats ———>
posted by darkstar at 6:42 PM on November 19, 2019 [9 favorites]


So who's going to be acting Sec. of State for the next year?
posted by octothorpe at 7:17 PM on November 19, 2019


He's got a whole bunch of recently pardoned war criminals to nominate, so there's that.
God, I wish I was totally sure I'm only joking.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 7:19 PM on November 19, 2019 [5 favorites]


So who's going to be acting Sec. of State for the next year?

It's a coin flip - Mulvaney or Rudy.
posted by bcd at 7:28 PM on November 19, 2019


Trump Takes Aim at His Own White House Aides (NYT)
“This White House appears to be cannibalizing itself,” said William C. Inboden, a former national security aide to President George W. Bush. “While many previous White House staffs have feuded with each other and leaked against each other, this is the first time in history I am aware of a White House openly attacking its own staff — especially for merely upholding their constitutional duties.” [...]

Charles A. Kupchan, who was President Barack Obama’s Europe adviser, said it should come as no surprise that Colonel Vindman and Ms. Williams would be targeted from within. “It is quite unusual for a White House to eat its young,” he said. “But Trump is a president who seems unable to tolerate dissent.”
posted by katra at 7:33 PM on November 19, 2019 [3 favorites]


Judge intends to rule by Monday on House subpoena to Donald McGahn (WaPo)
A federal judge said she intends to rule no later than the end of the day Monday on whether former White House counsel Donald McGahn must testify under subpoena to Congress, after the House Judiciary Committee asked her to accelerate a decision because it aims to call him after the current round of public impeachment hearings finish in December.

U.S. District Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson of Washington entered an order Tuesday about her deadline intent “absent unforeseen circumstances” shortly after a filing from House General Counsel Douglas N. Letter arguing last week’s opening of the hearings before the House Intelligence Committee was grounds for urgency.

Those committee hearings are exploring President Trump’s request that Ukraine investigate former vice president Joe Biden — a potential 2020 political rival — and his son Hunter Biden. House Democrats are debating whether articles of impeachment should include obstruction of justice allegations detailed in the special counsel report by Robert S. Mueller III.

“Given that the House’s impeachment inquiry is proceeding rapidly, the Committee has a finite window of time to effectively obtain and consider McGahn’s testimony,” Letter wrote. “The Judiciary Committee anticipates holding hearings after [the] public hearings have concluded and would aim to obtain Mr. McGahn’s testimony at that time,” Letter wrote.

[...] In his filing, Letter reminded the judge that she promised to expedite a decision over the White House’s blanket assertion that current and former top presidential aides cannot be forced to answer questions or turn over documents to lawmakers.
posted by katra at 7:40 PM on November 19, 2019 [3 favorites]


Trump Takes Aim at His Own White House Aides (NYT) “This White House appears to be cannibalizing itself,”

The same story printed over and over again for 1033 days
posted by Rust Moranis at 7:47 PM on November 19, 2019 [27 favorites]


Maybe after cannibalizing everyone he'll become "increasingly isolated" again.
posted by sexyrobot at 8:31 PM on November 19, 2019 [26 favorites]


‘Comes down to one guy’: In impeachment probe, all eyes turn to Gordon Sondland (WaPo)
The evidence gathered to date points to Sondland as the witness who, more than any other, could tie President Trump directly to the effort to persuade Ukraine to launch investigations that might benefit him politically.

On Wednesday, with cameras rolling, the millionaire Republican donor-turned-ambassador could solidify the case against Trump, though doing so would require that he revise his previous testimony or acknowledge significant omissions. Or he could stand by his statements and face withering questioning from Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee over inconsistencies between his testimony and that of a growing number of witnesses. [...]

Sondland’s future — and possibly his freedom — could also rest on whether lawmakers believe he is telling the whole truth about his role and that of the president. Lawmakers in previous inquiries have referred witnesses to the Justice Department if they believe they have lied under oath.
WATCH LIVE: The Trump Impeachment Hearings – Day 4 (PBS)
A key witness in the impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump, Gordon Sondland, is testifying before House lawmakers on Wednesday. The PBS NewsHour is hosting live coverage of the hearings beginning at 9 a.m. ET. [Watch live]
WATCH LIVE: Open Hearing with Ambassador Gordon Sondland (U.S. House Intelligence Committee)
On Wednesday, November 20, 2019 at 9 AM EST, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence will hold an open hearing Ambassador Gordon Sondland, U.S. Ambassador to the European Union.
Watch LIVE On November 20 | 8am ET | C-SPAN3
Impeachment Inquiry Hearing with E.U. Ambassador Gordon Sondland
posted by katra at 8:39 PM on November 19, 2019 [9 favorites]


Wondering what would happen if Sondland showed up to just plead the fifth and avoid saying anything due to possible self-incrimination.
posted by ZeusHumms at 8:57 PM on November 19, 2019


Taking the Fifth to Avoid Perjury: Ambassador Gordon Sondland (KaiserDillon, PLLC)
Can You Take the Fifth If Testifying Truthfully Exposes You Only to a Perjury Charge?

The short answer to this question is yes. Courts addressing this issue have consistently found that an individual who fears that truthful testimony would expose them to perjury for testimony in a previous proceeding, may also refuse to testify based on the Fifth Amendment. In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 739 F.2d 1354, 1360 (8th Cir. 1984) (“[I]f upon questioning by the grand jury a truthful response would be inconsistent with [the witness’s] trial testimony, … [the witness] would have the right to invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.”); Evans v. City of Chicago, 513 F.3d 735, 743 (7th Cir. 2008) (“‘To be privileged by the Fifth Amendment to refuse to answer a question, the answer one would give if one did answer it (and answer it truthfully) must have some tendency to subject the person being asked the question to criminal liability.’”) (citation omitted). Further, those courts that have directly addressed the issue have held that the Fifth Amendment is concerned with perjury arising from past testimony, not present testimony. See, e.g., United States v. Vavages, 151 F.3d 1185, 1192 n. 3 (9th Cir. 1998) (“Fear of a perjury prosecution can typically form a valid basis for invoking the Fifth Amendment only where the risk of prosecution is for perjury in the witness’ past testimony.”); United States v. Partin, 552 F.2d 621, 632 (5th Cir. 1977) (same).
posted by katra at 9:05 PM on November 19, 2019 [3 favorites]


That would be jaw dropping. I would say that would be the end of it, but the end of it should have been when we saw the transcript.
posted by xammerboy at 9:06 PM on November 19, 2019 [2 favorites]


Will Gordon Sondland Finally Come Clean When He Testifies? (JustSecurity)
On Wednesday he’ll be telling his story as the lone voice who’s already been forced to update his initial deposition, with his memory “refreshed” by others’ testimony, but he may not be the last. [...] Clearly – for the president, for the country, and for Sondland himself – Sondland’s testimony is of perhaps greater import than any thus far scheduled. And, it took on even greater significance last week, when David Holmes, an official at the U.S. Embassy in Kyiv, testified that he’d overheard Sondland discussing the political investigations with Trump on the phone on July 26. [...]

Whatever Sondland decides to testify to on Wednesday, it’s clear that he will likely face more pointed questioning from Democrats than any other witness currently scheduled. And it’s not hard to see why. No other witness has seen his previous testimony contradicted by so many other witnesses – nor have other players poked as many holes in a story as we’ve seen with Sondland’s. [...] Regardless, Sondland’s testimony could be the most-watched of the entire impeachment proceedings, and his public appearance could lead directly to the unseating of a sitting president.
posted by katra at 9:17 PM on November 19, 2019 [1 favorite]


Democrats Should Stop Making ‘Ukrainegate’ About Ukraine (Eric Levitz, NYMag)
But Democrats should not let their witnesses (or vestigial attachment to Cold War politics) lead them astray. The notion that America has a clear national security interest in arming Ukraine is dubious on the merits. And premising the case for Trump’s impeachment on that notion is politically misguided. It allows Republicans to distract from Trump’s abuses of power — and paint the Democrats as hyperpartisan hypocrites — by ceaselessly noting that Barack Obama did far less to aid the Ukrainian cause than his successor has. And it helps conservative talking heads paint Trump as the victim of sabotage from deep state actors who believe their policy objectives should not be contingent on the whims of civilian leadership.

Democrats must make clear that “Ukrainegate” is not about Ukraine. Donald Trump’s impeachable offense was not jeopardizing the Ukrainian people’s right to self-determination; it was trying to deny us our own.
Am really not sure about this article.
posted by ZeusHumms at 9:26 PM on November 19, 2019 [1 favorite]


I'm sondland, I say 'fuck it' and spill the beans. Have my lawyer call schiff in the a.m. and set up some immunity and more confidential testimony. Shit is getting messy, and a guy like that, no way he can keep a *story* straight.
posted by j_curiouser at 9:28 PM on November 19, 2019 [3 favorites]


The Bad Arguments That Trump Didn’t Commit Bribery (Ben Berwick, Justin Florence, Lawfare)
Last month, we and another colleague at Protect Democracy argued that the meaning of “bribery” as the term is used in the Constitution goes beyond the criminal offense of bribery as defined in the U.S. Code. [...] The evidence of President Trump’s conduct available at the time we wrote—primarily the summary transcript of Trump’s call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky—indicated that Trump’s conduct certainly fell within the scope of bribery for purposes of the Impeachment Clause. In particular, Trump solicited a bribe (help for his own campaign by opening an investigation into his political rival) in connection with his performance of official acts (releasing military aid for Ukraine and scheduling a White House meeting with President Zelensky).

Since then, [...] new facts have emerged to make the case that Trump engaged in impeachable bribery even clearer. To cite just one, Rudy Giuliani, Trump’s private attorney, tweeted that the entire effort to get Ukraine to investigate the Bidens was done for Trump’s personal benefit.

[...] As our earlier Lawfare piece explained, “At the time the Constitution was drafted, when people thought of bribery, they thought in broad terms of the corrupt use of an official’s public power to achieve private ends.” For these purposes, there is no difference whether or not the bribe was consummated. As the Illinois Supreme Court explained in an 1872 case, Walsh v. People, 65 Ill. 58, 60, a “mere unsuccessful attempt to bribe” is unlawful because it “tends to corrupt, and, as the law abhors the least tendency to corruption, it punishes the act which is calculated to debase, and which may affect prejudicially the morals of the community.” The “tendency to corruption” is even greater when it is the public official seeking to obtain a bribe. The Founders were rightly concerned about an official wielding power in this way (especially when susceptible to foreign influence), and so provided in the Impeachment Clause a mechanism for such an official’s removal. [...]

Zelensky was set to appear on CNN to announce an investigation into the Bidens—in other words, to pay off the bribe—but that became unnecessary when the bribery scheme was unmasked; and, on Sept. 11, the hold the president had placed on military aid to Ukraine was suddenly lifted. In short, the president got caught before the bribe could be delivered, called off the scheme and his defenders now claim as a result that he’s exonerated. That’s not how the law of bribery works: If you attempt or solicit bribery, you commit the offense, whether or not you get the goods.

[...] The President's allies claim that this was all about fighting corruption in Ukraine. But there is no evidence that Trump was concerned about corruption in Ukraine (or anywhere else) in any way beyond his political campaign. The United States provided military aid to Ukraine in 2017 and 2018 under Trump's presidency—both times after Hunter Biden had been on the board of Burisma—and Trump did not condition those aid payments on any corruption investigation. The only thing that changed before the 2019 payment was that Joe Biden announced his candidacy.
posted by katra at 9:37 PM on November 19, 2019 [11 favorites]




‘Comes down to one guy’: In impeachment probe, all eyes turn to Gordon Sondland (WaPo)

The evidence gathered to date points to Sondland as the witness who, more than any other, could tie President Trump directly to the effort to persuade Ukraine to launch investigations that might benefit him politically.


Hogwash. The summary of the Zelensky call released by the White House just after the whistleblower complaint has Trump asking Zelensky to launch investigations and mentioning Biden's son. Trump tied himself directly to the effort by releasing the call summary, which itself basically confirmed the whistleblower complaint.

Sondland's testimony is important, but the WaPo does its readers a disservice by pretending it will establish Trump's guilt rather than just reconfirm it.
posted by Gelatin at 2:51 AM on November 20, 2019 [20 favorites]


Yeah, I dislike this horse-racery THIS IS THE ONE THING THEY NEED bullshit, which only serves to give them black-and-white panel fodder, "Well gang, it's all or nothing. Who won?"

For some reason I have an image of Wolf Blitzer in my mind that won't go away as I write this.
posted by rhizome at 3:54 AM on November 20, 2019 [11 favorites]


The notion that America has a clear national security interest in arming Ukraine is dubious on the merits.

Sorry what?

I mean why would the U.S. want a properly armed military ally between the largest army on the continent and Western Europe? What possible value could defending a democracy against a territorially and politically aggressive dictator have? Why not let the third largest navy and second place submarine force in the world have an additional port uncontested?

The U.S. does engage in all kinds of military folly on the regular but opposing Russian expansion and interference is hardly one of them. If you can't see that national security interest then you have abandoned the notion of American national security interests entirely.
posted by srboisvert at 4:20 AM on November 20, 2019 [55 favorites]


I've noticed the word "personal" creeping in, in conjunction with "bribery" in news commentary. I think this is important, changing the framework from "political gain" to personal motive. It's too easy to pass stuff off as "just politics", doing oppo research, even when it illegally involves foreign governments.

We've heard a lot of testimony about endemic corruption in Ukraine but the only bit Trump has focussed on is Burisma. Are there no other institutions that need examination? Nope, this was personal for Trump because he considered Biden to be his chief competitor. (As other candidates have surged forward, I expect Trump to change tack and claim that Biden couldn't have been the motivation because he is clearly out of the running [sic]).
posted by TWinbrook8 at 5:14 AM on November 20, 2019 [5 favorites]


We can be sure that the Republicans are focus grouping their impeachment messaging to hellandgone. Which is somewhat comforting, given the Republicans' continual failure to push back on the narrative of Trump's serial wrongdoing.
posted by Gelatin at 5:29 AM on November 20, 2019 [1 favorite]


And it helps conservative talking heads paint Trump as the victim of sabotage from deep state actors who believe their policy objectives should not be contingent on the whims of civilian leadership.

Why should Trump have to do what congress says? Because that's our democratic system!
posted by xammerboy at 6:10 AM on November 20, 2019


'The answer is yes': Sondland affirms 'quid pro quo' in Ukraine dealings (Politico)
President Donald Trump's handpicked Ukraine adviser Gordon Sondland says Trump conditioned a valuable White House meeting for Ukraine's new president on his willingness to launch investigations into Trump's Democratic adversaries, including former Vice President Joe Biden.

"Was there a “quid pro quo?" Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the European Union — a close Trump ally and GOP donor — plans to say in his opening remarks to impeachment investigators. "The answer is yes."

Sondland also intends to frame the matter as widely understood across the Trump administration, indicating that senior officials and even cabinet secretaries were aware of the arrangement.

"Everyone was in the loop. It was no secret," he intends to say, according to his prepared remarks. And he directly delivered the message of that quid pro quo was to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, Sondland will say. He specifically cites a July 19 email copied to Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney, Energy Secretary Rick Perry, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and "a lot of senior officials." In that email, he reveals that he "just talked to Zelensky" and secured a commitment for a "fully transparent investigation."

Six days later, Trump spoke directly to Zelensky and referenced his request for a Biden investigation. [...] Ukraine, lawmakers have noted, depends on military assistance from the United States to fight a war with Russia, which has invaded and attempted to annex Crimea. The legitimacy conferred by a White House visit would also have been extremely valuable to Zelensky as he sought to establish his bona fides in a country with a legacy of corruption.
posted by katra at 6:10 AM on November 20, 2019 [28 favorites]


Guardian: Sondland to point finger directly at Trump
Joyce Alene (@JoyceWhiteVance) “We followed the president’s orders” — Sondland.
November 20, 2019
posted by katra at 6:18 AM on November 20, 2019 [16 favorites]


So we’re fully into the “yeah, he did it - so what?” phase.
posted by nubs at 6:19 AM on November 20, 2019 [17 favorites]


Sondland testimony targets Trump, Pompeo and confirms deal with Ukraine (NBC News)
Sondland also draws Pompeo more deeply into the effort than has previously been known, including emails to the secretary and a top aide in which the basic contours of the quid pro quo alleged by Democrats seem clear. At the time, the Trump administration had frozen military aid to Ukraine. On Aug. 11, Sondland emailed top Pompeo aide Lisa Kenna that he and former Ukraine envoy Kurt Volker "negotiated a statement" for Ukraine's president, Volodymyr Zelenskiy, to deliver. Kenna responds saying she's passing the message along to Pompeo.

Eleven days later, Sondland wrote Pompeo directly, suggesting Zelenskiy meet Trump in Warsaw "to look him in the eye" and say he should be able to proceed on issues important to Trump "once Ukraine's new justice folks are in place." Earlier, in a July 25 phone call, Zelenskiy had told Trump that installing his own prosecutors would remove an obstacle to opening the investigations of the Bidens and the 2016 election.

"Hopefully, that will break the logjam," Sondland wrote. "Yes," Pompeo responded three minutes later. Kenna followed up saying she would try to arrange the meeting. Ultimately, Trump sent Vice President Mike Pence to Warsaw instead.

Further implicating Pompeo, Sondland plans to testify that it was "based on my communications with Secretary Pompeo" that he felt comfortable telling a top Zelenskiy aide the funds likely wouldn't be unfrozen until Ukraine committed publicly to the investigations sought by Trump. Those included probes into former Vice President Joe Biden's family and alleged Ukrainian meddling in the 2016 election. "State Department was fully supportive of our engagement in Ukraine affairs, and was aware that a commitment to investigations was among the issues we were pursuing," Sondland will testify, according to his opening remarks.
posted by katra at 6:23 AM on November 20, 2019 [9 favorites]


WaPo: White House pressed unsuccessfully to learn about Sondland’s testimony
White House lawyers pressed in recent days to learn from Sondland’s legal team what the ambassador would tell Congress about the president and claims of a “quid pro quo” in his much anticipated testimony today.

Sondland’s lawyers declined however to provide the White House with an early peek into the account that this key impeachment witness would give lawmakers about his interactions with the president. [...] The White House efforts to learn what Sondland would say were described as cordial, but Sondland attorney Robert Luskin declined to provide descriptions of his client’s upcoming testimony, keeping a professional distance from the White House, according to a person familiar with the attempt, who requested anonymity to share private conversations. [...] Trump and his top advisers have seen Sondland as a “wild card,” according to one administration official, who requested anonymity to speak candidly.
posted by katra at 6:32 AM on November 20, 2019 [5 favorites]


Boom.

Gordon D. Sondland will testify that he pressured Ukraine for investigations at President Trump’s “express direction,” and with signoff from Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. The ambassador also says he raised concerns with Mike Pence about an apparent linkage between Ukraine’s military aid and the investigations.
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 6:44 AM on November 20, 2019 [1 favorite]


All the Pompeo stuff fits the theory that Sondland is angling for the Secy of State job.

The rest fits the theory that he’ll be fired by tweet before lunch.
posted by notyou at 6:45 AM on November 20, 2019 [2 favorites]


Sondland is about to have a horrible day and I love it.
posted by johnpowell at 6:45 AM on November 20, 2019 [17 favorites]


The notion that America has a clear national security interest in arming Ukraine is dubious on the merits.

Even if true, which as outlined above seems unlikely, the fact that it's Putin making that decision rather than the USA is a real problem. I realize not the the stated reason for impeachment but it's got to be on at least some Democratic member's minds. A bonus if you will.
posted by Mitheral at 6:48 AM on November 20, 2019 [2 favorites]


Sondland: ‘Was there a quid pro quo? ... The answer is yes’ (WaPo)
“In the absence of any credible explanation for the hold, I came to the conclusion that the aid, like the White House visit, was jeopardized,” Sondland said. “My belief was that if Ukraine did something to demonstrate a serious intention” to launch the investigations Trump wanted, “then the hold on military aid would be lifted.”

Sondland, the star witness in the House impeachment inquiry, said that he was concerned enough about the aid holdup that he sought to improvise a solution to that in August, before the larger question could be settled for Trump of whether Ukraine would launch the investigations.

Sondland revealed an email showing he asked Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to help him orchestrate a face-to-face encounter between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, off to the side of a World War II commemoration ceremony that the two were scheduled to attend in Poland on Sept. 1. [...] Vice President Pence made the trip in place of Trump, and off to the side, Sondland held his own, impromptu meeting with Zelensky confidant, Andrey Yermak.

Sondland was more direct with his warning, he said, telling Yermak that the resumption of U.S. aid “would likely not occur” until Ukraine took some kind of action on publicly committing to the investigations Trump sought.
posted by katra at 6:48 AM on November 20, 2019 [4 favorites]


Sondland has decided his new profession will be a bus driver.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 6:53 AM on November 20, 2019 [50 favorites]


Nunes' opening statement was ludicrous, of course. But it's interesting that he lumped a couple of accusations about Trump that may not have been proven yet -- that he laundered money for the Russians, for example -- with a bunch that are demonstrably true -- that that Don Jr. lied about his contacts with the Russians, that Trump hoped to build a tower in Moscow -- and denounced them all as false, as an effort of the nasty Democrats to depose an elected president. Red meat for the Fox crowd, of course, but those in the reality-based community will know he's lying.

Nunes neatly summarized the charges against Trump in order to complain about the Democrats holding him to account for the things he did.
posted by Gelatin at 6:59 AM on November 20, 2019 [8 favorites]


L.A. TIMES: “$35 million in Pentagon aid hasn’t reached Ukraine, despite White House assurances,” by Molly O’Toole and Sarah Wire: “[T]he defense funding for Ukraine remains in U.S. accounts, according to the document. It’s not clear why the money hasn’t been released, and members of Congress are demanding answers.” (via Politico)
posted by katra at 7:04 AM on November 20, 2019 [15 favorites]


"Again, everyone is in the loop" -Sondland on knowledge throughout WH Administration of this scandal.

It'e pretty breathtaking watching this guy point the finger at everyone here, Trump, Pompeo, Guliani, even Pence. Especially odd coming from this guy, but considering his motivations appear to frequently be deeply self-serving, perhaps not that surprising after figuring out he might be setup as a fall guy.

I'm watching some real-time analysis from NYTimes reporters, and this is an interesting bit from Shannon LaFraniere:

"Sondland is probably glad he at least has some Whats App messages, which he is quoting from now, to back up his account. But National Security Council officials repeatedly told him not to use Whats App, not to use his cellphone for sensitive communications and not to give out their cellphone numbers. He ignored those protocols, much to their frustration. That’s why Fiona Hill considered Sondland a national security risk."

Given the WhatsApp use, included in the loop: Russian intelligence.
posted by mcstayinskool at 7:04 AM on November 20, 2019 [27 favorites]


Sondland, the star witness in the House impeachment inquiry

I hate this framing. It's an ensemble cast of largely consistent, damning testimony. Calling Sondland the inquiry's "star" witness suggests that the inquiry rises and falls with his testimony, which (1) isn't true and (2) sets the Republicans up to say "see? the democrat party's star witness had to change his testimony".

(Yes I know the Republicans will do that shit anyway, but why supply them with fodder for bad faith arguments, WaPo?)
posted by mabelstreet at 7:05 AM on November 20, 2019 [13 favorites]


Sondland says Giuliani was pushing for Ukraine quid pro quo (AP)
Ambassador Gordon Sondland told House impeachment investigators Wednesday that Rudy Giuliani was pushing a “quid pro quo” with Ukraine that he had to go along with it because it’s what President Donald Trump wanted.

“Mr. Giuliani was expressing the desires of the president of the United States, and we knew that these investigations were important to the president,” Sondland testified. [...]

“We did not want to work with Mr. Giuliani,” the ambassador said. But he said Trump told him and other diplomats working on Ukraine issues “talk with Rudy” on those matters. “So we followed the president’s orders.”
posted by katra at 7:12 AM on November 20, 2019 [2 favorites]


sets the Republicans up to say "see? the democrat party's star witness had to change his testimony".

Sondland addressed this by blaming it on the State Department withholding relevant unclassified documents from both him and the House Intelligence Committee. He claimed to not be a 'note taker' or a 'memo writer.'
posted by katra at 7:16 AM on November 20, 2019 [2 favorites]


Sondland isn’t “the one person” the Democrats need to blow this story open, but he is really proving to be a productive witness.

Honestly, I’m willing at this point to grant that Sondland isn’t the personification of malevolent fuckery that many in Trump’s administration have shown themselves to be. Rather, he’s the personification of a mediocre white man and all the privileges that come with having money. He was so busy playacting at being a Very Important Man that he never in the moment though about the implications of what he was doing.

Sondland may be mediocre but he’s not willing to be the patsy and that’s just fine by me.
posted by Big Al 8000 at 7:39 AM on November 20, 2019 [49 favorites]


Guardian: Sondland confirms he told Trump on phone call at a Kiev restaurant that Zelenskiy “loves your ass, he’ll do whatever you want”.
Sondland’s reply gets a laugh from the audience:
That sounds like something I would say. That’s how Trump and I communicate. A lot of four-letter words. In this case three letters.
posted by katra at 7:41 AM on November 20, 2019 [18 favorites]


spill the tea: "To disclose information, especially of a sensitive nature."
receipts: "proof or evidence when there is tea getting spilled."
posted by kirkaracha at 7:41 AM on November 20, 2019 [4 favorites]


Guardian: Reactions
Here are some preliminary reactions to Sondland’s testimony:

Preet Bharara (@PreetBharara) I am old enough to remember Lindsey Graham saying that if there were a quid pro quo in the Ukraine affair, that would be troubling https://t.co/2pmeQkPnNc November 20, 2019

Evan McMullin (@EvanMcMullin) Sondland’s testimony is an absolute wrecking ball for the president and his allies. November 20, 2019

Harry Litman (@harrylitman) he's just marched through the statutory elements of bribery. if that testimony was true, Trump has committed an impeachable offense. QED. November 20, 2019 [...]

Chris Murphy (@ChrisMurphyCT) It’s hard to overhype how extraordinary Sondland’s testimony is. Every American needs to take 15 minutes today to watch or read it. He lays out the corruption scheme in clear, easy to understand detail. It was a clear quid pro quo, and the President directed it. November 20, 2019
Gordon Sondland: witness White House fears most to testify (Guardian)
But should Sondland buckle and reveal fresh details, he could face a fierce backlash from the president and his conservative allies. Trump tweeted criticism of Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch during her testimony and the White House did similar against Lt Col Alexander Vindman, who said Sondland referred to “specific investigations that Ukrainians would have to deliver in order to get these meetings”.
posted by katra at 7:48 AM on November 20, 2019 [16 favorites]


I feel like this is pizzazz. Yes, definitely pizzazz.
posted by bcd at 7:50 AM on November 20, 2019 [29 favorites]


Note that Sondland has testified multiple times that the condition placed on Ukraine was to announce, not do Biden investigations.

Also, A$AP Rocky is now officially in the Congressional records.
posted by dirigibleman at 7:52 AM on November 20, 2019 [19 favorites]


I hate this framing. It's an ensemble cast of largely consistent, damning testimony. Calling Sondland the inquiry's "star" witness suggests that the inquiry rises and falls with his testimony, which (1) isn't true and (2) sets the Republicans up to say "see? the democrat party's star witness had to change his testimony".

It also suggests the so-called "elite political press" 1) isn't really paying attention, b) is still addicted to needing "drama" or "excitement" -- or "pizzazz," if you will -- and 3) is reporting each day's events without connecting the dots into the picture of Trump's relentless unfitness for office.
posted by Gelatin at 7:53 AM on November 20, 2019 [18 favorites]


Ken Starr: GOP Senators Might Consider Having to ‘Make a Trip’ to the White House After Sondland’s Testimony (Daily Beast)
Moments before Wednesday’s impeachment hearings and right after U.S. Ambassador to the EU Gordon Sondland’s opening statement was released, Fox News contributor Ken Starr wondered aloud whether Sondland flipping on President Trump would cause GOP senators to push Trump to resign.

“The real issue is the senators are watching,” Starr said. “Are senators going to now say in light of what we hear today, it’s going to be a long day even with the ambassador alone, in light of what we have heard, ‘We need to make a trip down to the White House’? That historic example set during the Nixon presidency. From what I’ve been able to glean I don’t think that’s going to happen. But obviously what happens today could—has the potential to be a game-changer.”
posted by katra at 7:53 AM on November 20, 2019 [17 favorites]


Hmmm. Sorta-called-it. Enough for partial credit.
posted by j_curiouser at 7:53 AM on November 20, 2019


I only got to watch part of it but Sondland's opening statement was honestly breathtaking. He implicated basically every senior official in the Trump administration, complete with reading off emails and noting everyone who was copied. He repeated, again and again, EVERYONE WAS IN THE LOOP. He could not have been more clear and unequivocal about the fact that there was a clear scheme to withhold Ukraine's military aid unless Zelensky went on TV to announce investigations into a) Burisma/Bidens and b) the debunked Ukraine election interference story.

Another incredibly damning detail he revealed: Trump didn't care if Zelensky actually pursued the investigations. He just wanted him to say he was going to. It was all about creating a news cycle that would aid Trump personally.
posted by the turtle's teeth at 7:54 AM on November 20, 2019 [44 favorites]


Amy Walter at 7:43 AM - 20 Nov 2019 :
Sondland spending a LOT of time making sure to say he didn't know that Burisma was linked to BIDEN. Volker made same claim yesterday.
posted by ZeusHumms at 7:55 AM on November 20, 2019 [4 favorites]


Guardian: Sondland describes Pence reaction to aid conversation
When Sondland brought up investigations in a conversation in Warsaw with vice president Mike Pence and Ukrainians, Sondland says, Pence did no express suprise, shock or ignorance.

Goldman: “He didn’t say, Gordon what are you talking about?”

Sondland: “No”

Goldman: “He didn’t say, Gordon, what investigations?”

Sondland: “He did not.”
posted by katra at 7:58 AM on November 20, 2019 [20 favorites]


Noah Rothman @NoahCRothman:
"He had to announce the investigations. He didn't actually have to do them, as I understood it." - Sondland.

This is key. It was never about corruption. It was about tarring a domestic political opponent.
7:31 AM - 20 Nov 2019
posted by ZeusHumms at 7:59 AM on November 20, 2019 [48 favorites]


It occurs to me that Stone's conviction for lying to Congress was incredibly timely.

Yah, I'm slow some days.
posted by Bovine Love at 8:00 AM on November 20, 2019 [20 favorites]


Nunes looks worse and worse every day, and nearly every hour now.
posted by Harry Caul at 8:03 AM on November 20, 2019 [7 favorites]


Josh Marshal at Talking Points Memo just used the word "underbussed". Thought it worthy of note.
posted by zerobyproxy at 8:08 AM on November 20, 2019 [29 favorites]


Nunes looks worse and worse every day, and nearly every hour now.

The look on his face.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 8:12 AM on November 20, 2019 [36 favorites]


Someone on PBS referred to the "escalatory ladder of throwing people under the bus".
posted by dirigibleman at 8:12 AM on November 20, 2019 [15 favorites]


Sondland made it abundantly clear that Trump demanded Zelensky make a PUBLIC announcement. If Dems don't connect the dots here and explain in the hearings the PUBLIC part is because then Trump could use clips of that in his 2020 campaign ads, Dems are idiots. Whether Trump believed investigations would reveal anything hardly matters. We know he is consumed with devotion to conspiracy theories, but Trump also knows that whether or not Biden did something corrupt is not really the point. The point is Trump wanted a "credible" accusation to use in his 2020 reelection bid. Zelensky provides the "credibility".
posted by pjsky at 8:13 AM on November 20, 2019 [9 favorites]


Anyone else watch the good place? Sondland getting in this situation reminds me of Sean saying "I took the form of a 45 year old white man for a reason. I can only fail up."
posted by mike_honcho at 8:13 AM on November 20, 2019 [31 favorites]


I wonder if we'll find out what Rudy's "insurance j/k" entails.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 8:14 AM on November 20, 2019 [6 favorites]


I think Rudy is checking his insurance policy as we speak. OR, he's at JFK with a one way ticket to Moscow ...
posted by pjsky at 8:15 AM on November 20, 2019 [4 favorites]


Ukrainian gas executive cooperating in US probe of Giuliani (AP)
Federal prosecutors are planning to interview an executive with Ukraine’s state-owned gas company as part of an ongoing probe into the business dealings of Rudy Giuliani and two of his Soviet-born business associates. A lawyer for Andrew Favorov confirmed Tuesday that he is scheduled to meet voluntarily with the U.S. Justice Department. Favorov is the director of the integrated gas division at Naftogaz, the state-owned gas provider in Ukraine.

Federal prosecutors in New York are investigating the business dealings of Giuliani, President Donald Trump’s personal lawyer, including whether he failed to register as a foreign agent, according to people familiar with the probe. The people were not authorized to discuss the investigation publicly and spoke on the condition of anonymity. [...]

According to a federal indictment filed last month, Parnas and Fruman are alleged to have been key players in Giuliani’s efforts earlier this year to spur the Ukrainian government to launch an investigation of Democratic presidential contender Joe Biden and his son Hunter. The two men’s efforts included helping to arrange a January meeting in New York between Giuliani and Ukraine’s former top prosecutor, Yuri Lutsenko, as well as other meetings with top government officials.

While the House impeachment hearings have focused narrowly on Giuliani’s role in pursuing Ukrainian investigations into Democrats, the interest of federal prosecutors in interviewing Favorov suggests they are conducting a broader probe into the business dealings of Giuliani and his associates.
posted by katra at 8:17 AM on November 20, 2019 [11 favorites]


Here comes the day old Manafortian bullshit from Nunes. Sigh.
posted by Harry Caul at 8:23 AM on November 20, 2019 [4 favorites]


Nunes is interrogating the wrong-ass person if he wants a salary of $50K/mo to sound scandalous.
posted by rhizome at 8:30 AM on November 20, 2019 [4 favorites]


How much does Putin love this?
posted by zerobyproxy at 8:32 AM on November 20, 2019 [7 favorites]


Note that Sondland has testified multiple times that the condition placed on Ukraine was to announce, not do Biden investigations.

This has always been Trump's modus operandi. Announcing something is the point. Actually doing it is irrelevant. That's how the big, beautiful wall was completed so quickly. Trump understands the world as a television show. Reality as we conceive of it is not real to him.
posted by Devoidoid at 8:34 AM on November 20, 2019 [21 favorites]


"How did you know that Guiliani was expressing the will of the President?"

"The President said to talk to Rudy?"
posted by zerobyproxy at 8:35 AM on November 20, 2019 [27 favorites]


Here comes the day old Manafortian bullshit from Nunes.

Wouldn't it be great if the House members had to be under oath during their statements "questioning" as well?
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 8:36 AM on November 20, 2019 [6 favorites]


"Yes, the president is frequently cranky pants"
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 8:38 AM on November 20, 2019 [4 favorites]


How much does Putin love this?
MOSCOW (AP) — Russian President Vladimir Putin says he’s pleased that the “political battles” in Washington have put on the back-burner accusations that Russia interfered in U.S. elections.

“Thank God,” he told an economic forum in the Russian capital on Wednesday, “no one is accusing us of interfering in the U.S. elections anymore; now they’re accusing Ukraine.”
posted by ZeusHumms at 8:40 AM on November 20, 2019 [19 favorites]


Note that Sondland has testified multiple times that the condition placed on Ukraine was to announce, not do Biden investigations.

This has always been Trump's modus operandi. Announcing something is the point. Actually doing it is irrelevant.


Especially in this case, where he knew that if there was an actual Biden investigation they would find nothing. If he wanted a real investigation, he would have asked for one without an announcement, so as not to tip those being investigated off. But we all know this. The press knows this. But the NYT still would have inserted the phrase "who is currently under investigation for corruption" after every mention of Biden. That was the goal.
posted by mikepop at 8:41 AM on November 20, 2019 [36 favorites]


“Thank God,” [Putin] told an economic forum in the Russian capital on Wednesday, “no one is accusing us of interfering in the U.S. elections anymore; now they’re accusing Ukraine.”

So Russia and the Republican Party are using the same set of talking points. Awesome.

I'm old enough to remember when Republicans used to accuse liberals and Democrats of being dupes of Moscow...
posted by Gelatin at 8:46 AM on November 20, 2019 [41 favorites]


So Russia and the Republican Party are using the same set of talking points.

Yes, because Republicans get their talking points from Putin in the first place.
posted by LooseFilter at 8:50 AM on November 20, 2019 [13 favorites]


because Republicans get their talking points from Putin in the first place.

I certainly didn't think it was the other way around.

Come to think of it, one doesn't hear much bragging from Republicans these days about how Saint Ronnie took down the Soviet Union all by himself.
posted by Gelatin at 8:53 AM on November 20, 2019 [6 favorites]


I'm in the UK so everything is about the elections here and I haven't had a chance to see any of the impeachment hearings, is there somewhere good, even youtube, I can watch summaries of whats happening? Ideally with some explainers?

I can't tell how explosive its been (I saw the fart video though) because a lot of this kind of stuff seems huge but goes nowhere. Does this look like it's the end for Trump? Or can he wriggle out of it again?
posted by Chaffinch at 8:54 AM on November 20, 2019 [2 favorites]


Putin-GRU Operatives-Rudy-Hannity-Trump-GOP-Rightwing-Media-Rightwing Social Media-Rightwing Voters

I think this is the pipeline, generally. It feels crazy to write this but here we are.
posted by zerobyproxy at 8:54 AM on November 20, 2019 [19 favorites]


I'm in the UK so everything is about the elections here and I haven't had a chance to see any of the impeachment hearings, is there somewhere good, even youtube, I can watch summaries of whats happening? Ideally with some explainers?

I can't tell how explosive its been (I saw the fart video though) because a lot of this kind of stuff seems huge but goes nowhere. Does this look like it's the end for Trump? Or can he wriggle out of it again?
posted by Chaffinch at 8:54 on November 20 [+] [!]


I've been following the Guardian liveblog which also includes a live video feed of the testimony:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2019/nov/20/ donald-trump-news-today- live-impeachment-hearings- gordon-sondland-ukraine-republicans-latest-updates
posted by Erberus at 8:57 AM on November 20, 2019 [1 favorite]


Does this look like it's the end for Trump? Or can he wriggle out of it again?

I don't think any of us or indeed anybody on Earth can really claim to be able to answer this question yet. That's what makes all this so exhausting.
posted by showbiz_liz at 9:00 AM on November 20, 2019 [42 favorites]


Can we bring back [Real] / [Fake]?
posted by Nonsteroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drug at 9:00 AM on November 20, 2019 [21 favorites]


Sondland now putting his bus driver cap back on.
posted by Harry Caul at 9:02 AM on November 20, 2019 [3 favorites]


Does this look like it's the end for Trump? Or can he wriggle out of it again?

There's no wriggle. There's nobody to convince. It's all a matter of Republicans saying "Fuck you, we don't care, we're Republicans," and the boiling racism that supports them.

Every claim that there's any other escape or argument or excuse is disingenuous. It's not an escape. It's a middle finger.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 9:03 AM on November 20, 2019 [55 favorites]


I can't tell how explosive its been (I saw the fart video though) because a lot of this kind of stuff seems huge but goes nowhere. Does this look like it's the end for Trump? Or can he wriggle out of it again?

It's huge, but it's not the end for Trump. The Republican party is a Trump cult and will never turn on him no matter what. Trump's only "end" is losing an election or his death, and I'm not sure about the first.
posted by dirigibleman at 9:06 AM on November 20, 2019 [4 favorites]


Just checked out the Fox News home page and, man, they’re still hard at it. It appears they’re conceding the quid pro quo as “potential” and emphasizing that the only time Trump mentioned those words to Sondland was when he was denying the quid pro quo. Emphasizing that Giuliani was the person giving the orders to the Three Amigos.

Give them any room between Trump and the crime, and they’ll spin it.
posted by Big Al 8000 at 9:12 AM on November 20, 2019


Chaffinch, unthread I mentioned the daily updates by American historian Heather Cox Richardson—a good way to get info in context.
posted by Sublimity at 9:14 AM on November 20, 2019 [6 favorites]


I hope one of the articles of impeachment is the charge that Trump used Giuliani to direct foreign policy. Emphasize how Trump deliberately sidestepped the Senate and make it clear that if they acquit, no president ever again will get Senatorial consent for any reason they choose and that the justification will be their refusal to hold Trump accountable.
posted by Big Al 8000 at 9:16 AM on November 20, 2019 [33 favorites]


It's frightful to think that -- even though these hearings unequivocally show multiple impeachable offenses Trump and his administration is guilty of, Trump's fate depends on how Mitch McConnell responds. If Mitch tells Republican Senators to ignore the evidence and support Trump they will do it. And they will do it because they are almost ALL guilty of taking Russian money laundered through the NRA.
posted by pjsky at 9:17 AM on November 20, 2019 [25 favorites]


Sondland is acting like he came downstairs on Christmas morning and Santa left him a huge pile of blow under the tree
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 9:18 AM on November 20, 2019 [8 favorites]


I think Mitch is watching the polls. He has 23 Senate Seats up in 2020. These people will be on the record. The margins are narrowing and he is reading the tea leaves. He can easily work his way out of a majority.
posted by zerobyproxy at 9:22 AM on November 20, 2019 [3 favorites]


posted by Chaffinch I can't tell how explosive its been (I saw the fart video though)
Breaking news, indeed.


To quote the great CJ Cregg: "Oh my god, day three."

posted by scaryblackdeath at 9:22 AM on November 20, 2019 [4 favorites]


Mike Pompeo planning to resign because Trump ‘hurting his reputation’, report claims
Donald Trump’s secretary of state has reportedly told three prominent Republicans that he is planning to resign from the White House to run for a Senate seat.

Mike Pompeo had planned to stay at the State Department until early spring 2020 but he is now concerned that his connection to Mr Trump, particularly through the impeachment inquiry, is hurting his reputation, according to a Time report.

However, State Department officials said Mr Pompeo has dismissed the story as “completely false” and insisted he is “100 per cent focused on being President Trump’s secretary of state.”
posted by monospace at 9:28 AM on November 20, 2019 [6 favorites]


Mr Pompeo has dismissed the story as “completely false” and insisted he is “100 per cent focused on being President Trump’s secretary of state.”
That means he's already drafted his resignation letter.
posted by neroli at 9:29 AM on November 20, 2019 [34 favorites]


And they will do it because they are almost ALL guilty of taking Russian money laundered through the NRA.

Isn’t this traditionally where the prosecution starts offering immunity for cooperation?

Or maybe just reminds them that they’re all betting that Trump can win again, and if he doesn’t, the DOJ fucking has them?
posted by schadenfrau at 9:37 AM on November 20, 2019 [1 favorite]


The margins are narrowing and he is reading the tea leaves.

Or, in other words: Collins, Gardner, Ernst, McSally and Tillis.
posted by pseudophile at 9:40 AM on November 20, 2019 [3 favorites]


That means he's already drafted his resignation letter.
"Trump administration staff have resignation letters ready to go in their desks and on their laptops, according to a new book by an anonymous senior official working for President Donald Trump."

posted by kirkaracha at 9:41 AM on November 20, 2019 [4 favorites]


Sondland's testimony is astounding. He knows he's in too deep to get off. He's taking an interesting tack of saying "I wish I could remember better but the DOJ and State Department won't give me my own emails and transcripts" to avoid perjuring himself by either admitting guilt or contradicting his prior testimony. But he's implicating EVERYONE in his attempt to not perjure himself (because everyone was involved and he knows it). And yet, he probably thinks he's doing his associates a solid because he tries to wrap all that damning testimony up under a bow that says "so long story short, we were all involved in a very intentional quid pro quo, as directly required by Guilliani, but it was only about the phone call and the WH visit. It wasn't about funding at the time we agreed on the quid pro quo."

Top it off with, as Big Al 8000 said above, he's just a mediocre white man. He's in way over his head. He's reeling from the fact that someone has just said to him, for the first time in his life, "You know, there are actually laws that apply to people, rules that people have to abide by. And you've been breaking a few. We know you didn't even know about them, but they were there none-the-less." He went off on a mini-rant at one point (paraphrasing): "I don't know how you can call it an irregular channel! The people in charge wanted to do it that way, how can it be irregular? They're the one's in charge!" which is kind of breathtaking in it's laying bare of privilege and lack of understanding of how the government (of which he is a part) works.
posted by jermsplan at 9:51 AM on November 20, 2019 [52 favorites]


Senate confirmation is more of... a suggestion...
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 9:53 AM on November 20, 2019 [1 favorite]


"I don't know how you can call it an irregular channel! The people in charge wanted to do it that way, how can it be irregular? They're the one's in charge!"

First defense by most Nazis. Eichmannism.
posted by valkane at 10:00 AM on November 20, 2019 [10 favorites]


CNN: Sen. McConnell says he's not watching Sondland

CNN: Here's what a few GOP senators are saying about Sondland's testimony
Sen. Lindsey Graham said he's watching "bits and pieces, headlines across the stream."

Asked about Sondland's testimony about conditions imposed on the Ukrainians, Graham said, "I thought he said that the President never mentioned a conditionality."

On Sondland overall, Graham added: "Let's see what he says. I'm very suspicious of why people all of a sudden [say] two and two is four when two and two wasn't four before. Let's just hear him out."

Republican Sen. David Perdue said he's watching "a little bit."

"I'm very troubled. First of all, they're denying the rights to an American president that we fight for every day for everybody in the country," he said.

"These fundamental human rights are being denied to him right now. My view is it's nothing but a sham and a show trial. Nothing that I've seen rises to the level of impeachable. And we'll be able to educate the American people about that when it gets over here."

Sen. Ron Johnson, another Republican, added, "I haven't seen much." Then walked away when asked about details from Sondland's testimony.
Reporter Haley Bird:
Is it appropriate to condition Zelensky meeting on something that would benefit Trump?

GOP Sen. Mike Braun: “A lot of things may not be appropriate. But this is a question does it rise to the level of impeachment. And it's a totally different issue and none of this has.“

The Republicans are in this to the death. They will burn this place to the ground before doing the right thing.
posted by gwint at 10:00 AM on November 20, 2019 [44 favorites]


On Sondland overall, Graham added: "Let's see what he says. I'm very suspicious of why people all of a sudden [say] two and two is four when two and two wasn't four before. Let's just hear him out."

That's some deep-ass Orwellian bullshit right there.
posted by valkane at 10:03 AM on November 20, 2019 [37 favorites]


Two and two equaling four is not in the Constitution.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 10:06 AM on November 20, 2019 [7 favorites]


Graham's probably more interested in the 1=3/5 part of the constitution
posted by mabelstreet at 10:15 AM on November 20, 2019 [63 favorites]


The Republicans are in this to the death. They will burn this place to the ground before doing the right thing.

Something very extraordinary would have to happen for them to do otherwise. After all, for them the ends have always justified the means.
posted by ZeusHumms at 10:17 AM on November 20, 2019 [2 favorites]


they're denying the rights to an American president that we fight for every day for everybody in the country

OK, I will play along as if this comment is in good faith. What specific rights? The president is welcome to testify at any time per Nancy Pelosi. The House has either asked people or subpoenaed them to testify, and Trump has blocked them.

I mean, how about some fucking followup, journalists?

This isn't the trial part, this is the investigation part. When the trial starts in the Senate the president will have every right to be represented by attorneys or to appear on his own behalf.
posted by kirkaracha at 10:22 AM on November 20, 2019 [13 favorites]




Regarding neroli's link: Y'all remember how Obama was mocked for using a teleprompter that one time?
posted by JDHarper at 10:26 AM on November 20, 2019 [14 favorites]


Trump's notes for his comments to the press this morning (real).

Hopefully one day we can look back on this and take some selfies with Trump's absurd notepads at his Presidential Museum (which will probably be built in palm beach and then submerged in the ocean, so nevermind). My dude even does writing things down in an uncanny way.
posted by dis_integration at 10:28 AM on November 20, 2019 [4 favorites]


This isn't the trial part, this is the investigation part.

And sometimes people aren’t always aware there’s an investigation of them happening, much less having it broadcast live.
posted by nubs at 10:29 AM on November 20, 2019 [1 favorite]


Trump's notes for his comments to the press this morning (real).

This is just to say
I want nothing
I want nothing

I want no
quid pro quo.

Tell Zellinsky
to do the
right thing.

This is the
final word
from the Pres
of the U.S.
posted by katra at 10:30 AM on November 20, 2019 [56 favorites]


This is the final word from the Pres. of the U.S.

What's the over/under on that?
posted by sjswitzer at 10:31 AM on November 20, 2019 [16 favorites]


This is the final word from the Pres. of the U.S.

Don't tease us like that, brah! That sounds like a resignation.
posted by kirkaracha at 10:32 AM on November 20, 2019 [8 favorites]


Samantha Bee on twitter: Rudy Giuliani is currently googling if a jail cell acoustics are good enough for a podcast recording.
posted by mikepop at 10:34 AM on November 20, 2019 [16 favorites]


I'm very suspicious of why people all of a sudden [say] two and two is four when two and two wasn't four before.

Because as much as the Republicans want to think the Party defines reality, it doesn't. Reality keeps catching up to them.
posted by Gelatin at 10:34 AM on November 20, 2019 [3 favorites]


In the alternate timeline where Hillary Clinton won the presidency, she is being impeached by the Republican House of Representatives for using a green pen to take notes.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 10:35 AM on November 20, 2019 [61 favorites]


fundamental human rights

So ludicrous and shameless to talk about rights wheedlingly in the context of the kids-in-cages, make-sure-refugees-can't-even-apply-for-asylum administration.
posted by XMLicious at 10:37 AM on November 20, 2019 [21 favorites]


So ludicrous and shameless to talk about rights wheedlingly in the context of the kids-in-cages, make-sure-refugees-can't-even-apply-for-asylum administration.

Frank Wilhoit: “Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition …There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.”
posted by Gelatin at 10:43 AM on November 20, 2019 [30 favorites]


The Republicans are in this to the death. They will burn this place to the ground before doing the right thing.

or they're waiting to see what the polls say ...
posted by philip-random at 10:47 AM on November 20, 2019 [1 favorite]




Sondland's bombshell testimony blows holes in Trump's Ukraine defence (Guardian)
Sondland acknowledged he never heard directly from Trump that the security assistance hinged on an announcement of investigations, adding that the conclusion was his “own personal guess”. But by early September, he added, “it was abundantly clear to everyone that there was a link”.

The statement is a potential death blow to Trump’s fight against impeachment, demolishing talking points made by House Republicans and conservative media. [...]

Sondland’s evidence also raises questions over the future of Giuliani, the former mayor of New York, who pushed hard for the investigations in Ukraine despite having no official diplomatic role. Giuliani, who had business interests of his own in Ukraine, has refused to testify or hand over documents to the impeachment investigation despite a subpoena.
posted by katra at 10:51 AM on November 20, 2019 [5 favorites]


my name is Don
and I haf money
but Biden's gunning
for 2020
wen Z wants help,
but hasn't paid,
i quid pro
i link the aid
posted by mabelstreet at 10:56 AM on November 20, 2019 [45 favorites]




gwint: On Sondland overall, Graham added: "Let's see what he says. I'm very suspicious of why people all of a sudden [say] two and two is four when two and two wasn't four before. Let's just hear him out."

Wait, are you suspicious because he lied before and now he's not lying, or just because he lied before? Because 2 + 2 = 4. That's not being debated now, is it? (Narrator: words mean nothing now, math is uncertain, too.)


neroli: Trump's notes for his comments to the press this morning (real).

Those are the most brief of notes. 5 minute presser tops, right? Bing bang boom. [But Trump always riffs from the subconscious, displaying his inner thoughts.]

And if you want a higher quality copy of that "Aboard Air Force One" memo, here's a higher resolution pic, from CNN's brief coverage of that photo as part of their impeachment hearing stream of news bits.

Another recap, from NPR: Key Takeaways From Tuesday's Impeachment Hearing (Philip Ewing, November 20, 2019 at 5 AM ET)

Meanwhile, more from CNN -- GOP congressman: GOP is still "unified" in support of Trump
Rep. Jim Banks, an Indiana Republican, dismissed Ambassador Gordon Sondland's testimony, saying it was “not convincing” because of the discrepancy with the past testimony.

He described the GOP as still “unified” in support of Trump.
"There's not a single Republican in the House of Representatives who‘s been convinced by the testimony today at this point, otherwise you would have heard about it by now, and Republicans remain unified in their support of the President and against this impeachment sham process."
He added that "some of our best questioning has yet to occur by Republican members.”
posted by filthy light thief at 11:07 AM on November 20, 2019 [3 favorites]


Sorry I’m pretty far behind on this thread and watching Sondland’s testimony. Is Sondland a fail son? I ask because he seems to be bragging about not taking notes or remembering important meetings.
I take notes about my trips to visit my mother in the same state. How does this guy do the important job of being ambassador with out taking notes.
*insert old lady grumbles about college with out personal computers*
posted by Gadgetenvy at 11:10 AM on November 20, 2019 [2 favorites]


Sondland is a hotelier and longtime GOP donor who bought himself an ambassadorship by giving $1 million to Trump's inaugural fund.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 11:13 AM on November 20, 2019 [15 favorites]


Is he a failson? Well he started his hotel empire by borrowing $7.8 million from friends and relatives. Like you do. But as far as I can tell he didn't run the venture into the ground, so...?
posted by sjswitzer at 11:16 AM on November 20, 2019 [2 favorites]


Oh wow, they are leaning in on this 2+2/=4 thing and I'm so weirded out.
posted by mmmbacon at 11:18 AM on November 20, 2019 [6 favorites]


Anyone dumb enough to donate a million bucks to trump isn't sufficiently mentally competent to give reliable testimony to Congress.

(I fully expect this to be the next administration talking point.)
posted by Atom Eyes at 11:18 AM on November 20, 2019 [6 favorites]


Wait, so boycotting Mr. Sondland's hotels is equal to _witness intimidation_ now?
posted by snortasprocket at 11:20 AM on November 20, 2019 [1 favorite]


How does this guy do the important job of being ambassador with out taking notes.

So there are kind of two tiers of "Ambassador" in the US inventory. There's your career Foreign Service person who has spent decades learning about regions and specific countries, working their way up the ranks, rotating back to Washington DC every few years, then going back to the region they've studied, and eventually, they're appointed an ambassador extraordinary and plenipotentiary of the United States of America, the personal representative to another nation (or other large governmental entity) of the President. Regardless of the size of the nation or its position in the world, it is the career pinnacle of anyone in the Foreign Service.

And there is also the person who has spent a long time and a large amount of money in support of the political party that nominated the current President of the United States, generally after having achieved success in some other area (business or academia or the like). That person is also an ambassador extraordinary etc. etc., but everyone knows that the career Foreign Service official whose title is Deputy Chief of Mission is the real diplomat, and that the Ambassador is really just there to take pictures and make speeches. These people generally have a personal connection to the country to which they are the ambassador, generally by ancestry or business ties. They are not really trusted with the important work of the United States.

You get one guess which tier Sondland is in.
posted by Etrigan at 11:35 AM on November 20, 2019 [49 favorites]


the GOP questions remind me of that MST3K episode wherein Professor Bobo tried to undermine Brain Guy's testimony about Mike destroying his planet by screaming at him about the right way to make a brown betty
posted by angrycat at 11:35 AM on November 20, 2019 [13 favorites]


So ludicrous and shameless to talk about rights wheedlingly in the context of the kids-in-cages, make-sure-refugees-can't-even-apply-for-asylum administration.

I call this "moral bullshit" -- by using the language of morality and principle without making an actual moral argument, you drain those terms of meaning and ultimately undercut the notion that a coherent moral judgment can be made about anything.

And like factual bullshit, this is arguably more toxic than straightforward villainy, which at least acknowledges the notion that right and wrong exist and are meaningful.

My forlorn hope for a silver lining from all this is that people will start recognizing and calling this out.

Like, in retrospect I regret that I remained somewhat civil toward people who cited Hilary Clinton's "corruption" as a reason to vote for Trump in 2016, rather than treating it as an admission that they really don't give a shit about corruption, and ask them, as someone who does, to please take that fucking word out of their mouths.
posted by bjrubble at 11:36 AM on November 20, 2019 [25 favorites]


The Republicans' 50+-year run of the moral, legal, and rational Chewbacca defense has not begun to reach its limits. Bullshit is a helluva drug.
posted by riverlife at 11:46 AM on November 20, 2019 [8 favorites]


Oh wow, they are leaning in on this 2+2/=4 thing and I'm so weirded out.

My pet theory is that the administration's real target--more than marginalizing brown people, more than padding their own pockets with whatever they can loot--is the destruction of satire as a literary device that can be weaponized against the powerful. Literally the best-known send-up of the totalitarian state, 1984, literally makes this the lynchpin of its protagonist's internal rebellion against the state. It's right there on page 84:
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
The Senate Majority Leader has just publicly alluded to Orwell's ne plus ultra gesture of a boot stamping on the notion of freedom. If this gets reported with a straight face, and doesn't come back to torment Moscow Mitch every day for the rest of his life, then we're going to have to rethink how we teach A Modest Proposal.
posted by Mayor West at 11:52 AM on November 20, 2019 [33 favorites]


America needs to hear — under oath — from Pompeo, Perry, Pence, and Bolton (Matthew Yglesias, Vox)
Sondland’s bombshell testimony demands answers from top officials.

A speedy approach [where Pompeo, et al are not heard under oath] makes sense if Senate Republicans are open-minded about this situation. The facts revealed so far are extremely damning, so it could make sense to just move forward quickly rather than get bogged down in political and legal warfare about additional testimony. But of course that isn’t the situation.

Republicans aren’t going to agree to remove Trump. Everything that’s happening here is political display for the benefit of the voters. And to that end it would be extremely edifying to have extended public discussion of why the White House is stonewalling and why we can’t find out more about exactly who did what when.
posted by ZeusHumms at 12:22 PM on November 20, 2019 [11 favorites]


I literally screamed after this exchange --
(from THE GUARDIAN)


"Democrat Sean Maloney is up. It’s another applause moment in the gallery. Maloney presses Sondland to admit that an investigation of Biden would help Trump. Sondland keeps trying to derail the question by pointing out that he has testified that while Trump brought up “investigations” he did not bring up the Bidens.

Maloney gets Sondland to admit an investigation of the Bidens would help Trump, and kind of makes fun of Sondland for taking so long to say so. Then Sondland makes a mistake, taking offense to any suggestion that he has been less than forthright.

Maloney levels him:

“Fair enough, you’ve been very forthright. This is your third try to do it,” Maloney says. Sondland testified, revised his original testimony, and now is testifying again.

“All due respect sir, we appreciate your candor, but let’s be really clear what it took to get it out of you,” says Maloney.

Here’s part of the exchange:

Q: Who would benefit from an investigation of the president’s political opponent?

Sondland says that’s a hypothetical.

“It’s not a hypothetical, is it sir?” Maloney says. “Who would benefit from an investigation of the Bidens?” Maloney presses.

“I assume president Trump would benefit,” Sondland says.

“There we have it, see,” says Maloney, to applause and laughter. “Didn’t hurt a bit, did it?”


---
Did Pelosi somehow communicate to the Dems that it's time to release the hounds?
posted by pjsky at 12:31 PM on November 20, 2019 [70 favorites]


WATCH LIVE: The Trump Impeachment Hearings – Day 4 (PBS)
Laura Cooper, a deputy assistant secretary of defense, and David Hale, the undersecretary of state for political affairs, are scheduled to testify Wednesday afternoon.
WATCH LIVE: Open Hearing with Laura Cooper and David Hale (U.S. House Intelligence Committee)

Watch LIVE On November 20 | 4:15pm ET | C-SPAN3
Laura Cooper, a deputy assistant Defense secretary, and David Hale, a State Department under secretary for political affairs, testifies before the House Intelligence Committee as part of its impeachment inquiry into President Trump.
posted by katra at 12:37 PM on November 20, 2019 [4 favorites]


I am less confident than many here - and some of the headline writers in the major media outlets - that Sondland's testimony today was a slam-dunk. While listening to the minority counsel (and a few of the saner-sounding minority members) questioning Sondland, I heard multiple, clear statements that he never heard Trump make the actual demand. Schiff tried to refocus everyone's attention that the actual words aren't necessary - "Ambassador Sundland, please get Ukraine to announce an investigation before I'll release the money" - but this is only a court of public/political opinion, not law. There are now several clear video clips of Sondland admitting he "presumed" what Tr*mp wanted, which Fox "News" can use to muddy things.
posted by PhineasGage at 12:43 PM on November 20, 2019 [8 favorites]


I'm just gonna say it: Schiff is sexy mad right now. I'm sorry. I'm human.
posted by angrycat at 12:45 PM on November 20, 2019 [21 favorites]


My pet theory is

my dog's been lounging in front of the TV all day watching this, the only one in the household doing so. I look forward to discussing her theories after suppertime.
posted by philip-random at 12:54 PM on November 20, 2019 [25 favorites]


So there are kind of two tiers of "Ambassador" in the US inventory.

Why would someone pay a large amount of money to be ambassador to a developing country that has just emerged from a civil war, and which is precariously positioned next to a belligerent and acquisitive neighbour? Ukraine isn't far from Western Europe, but it's not as if he were stationed in Paris or Vienna. There has to be some major grift involved.
posted by Joe in Australia at 1:08 PM on November 20, 2019 [2 favorites]


I hope today has contained enough razzle dazzle for those who felt that these proceedings have been too dry. Yowza.
posted by merriment at 1:10 PM on November 20, 2019 [4 favorites]


Why would someone pay a large amount of money to be ambassador to a developing country that has just emerged from a civil war, and which is precariously positioned next to a belligerent and acquisitive neighbour? Ukraine isn't far from Western Europe, but it's not as if he were stationed in Paris or Vienna. There has to be some major grift involved.

Sondland was the Ambassador to the EU. He got to schmooze in Brussels. Futzing around with Ukraine was grift on the side.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 1:11 PM on November 20, 2019 [39 favorites]


WATCH LIVE: The Trump Impeachment Hearings – Day 4

omg can i at least take a nap first so tired
posted by gwint at 1:14 PM on November 20, 2019 [9 favorites]


Is there any chance Sondland could face any charges?
posted by affectionateborg at 1:18 PM on November 20, 2019 [2 favorites]




I am less confident than many here - and some of the headline writers in the major media outlets - that Sondland's testimony today was a slam-dunk.

Again: it's not about convincing anyone. For anyone actually paying attention, this whole matter is solidly established before Sondland even walked in. Republicans and their voters aren't listening to this with anything close to an open mind. Their defense isn't "reasonable doubt" or details. Their defense is "fuck you."
posted by scaryblackdeath at 1:31 PM on November 20, 2019 [38 favorites]




Sondland was the Ambassador to the EU. He got to schmooze in Brussels. Futzing around with Ukraine was grift on the side.

Ah, I recall seeing references to him as EU ambassador but I had thought it was an earlier/later posting. I didn't realise how thoroughly abnormal the present administration is. So Sondland bought this sweet position where people addressed him as “Your Excellency” and invited him to all the establishment soirées, but he decided that that wasn't enough, he wanted to play powerbroker?

I really don't understand all these wealthy and powerful people who enter the destructive accretion disk surrounding the black hole that is Donald Trump and think that they're not going to get crushed, they're just going to keep orbiting him and basking in his malevolent glow.
posted by Joe in Australia at 1:41 PM on November 20, 2019 [6 favorites]


Gividen's thread carries a second message he feels he must stress: he has no reflection upon or regrets for how we've gotten here. He doesn't like this specific thing Trump did and recognizes it's super bad, but he is also super happy to go on oppressing anyone who isn't a straight white dude.

It's a common refrain from any conservative who goes against Trump. It is super important to them that everyone understands, "I might not like Trump, but rest assured I have learned nothing from all of this."
posted by scaryblackdeath at 1:41 PM on November 20, 2019 [38 favorites]


Today, a witness to the Presidential Impeachment Inquiry testified that he was unable to access his files from the State Department in order to corroborate his statements, or make them more accurate. It would be relatively easy to understand this if the witness was no longer employed by the State Department. But instead, he is the current United States Ambassador to the European Union. Why can't he access his own records for his own job? We know why.
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 1:45 PM on November 20, 2019 [23 favorites]


Why would someone pay a large amount of money to be ambassador to a developing country that has just emerged from a civil war, and which is precariously positioned next to a belligerent and acquisitive neighbour? Ukraine isn't far from Western Europe, but it's not as if he were stationed in Paris or Vienna. There has to be some major grift involved.

You just illustrated Etrigan's point exactly. Nobody wanted to be Ambassador to Ukraine which is why they assigned a career foreign officer to the job, Yovanovich. That's the first tier Etrigan described, a non-political foreign professional.

But it turns out that wasn't convenient for Trump's purposes so Trump axed Yovanovich and directed political friend and sycophant Sondland to do a back channel operation even though he was Ambassador to the EU in Brussels, one of those second tier political ambassadors. Trump needed a loyal grifter on the ground in Ukraine because he didn't trust the professionals to get dirty for him.

For his part, I assume that Sondland paid $1 million for the EU ambassadorship because he has dreams of expanding his froufrou boutique hotel business into Europe. What better way to make high class connections in Europe. So he asked Trump for a favor and of course when you ask the godfather for a favor he forever owns you for the dirty work. It's classic mafia dealing.

Brando: "Someday, and that day may never come, I will call upon you to do a service for me."
posted by JackFlash at 1:54 PM on November 20, 2019 [34 favorites]


Why can't he access his own records for his own job? We know why.
Or he could be lying about that detail.
posted by mumimor at 1:54 PM on November 20, 2019 [8 favorites]


Or he could be lying about that detail.

I hope that Democrats in the House or Senate can further establish under oath whether he in fact has access.
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 1:57 PM on November 20, 2019 [3 favorites]


The Democrats' lawyer, Daniel Goldman, asked Ambassador Gordon Sondland if he recalled telling President Trump that the Ukrainian leader "loves your ass" during a July 26 call at a restaurant in Kiev.

Sondland conceded that he could have said that because it "sounds like something I would say."
"That's how President Trump and I communicate. A lot of four-letter words. In this case, three letters," Sondland said.

As Matt Yglesias points out, someone needs to ask Sondland whether he means "LOVES your ass" or "loves your ASS" as these have very different meanings.
posted by JackFlash at 2:29 PM on November 20, 2019 [4 favorites]


Wait, there's more hearings TODAY? What is this, The Hustler?!
posted by gwint at 2:50 PM on November 20, 2019 [5 favorites]


As Matt Yglesias points out, someone needs to ask Sondland whether he means "LOVES your ass" or "loves your ASS" as these have very different meanings.

Ass, previously.
posted by SoundInhabitant at 3:20 PM on November 20, 2019 [1 favorite]


Devin Nunes keeps saying “the Democrats accuse us of wanting to out the whistleblower even though they claim to not know who he is”. Does anyone understand this reasoning? Those two statements are not at all related. Am I missing something?
posted by misterpatrick at 3:26 PM on November 20, 2019 [5 favorites]


Cooper demolishes the "Ukraine didn't know" talking point. Ukraine knew by July 25.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 3:28 PM on November 20, 2019 [9 favorites]


Impeachment hearings live updates: Defense official testifies that Ukrainians asked about hold on security assistance on same day as Trump call
Laura Cooper, the special assistant secretary of defense for Russia and Ukraine, testified Wednesday that her staff received an inquiry from the Ukrainian Embassy asking about the status of the funds July 25, the same day as President Trump’s phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.
Ceterum autem censeo Trump delenda est
posted by kirkaracha at 3:34 PM on November 20, 2019 [6 favorites]


I think Devin's point is that Democrats keep blocking his questions that are designed to out the whistleblower (or narrow down the list of suspects) and the only way they could possibly know which questions to block would be if they know the whistleblower's identity. Which is pretty dumb but then so is Devin.
posted by SpaceBass at 3:34 PM on November 20, 2019 [8 favorites]


Devin Nunes keeps saying “the Democrats accuse us of wanting to out the whistleblower even though they claim to not know who he is”. Does anyone understand this reasoning? Those two statements are not at all related. Am I missing something?

Nunes clearly has an idea who the whistleblower might be, and he is asking questions in these hearings designed to out him/her. He's getting shutdown consistently by Schiff whenever he tries this. I think the point he is trying to make is that Schiff would not be doing this unless he knows who it is.

See Vindman testimony 09:20 - 13:18
posted by zakur at 3:40 PM on November 20, 2019 [3 favorites]


So, rather than actually confront the charges, Nunes simply wants to break more laws. I hate this world.
posted by valkane at 3:48 PM on November 20, 2019 [5 favorites]


rather than actually confront the charges, Nunes simply wants to break more laws

When your only tool is a crime-hammer, every problem must become a crime-able nail. Morrisson and/or Sondland were their last best line of defence. That having failed, they have only distraction -- the Hunter Biden subpoena and the hope of outing, then subpoenaing, the whistleblower.
posted by halation at 3:56 PM on November 20, 2019 [4 favorites]


Maybe this is just me, but I'd notice if my bank balance was $400 million short.
posted by adept256 at 4:31 PM on November 20, 2019 [4 favorites]


Looking over Trump’s twitter it seems like the PR war is being waged with bare minimum, out of context quotes saying that Trump didn’t directly say that he wanted to commit extortion.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 4:38 PM on November 20, 2019


So when you show up to Thanksgiving I’d probably expect relatives in the bubble to have no idea that Trump did anything.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 4:39 PM on November 20, 2019 [7 favorites]


It IS pretty interesting that thanksgiving falls right in the middle of all of this. Everyone who's been keeping close watch on things gets to go home and argue about it...
posted by kaibutsu at 4:49 PM on November 20, 2019 [4 favorites]


But it turns out that wasn't convenient for Trump's purposes so Trump axed Yovanovich and directed political friend and sycophant Sondland to do a back channel operation even though he was Ambassador to the EU in Brussels, one of those second tier political ambassadors. Trump needed a loyal grifter on the ground in Ukraine because he didn't trust the professionals to get dirty for him.

Ah but it is even worse than that. You see under Obama it was experienced technocrats heading the American Mission to the EU and they were involved in deep long term ongoing negotiations of a trade treaty that had been in the works for 10 years or so: TTIP (Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership) which may have been good or bad depending on your views on international trade and labour relations and neo-liberalism. Trump, and maybe Sondland, nuked it and initiated a trade war and then eventually decided to crawl back to the table and the EU pretty much said " pas de reprise (no backsies)" ("On 15 April 2019, the negotiations have been declared "obsolete and no longer relevant" by the European Commission."). So Sondland wasn't even good at the EU part of his job never mind being Trump's ukraine messenger.
posted by srboisvert at 5:11 PM on November 20, 2019 [12 favorites]


So I looked up David Hale in wikipedia and it said he was born in Ireland. Then, maybe a minute later one of those guys asked him where he was born and he said Michigan. I looked back at Wikipedia and it had changed his birthplace to Michigan but left some crap about his "brogue". Now that's gone.
posted by mareli at 5:26 PM on November 20, 2019 [7 favorites]


The Republicans are in this to the death. They will burn this place to the ground before doing the right thing.
Something very extraordinary would have to happen for them to do otherwise. After all, for them the ends have always justified the means.


The end might actually be the means here. That is, who says any Republican in the Senate actually cares about preservation of any institutions or the country itself?

I mean, we've been told what they want for decades: drown the government in a bathtub. What do they want instead? A society of privilege, for the wealthy, for themselves, and for their tribe.

And if they've taken money from the Russian kleptocracy, well, that goes double, because we know what the Russians want. Not that they needed to take the money, because it turns out the goals of the Republican Party and the Russian Kleptocracy are essentially the same.

It's not that they'll burn this place to the ground before they do the right thing. It's that they want to burn this place to the ground.
posted by wildblueyonder at 5:30 PM on November 20, 2019 [23 favorites]


And Trump's main goal is to keep Putin happy. Of course he would interfere with giving Ukraine arms to fight against Putin.
posted by mareli at 5:38 PM on November 20, 2019 [1 favorite]


Why would someone pay a large amount of money to be ambassador to a developing country that has just emerged from a civil war, and which is precariously positioned next to a belligerent and acquisitive neighbour?

Once you are done being ambassador people refer to you as former ambassador for the rest of your life and most people won't recall that you were a do nothing figurehead rather than someone with actual power as an ambassador.

Looking over Trump’s twitter it seems like the PR war is being waged with bare minimum, out of context quotes saying that Trump didn’t directly say that he wanted to commit extortion.

This is so annoying. At least as far back as 1170 when Henry II got rid of a turbulent priest people have known how to respond to direction via indirection. People love mafia based media and this is a cliche trope in the genre. only the wilfully obtuse are going to give this talking point any weight.
posted by Mitheral at 7:22 PM on November 20, 2019 [4 favorites]


"We need a favor though". I'm sorry, that's an ask, a condition for receiving the money. There is no other way to see it especially with all the newly revealed information. And that info was in the first memo from the administration. I just don't see how it can be ready any differently. But, I am not a Republican.
posted by Belle O'Cosity at 8:11 PM on November 20, 2019 [5 favorites]


Lev Parnas Helped Rep. Devin Nunes’ Investigations (Daily Beast)
Lev Parnas, an indicted associate of Rudy Giuliani, helped arrange meetings and calls in Europe for Rep. Devin Nunes in 2018, Parnas’ lawyer Ed MacMahon told The Daily Beast. Nunes aide Derek Harvey participated in the meetings, the lawyer said, which were arranged to help Nunes’ investigative work. MacMahon didn’t specify what those investigations entailed.

Nunes is the top Republican on the House committee handling the impeachment hearings—hearings where Parnas’s name has repeatedly come up.

Congressional records show Nunes traveled to Europe from Nov. 30 to Dec. 3, 2018. Three of his aides—Harvey, Scott Glabe, and George Pappas—traveled with him, per the records. U.S. government funds paid for the group’s four-day trip, which cost just over $63,000.

The travel came as Nunes, in his role on the House Intelligence Committee, was working to investigate the origins of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s probe into Russian election meddling.

Parnas’ assistance to Nunes’ team has not been previously reported. [...] When Nunes traveled to Europe in 2018, Giuliani—who is Trump’s personal attorney—was working to oust Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch from her post in Kyiv.
posted by katra at 8:14 PM on November 20, 2019 [27 favorites]


Here's a gif of Nunes' face after Sondland's testimony. Just in case anyone wants to watch it on repeat over a glass bottle of wine.
posted by adept256 at 9:42 PM on November 20, 2019 [14 favorites]


WATCH LIVE: The Trump Impeachment Hearings – Day 5 (PBS)
Fiona Hill, the former National Security Council senior director for Europe and Russia, and David Holmes, the political affairs counselor at the U.S. embassy in Kiev, Ukraine, will testify Thursday in the impeachment probe into President Donald Trump. The PBS NewsHour is hosting live coverage of the hearings beginning at 9 a.m. ET. [Watch live]
WATCH LIVE: Open Hearing with Dr. Fiona Hill and David Holmes (U.S. House Intelligence Committee)
On Thursday, November 21, 2019 at 9 AM EST, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence will hold an open hearing with Dr. Fiona Hill, Former Senior Director for Europe and Russia, National Security Council and Mr. David Holmes, Political Counselor, U.S Embassy – Kiev, Ukraine.
Watch LIVE On November 21 | 8am ET | C-SPAN3
Fiona Hill, a former National Security Council senior director for Europe and Russia, and David Holmes, counselor for political affairs at the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine testify at a House Intelligence Committee impeachment hearing.
posted by katra at 9:46 PM on November 20, 2019 [3 favorites]


Here's a gif of Nunes' face after Sondland's testimony. Just in case anyone wants to watch it on repeat over a glass bottle of wine

How do these guys all manage to look like crooks in a Disney movie?
posted by bardophile at 9:52 PM on November 20, 2019 [13 favorites]




I really enjoyed the article. And he is wearing a magnificent bow tie in that pic.
posted by Bella Donna at 12:00 AM on November 21, 2019 [1 favorite]


David Corn at Mother Jones has a useful and accurate summary of Sondland's testimony. It's also short enough for me to paraphrase in my own words when I need a rebuttal for various attempts by Trump fans to distort it or take bits out of context.
It’s not complicated: When Sondland and other US officials encouraged Trump to work with the new Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelensky, Trump expressed contempt for Ukrainians and said, “Talk to Rudy.” When they talked to Rudy Giuliani, the president’s lawyer, Giuliani told them that before the Ukrainians could get a much-desired phone call and sit-down with Trump, Kyiv had to announce the opening of political investigations that Trump wanted. And Sondland and his colleagues, trying to salvage the US-Ukraine relationship, then spent months working with the Ukrainians to try to make this deal happen.

“Was there a quid pro quo?” Sondland said. “As I testified previously, with regard to the requested White House call and White House meeting, the answer is yes.” Sondland went on to say that as the process continued, he came to conclude that the nearly $400 million in security assistance funds Trump was withholding from Ukraine was also part of this deal."
posted by OnceUponATime at 3:49 AM on November 21, 2019 [10 favorites]




I don't get it. Even if they cannot ( and that still remains to be determined) prove a clear quid pro quo just the very fact of the pres asking the pres of another country to look for dirt on the US pres's chief political rival should be an impeachable offense.
posted by mareli at 4:49 AM on November 21, 2019 [8 favorites]


Should be, yes, but these goalposts are awfully portable.
posted by Faint of Butt at 4:54 AM on November 21, 2019 [11 favorites]


Fiona Hill opening statement. Spoiler alert: Russia responsible for 2016 election interference, and we're about to blow it again in 2020.
posted by mcstayinskool at 5:50 AM on November 21, 2019 [30 favorites]


mareli - many people don’t view as “dirt”. they believe that the democrats are the ones who did interfering in the election and that the government agencies are not to be trusted bc Obama Hilary something something.

they feel that Trump was asking for a legitimate investigation into something that they think Ukraine had something to do with and that it is correct to not provide defense money and weapons to a country which was trying to interfere in our government.

i know it’s crazy but this is Trump’s mirror.
posted by affectionateborg at 5:53 AM on November 21, 2019 [2 favorites]


I think it’s inaccurate to say that many people actually believe all of that. Ardent Trump supporters will adopt whatever talking points they are given because they understand it as the most likely way to keep their side in power, regardless of facts.
posted by C'est la D.C. at 6:02 AM on November 21, 2019 [20 favorites]


Session is in, opening statements beginning.
posted by SecretAgentSockpuppet at 6:07 AM on November 21, 2019


Trump on Twitter:
The Republican Party, and me, had a GREAT day yesterday with respect to the phony Impeachment Hoax, & yet, when I got home to the White House & checked out the news coverage on much of television, you would have no idea they were reporting on the same event. FAKE & CORRUPT NEWS!
The chair recognizes the gentleman from the state of delusion.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 6:13 AM on November 21, 2019 [32 favorites]


I don't get it. Even if they cannot ( and that still remains to be determined) prove a clear quid pro quo just the very fact of the pres asking the pres of another country to look for dirt on the US pres's chief political rival should be an impeachable offense.
posted by mareli at 7:49 AM on November 21 [2 favorites −] Favorite added! [!]


Should be, yes, but these goalposts are awfully portable.
posted by Faint of Butt at 7:54 AM on November 21 [+] [!]


The media has indeed done its usual terrible job of making clear that the quid pro quo is an impeachable offense in addition to, not instead of, Trump soliciting foreign interference in a US election again.

I wonder, though, if the fact that Trump's White House releasing, in response to the whistleblower complaint, the call summary that made it absolutely clear that Trump did in fact demand Zelensky investigate the Bidens meant that the media felt, with the fact established beyond dispute, there's no longer any news value in mentioning it, because no one does (or can) deny that it happened. They can always get their lazy he-said-she-said talking points from Republicans saying there was "no quid pro quo" or "they don't see anything impeachable" in Trump's behavior. (The media also fails to point out that the latter defense is a concession that Trump did it.)

That's still no excuse for the media, as usual, forgetting basic facts and so failing to establish that the quid pro quo question is just a part of a pattern of corruption.

And I wonder that now that the quid pro quo is also established beyond reasonable debate, if the media will forget about it in favor of whatever covering whatever codswallop the Republicans cook up to defend the indefensible.

Speaking of patterns of corruption, by the way, who in the media is wondering aloud what other impeachable offenses Trump has committed? They're treating Ukraine as a one-off, and that prospect is highly unlikely to say the least.

As far as the "don't see anything impeachable" defense, the follow up question should always be "so you'd condone the same conduct by a Democratic president?" Republicans wouldn't feel bound to their answer, of course, but it'd be nice to get them on the record.
posted by Gelatin at 6:17 AM on November 21, 2019 [12 favorites]


As far as the "don't see anything impeachable" defense, the follow up question should always be "so you'd condone the same conduct by a Democratic president?" Republicans wouldn't feel bound to their answer, of course, but it'd be nice to get them on the record.

They've already squared that circle: "Obama told Putin he'd have more freedom to maneuver after the election. That's obviously inviting interference quid pro quo benghazi whistleblower."
posted by Etrigan at 6:30 AM on November 21, 2019


Last week, John Dean did a very interesting interview on WNYC's On The Media (segment audio, episode page with transcript), applying lessons from Watergate to todays impeachment. It includes clips from other interviews, including a CNN interview from last week:
"What struck me today in listening to these two witnesses [Kent & Taylor] is they already have more than they had against Richard Nixon to impeach him."
posted by ZeusHumms at 6:38 AM on November 21, 2019 [13 favorites]






Good, he just mentioned meeting with Putin. Trump has a crush on Putin and doesn't want to offend him by giving meetings to P's enemy, or arms with which Ukrainians can defend themselves against Putie.
posted by mareli at 6:51 AM on November 21, 2019


Fiona Hill to testify in impeachment inquiry about a ‘fictional narrative’ on Ukrainian interference (WaPo)
Fiona Hill, the former White House adviser on Russia, is expected to open her testimony before the impeachment inquiry Thursday with withering criticism of Republican attempts to sow doubt that Russia interfered in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

“This is a fictional narrative that has been perpetrated and propagated by the Russian security services,” Hill says in her opening statement, a copy of which was obtained by The Washington Post. The statement amounts to a rebuke of President Trump; Rep. Devin Nunes (Calif.), the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee; and others who have advanced claims that it was Ukraine — and not Russia — that waged information warfare against the United States in 2016.

“Some of you on this committee appear to believe that Russia and its security services did not conduct a campaign against our country,” she said.

Hill’s prepared testimony sets the stage for an extraordinary development in the impeachment hearings, with Trump’s former top adviser on Russia essentially telling the public under oath that his refusal to accept the reality of Moscow’s intervention in 2016 is wrong. “The unfortunate truth is that Russia was the foreign power that systematically attacked our democratic institutions,” Hill says. “It is beyond dispute.” [...]

“I refuse to be part of an effort to legitimize an alternate narrative that the Ukrainian government is a U.S. adversary, and that Ukraine — not Russia — attacked us in 2016,” she says. She describes the United States as “being torn apart. Truth is questioned. Our highly professional and expert career Foreign Service is being undermined.” At the same time, she said, “Russia’s security services and their proxies have geared up to repeat their interference in the 2016 election. We are running out of time to stop them.”
posted by katra at 6:51 AM on November 21, 2019 [47 favorites]


Guardian: Holmes: military aid withheld by Trump to express dissatisfaction or increase pressure
By August, Holmes says, “My clear impression was that the hold was intended by the president either as an expression of dissatisfaction...[that Ukrainians had not announced investigations] or as an attempt to increase the pressure on them to do so.”

Holmes then describes how embassy staff watched as Zelenskiy prepared to go on CNN in September to announce the investigations. They thought it was going to happen, Holmes said.
Guardian: Holmes 'deeply disappointed' by Trump-Zelenskiy call
Holmes says “contrary to standard procedure” he got no readout of the 25 July Trump-Zelenskiy call.

When he read the call summary in September, Holmes says, “I was deeply disappointed to see that the president raised none” of the policy priorities “and instead raised the Biden-Burisma investigation and referred to the theory about Crowdstrike.”
posted by katra at 7:10 AM on November 21, 2019 [7 favorites]


A perfect juxtaposition

Gordon Sondland sitting at a table in the U.S. House chamber before his testimony, smiling, juxtaposed with the image of the young brown-haired girl in front of a house fire
posted by jocelmeow at 7:14 AM on November 21, 2019 [8 favorites]


Amelia Thomson-DeVeaux 9:57 AM
(538 impeachment live blog)
Some interesting context around the overheard call: Holmes mentioned that he was excluded from the meeting between Yermak and Sondland, after having been asked to join as the note-taker. He joined Sondland for lunch, saying that Sondland could brief him on the meeting. Instead, at the lunch, Sondland ordered a bottle of wine (of course!) and talked about marketing strategies for his hotel.
One trusts that the wine did not have a Trump label on it.
posted by ZeusHumms at 7:16 AM on November 21, 2019 [3 favorites]




"Republicans, you are dealing with human scum who have taken Due Process and all of the Republican Party’s rights away from us during the most unfair hearings in American History....."

The President of the United States, everyone.
posted by rp at 7:30 AM on November 21, 2019 [22 favorites]


Guardian: Schiff points out that Holmes said Ukrainians still “believed they had to” make a public statement even after the hold on aid was lifted.
“Whether the hold continued or not, the Ukrainians understood that that’s something the president wanted,” Holmes says.

The same pressures on Ukraine persist today, Holmes says. “This doesn’t end with the lifting of the security assistance hold.”
posted by katra at 7:35 AM on November 21, 2019 [8 favorites]


"Republicans, you are dealing with human scum who have taken Due Process and all of the Republican Party’s rights away from us during the most unfair hearings in American History....."

Where Nunes' 45-minute Rush Limbaugh impersonations fit into this denial of Republican rights, who can say.
posted by Gelatin at 7:37 AM on November 21, 2019 [3 favorites]


Guardian: Hill warns against giving Russians 'fodder' for 2020 tampering
[Schiff] asks Hill why Russians are pushing the Ukraine election tampering story.

Hill replies: "The Russian interest frankly is to de-legitimatize our entire presidency... The goal of the Russians was to put whoever became president... under a cloud.

This is exactly what the Russian government was hoping for... they have everybody questioning the legitimacy of a presidential candidate... they would pit one side against the other."
posted by katra at 7:39 AM on November 21, 2019 [15 favorites]


Demanding public hearings has worked out really well for the Republicans, hasn't it.
posted by grouse at 7:45 AM on November 21, 2019 [15 favorites]


Never have I been watching a person making a call, which was not on speakerphone, and been able to hear or understand a conversation

2013 rebutting anecdote (blog selflink):
Anyway, right at the climax of the play, a party in the front row who had already obliviously been the object of several of her audience-mates' efforts to correct her apparent proclivity to engage in the occasional side conversation with her companion... took her cell phone out of her purse, saw that she had missed a call, told her companion of the missed call, called and signed into her voicemail service (succeeding on the second try), accessed and then listened to the message, the LCD bathing the rows behind her in bright blue light, each key press sounding a tone, and the little ear speaker turned way up, like a little-old-hard-of-hearing-lady's ought to be (not the speakerphone function: a loud earpiece), and amplified by her own ear so that it was also clearly audible to many among those illuminated people behind her (some of whom mistook the sound for her actually having a telephone conversation) all the while.
posted by 20 year lurk at 7:45 AM on November 21, 2019 [4 favorites]


The same pressures on Ukraine persist today, Holmes says. “This doesn’t end with the lifting of the security assistance hold.”

Yes! When everyone was roasting Trump's weird notepad poem I think it was largely missed that "Tell Zellinsky to do the right thing" meant "I still want him to announce a Biden investigation."
posted by theodolite at 7:45 AM on November 21, 2019 [25 favorites]


Guardian: Hill: 'very clear' that White House meeting predicated on investigations
Hill says she found the summary of the 25 July call “surprising.” In her deposition she said she was saddened by the call. It did not advance the US policy project.

Hill notes she left the White House before the call, but “In the months leading up” to it, “it became very clear the White House meeting itself was being predicated on other issues, namely investigations and the questions about the election interference in 2016.”
Emphasis in the original.

Guardian: Goldman reads from the 25 July call summary, quoting Trump about Crowdstrike.
Is this the conspiracy theory you’re talking about, Goldman asks Hill?

“Yes.”

Does that mean Trump ignored senior officials who told him that Crowdstrike was a conspiracy theory and listened to Giuliani instead?, Goldman asks Hill. “That appears to be the case, yes,” she says.
posted by katra at 7:48 AM on November 21, 2019 [13 favorites]


"Tell Zellinsky to do the right thing"

This is a quote from Sondland, paraphrasing Trump and Giuliani. Trump was explicitly denying that there was a quid pro quo at the time, while still saying he needed Zelensky to do this "right thing" to get that White House meeting. Trump is trying to claim that Sondland exonerated him, by describing his demands in this way.
posted by OnceUponATime at 7:54 AM on November 21, 2019 [3 favorites]


It was good to see Ms. Hill sticking with precise recollections and clarifying on assumptions. She is a good witness. Interested to see if she will spar with the GOP.
posted by mike_honcho at 8:08 AM on November 21, 2019 [2 favorites]


Dr. Hill.
posted by katra at 8:09 AM on November 21, 2019 [33 favorites]


Hill destroying with firsthand witness that Bolton seemed to realize this was all going to go bad (extortion of Ukraine), and started saving his own ass way early.
posted by Harry Caul at 8:10 AM on November 21, 2019 [3 favorites]


It’s implied in her opening statement but I’m really, really hoping for a “At long last, have you no shame, sir?” moment between Dr. Hill and pulsating maggotRep. Nunes.
posted by Big Al 8000 at 8:12 AM on November 21, 2019 [8 favorites]


In case you missed jocelmeow's comment from just over an hour ago, seriously open the link to Emo Trump recites poem on White House lawn. Not because it's funny (it is) but because it's beautiful. If, like me, you apparently never got over late 90s-early 00s angsty punk-pop, you will be really glad that this short version of Trump's sharpie notes is set on a loop.

If you get a longer break from streaming the hearings, check out the singer's Emo Trump vol 1-5. They were all funny and pretty, but vol. 3 ("unplugged") also made me feel like I finally know what Trump voters hear when he talks. It also will make you listen to Blink 182/Angels and Airwaves for the rest of the day, so be warned.

The guy who did it, Nick Lutsko, also does non-satire music (when I heard this and realized that his "emo" stuff was just more seemingly effortless satire, it made me sad--in other words, primed for more emo).
posted by mabelstreet at 8:13 AM on November 21, 2019 [12 favorites]


Guardian: Some reactions and analysis to this morning’s action in the impeachment hearing room:
Julian Borger (@julianborger) Fiona Hill is emerging as a powerful witness - forensic and measured. She is describing Bolton's reaction to Sondland's attempt to make a White House meeting for the Ukraine president conditional on the requested investigations. Says Bolton stiffened, sat back and ended meeting. November 21, 2019

Midwin Charles (@MidwinCharles) Fiona Hill is also here to tell you that the right wing/Republican bubble of conspiracy theories is not real life and in fact, endanger us all. November 21, 2019 [...]

Greg Miller (@gregpmiller) Holmes basically says that it was clear to any sentient human that Burisma=Biden. https://t.co/pw3H6GK2w6 November 21, 2019

Marshall Cohen (@MarshallCohen) Did you make the Biden-Burisma connection?

Hill: "it was very apparent."

Holmes: "Yes."

Morrison: Not right away, then "I googled it."

Sondland: I kinda figured it out by July-August, but didn't see GIuliani's TV hits or tweets.

Volker: No, never until the scandal broke.

November 21, 2019
posted by katra at 8:26 AM on November 21, 2019 [7 favorites]


if anyone noticed the apparent time traveler in the smirking Sondland photo from yesterday, the CBC interviewed him last week. he has been present for all three impeachment inquiries in his lifetime.

he does also carry a digital camera with him, "like, in case news actually breaks out."
posted by One Thousand and One at 8:31 AM on November 21, 2019 [17 favorites]


Man, if you watch any single minute of Dr. Hill's testimony and don't come away thinking that immigration is good, public education is good, the bureaucracy is full of good and smart people, and partisanship is bullshit... well, I don't think you're reachable.
posted by Etrigan at 8:34 AM on November 21, 2019 [43 favorites]


Videos of key moments, via the Guardian:
Amee Vanderpool (@girlsreallyrule) Hill: "In the course of this investigation, I would ask that you please not promote politically driven falsehoods that so clearly advance the Russian interests...These fictions are harmful even if they're deployed for purely domestic political purposes." pic.twitter.com/09nEoi4rUM November 21, 2019

NBC News (@NBCNews) WATCH: Holmes explains that the new Ukrainian president saw a White House meeting with President Trump as critical in order to send a message of US support to Russian President Putin. pic.twitter.com/aPKypdJorZ November 21, 2019
posted by katra at 8:35 AM on November 21, 2019 [14 favorites]


WaPo: Pelosi declines to address impeachment timeline
Pelosi said it’s up to the House committees leading the inquiry to decide on a timeline and on whether testimony from any additional witnesses is needed.

“When we see a violation of the Constitution, we have no choice but to act,” Pelosi told reporters at the Capitol. “And the evidence is clear that the president, the president, has used his office for his own personal gain – and in doing so, undermined the national security of the United States by withholding military assistance to Ukraine, to the benefit of the Russians.”

Pelosi also mentioned a conversation with Trump in which the president told her his call with Zelensky was “perfect.”

“I said to him, ‘The call was perfectly wrong,’” Pelosi said.
posted by katra at 8:40 AM on November 21, 2019 [8 favorites]


Never have I been watching a person making a call, which was not on speakerphone, and been able to hear or understand a conversation

I too have noticed recently people I knew for years start to speak in hushed toned around me, and some mumble incomprehensibly. What do you know, turns out I'm going deaf.
posted by hat_eater at 8:44 AM on November 21, 2019 [11 favorites]


impeachment timeline

So the Don McGahn case is pending, and if Democrats win that (the Judge says she will rule by Nov. 25th) and the Supreme Court declines to hear an appeal, that could mean that not only McGahn but several other witnesses (like John Bolton!) who have been ordered not to testify by the White House would be ordered by a court to comply with Congressional subpoenas. (It's two branches of government against one!) I would think Pelosi wants to keep her options open long enough to get that testimony before an impeachment vote, if possible.

Likewise there is the possibility that they could get to see Trump's tax returns soon, if the Supreme Court declines to hear an appeal in that case. The Supreme Court has stayed the release of the tax returns for ten days (three days ago) to give House lawyers and Trump's lawyers time to file paperwork. I am not sure, but I think that means that possibly they could decide not to hear the case as soon as next week? If they decide to hear it, of course, it will take longer. (When people tell you to vote for the Democrat because of the Supreme Court, this kind of situation is the reason why.)

And there are a couple of other witnesses that the House might still want to call. Like yesterday, Laura Cooper said someone on her staff talked to Ukrainian officials about the delay on the aid on the same day that Trump talked to Zelensky, indicating that the Ukrainians DID know the aid was delayed at the time of the call. I imagine Congress will want to hear from that staffer under oath, just like they subpoenaed Holmes after Taylor mentioned what Holmes had told him.

I don't expect we will know the timeline for a vote until we get some news on those two court cases and some testimony from that staffer.
posted by OnceUponATime at 9:01 AM on November 21, 2019 [9 favorites]


Keep in mind the timing of Trump's call to Sondland saying "I want nothing."

Through July and most of August Trump had been pushing Sondland hard on the quid pro quo. Then on August 12 the whistleblower filed his report. The report was covered up for weeks by Bill Barr at the Department of Justice. But the White House lawyers had been informed of the whistleblower report and knew its content.

On September 9, the Inspector General became impatient with the DOJ stonewalling and as required by law informed Schiff of the existence of the whistleblower report.

That same day September 9 was when Trump told Sondland "I want nothing." Trump knew the jig was up. He knew the report was going to congress. Trump only said "I want nothing" after he was caught.
posted by JackFlash at 9:05 AM on November 21, 2019 [40 favorites]


Gordon Sondland provides historic testimony, but will it pierce GOP's alternative universe?
...probably not

The headline on Max Boot's latest column for WaPo explains why: "Sondland was devastating. But Republicans don't care about the facts." Boot chronicled how Sondland's testimony dismantled the Republican narrative, piece by piece.

"In a sane world, Sondland's testimony would have ended the Trump presidency," Boot wrote. "But Republicans have made clear that their devotion to Trump is irrational and, like other religious faiths, not subject to rational refutation. Without an actual tape of Trump ordering a shakedown of Ukraine -- and maybe even with one -- Republicans will not be shaken in their cultlike devotion to the president."

In fact, Republicans are "winning' in the alternative universe they have constructed

Over at BuzzFeed, Ryan Broderick hit the nail on the head with this piece: "There Are Two Separate Impeachment Hearings Happening Right Now — And Republicans Are Winning Theirs." Broderick explained, "Nothing Republican Rep. Devin Nunes does during the hearings makes sense if you watch it in the moment. When it's posted on Facebook later, though, it works perfectly."

"Each round of GOP questioning is not meant to interrogate the witnesses, which today included Sondland, but instead to create moments that can be flipped into Fox News segments, shared as bite-size Facebook posts, or dropped into 4chan threads," Broderick wrote. He added, "These exchanges may seem irrelevant, but they create content for the pro-Trump information machine, which is running parallel to the hearings."
Zuckerberg had an undisclosed dinner with Trump in October.

I genuinely don’t know what you do about this.
posted by schadenfrau at 9:14 AM on November 21, 2019 [36 favorites]


By the way, under hearsay rules that Republicans are so fond of citing, exculpatory statements by the accused are generally prohibited as evidence in a trial because they are obviously self-serving and easily fabricated. Trumps statement of "I want nothing" would be challenged and likely be prohibited in a trial under hearsay.
posted by JackFlash at 9:15 AM on November 21, 2019 [6 favorites]


Trump hosted Mark Zuckerberg for private White House dinner (Adam Gabbatt, Guardian)
Meeting took place as Facebook chief was being grilled by the House, NBC News reports, with Peter Thiel also in attendance.
posted by ZeusHumms at 9:16 AM on November 21, 2019 [17 favorites]


Hahaha I really have to stop asking myself how it can possibly get worse
posted by schadenfrau at 9:18 AM on November 21, 2019 [32 favorites]


Zuckerberg had an undisclosed dinner with Trump in October.

I genuinely don’t know what you do about this.


Proletarian revolution, or enough of a threat of one to get us reform sufficient to save our lives.
posted by Rust Moranis at 9:19 AM on November 21, 2019 [8 favorites]


I genuinely don’t know what you do about this.

Long term I don't know either. But short term I wish everyone would just post the links from this thread on their Facebook accounts, and go into the comments section of posts from news organizations and refute the false talking points Republicans are sharing, and argue politely with your relatives at Thanksgiving.

It's painful and thankless and no one will change their mind during these conversations. And it's really hard to keep your cool. But if you can keep calm and just keep repeating the facts, I think that has an effect. The truth is a slow-acting medicine but it has staying power. If propaganda can have the effect it has had via social media etc, imagine the effect the truth can have via those same channels. Trump told Sondland to talk to Giuliani. Giuliani told Sondland there would be no White House meeting for Zelensky until he announced investigations. Just repeat those two sentences at every opportunity. That's our best shot.
posted by OnceUponATime at 9:20 AM on November 21, 2019 [16 favorites]


hate the bowdlerized quotations. say what those crude fucks said.
posted by 20 year lurk at 9:23 AM on November 21, 2019 [3 favorites]


I am more wondering why Congress isn’t investigating Facebook. Or New York and California. Or any sufficient collection of blue state AGs. IANAL, but I have to imagine states have ways of making it difficult for Facebook to advertise in their state, and blue states have a looooot of the people.

We’re all in bubbles. I‘m not even on Facebook anymore. This is a structural problem that needs to be solved at the regulatory level, and I feel like I’m taking crazy pills because no one is doing that.
posted by schadenfrau at 9:29 AM on November 21, 2019 [15 favorites]


I genuinely don’t know what you do about this.

There are two simple things. First is remove the exclusionary rule that exempts Facebook from being sued for libel. Make them subject to the same rules as the New York Times or the Washington Post or a bedroom blogger if they publish libelous information. Too hard you say? Facebook has billions of dollars in profits. They could figure it out given a proper incentive of thousands of lawsuits for many millions of dollars.

Second thing is give users legal control of their own data. Data is obviously of great value to Facebook. Make Facebook get permission and pay users for their data. And require them to delete it if requested.
posted by JackFlash at 9:31 AM on November 21, 2019 [21 favorites]


I mean, Trump has a veto pen and the filibuster on his side, so there's no chance any regulatory bill with teeth becoming law, or any executive agency doing anything within their existing remit to stop him from using social media to push his propaganda and enhance his power. Anyone trying to do so would be punished swiftly and severely, as we've seen in the form of career civil servants who were trying to do the right thing but were ultimately forced out.

Which means that Trump must be removed from office first. Then the new President has to piece together the broken shards of government by installing competent leaders and pushing out Trumpist hacks. Then, and only then, could we pursue a U.S. v. Microsoft style anti-trust investigation into Facebook (among others). We're way past the point where market forces and better functionality could stop Facebook. Google tried, and as much as we laugh at Google Plus, it was a credible effort that just couldn't get past the strong network effects and Facebook's anti-competitive behavior.

You can't stop Facebook without stopping Trump.
posted by tonycpsu at 9:36 AM on November 21, 2019 [9 favorites]


How the Photographer Got That Iconic Shot of Trump's Notes
The notes say so much, less about what Trump said or Sondland testified—the ambassador stated explicitly before Congress that Ukraine had been subject to a quid pro quo—than how he views himself in this moment. “THE FINAL WORD FROM THE PRES OF THE U.S.” sounds more like a dictum from the great and powerful Oz than from a democratically elected leader. The misspelling of Ukraine president Volodymyr Zelensky's name betrays a casual disregard for even the most basic facts of the matter. And the giant lettering supports the operating theory that Trump refuses to wear glasses that he sorely needs.
posted by kirkaracha at 9:41 AM on November 21, 2019 [9 favorites]


Proletarian revolution, or enough of a threat of one to get us reform sufficient to save our lives.
Historian Walter Scheidel in The Great Leveler has noted how only mass violence and catastrophes have consistently reduced inequality throughout world history.

'Ever since humans began to farm, herd livestock, and pass on their assets to future generations, economic inequality has been a defining feature of civilization. Over thousands of years, only violent events have significantly lessened inequality. The “Four Horsemen” of leveling—mass-mobilization warfare, transformative revolutions, state collapse, and catastrophic plagues—have repeatedly destroyed the fortunes of the rich. Scheidel identifies and examines these processes, from the crises of the earliest civilizations to the cataclysmic world wars and communist revolutions of the twentieth century. Today, the violence that reduced inequality in the past seems to have diminished, and that is a good thing. But it casts serious doubt on the prospects for a more equal future.'
posted by Harry Caul at 9:44 AM on November 21, 2019 [10 favorites]


WaPo: Pelosi says Democrats aren’t waiting for courts to compel Mulvaney, others to testify
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Thursday ruled out waiting for the courts to compel acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, former national security adviser John Bolton, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and others to testify in the impeachment hearings.

“Absolutely not,” Pelosi said when asked whether she was suggesting a slower timeline. “We cannot be at the mercy of the courts. Courts are very important in all this. These cases will continue, but I never said we cannot proceed without the courts, because that’s a technique on the part of the administration -- just keep, just keep ratcheting up to a higher court.”
posted by katra at 10:06 AM on November 21, 2019 [4 favorites]


Castor needs to wipe that perpetual sneer off his face!
posted by mareli at 10:07 AM on November 21, 2019 [1 favorite]


Castor seems overwhelmed by Hill out of the gate.
posted by Harry Caul at 10:10 AM on November 21, 2019 [1 favorite]


Castor is still innocently perplexed as to why I'm not willing to buy this used car from him just because it's burning and he can't see what's the big deal.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 10:14 AM on November 21, 2019 [7 favorites]


Pelosi says Democrats aren’t waiting for courts to compel Mulvaney, others to testify

Given how many conservative Trump-friendly judges have been seated, that seems like a wise precaution.
posted by ZeusHumms at 10:15 AM on November 21, 2019 [2 favorites]


Castor always gave me the impression of the frat bro that failed upwards and made his way on bravado and some natural talent that was never developed and is found wanting in the toughest of situations.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 10:15 AM on November 21, 2019 [4 favorites]


Like the evil rich kid antagonist from an '80s ski movie where the dad is a rich real estate developer who's going to turn the middle class ski lodge into a hyperluxury exclusive ski resort.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 10:16 AM on November 21, 2019 [9 favorites]


Castor doesn't seem to have a cohesive strategy in his questioning of witnesses.
posted by all about eevee at 10:17 AM on November 21, 2019 [2 favorites]


Castor doesn't seem to have a cohesive strategy in his questioning of witnesses.

He knows that he doesn't need one. He's just poking at the talking points he's been handed so Fox will get some sound bites ("TRUMP SENT MISSILES; OBAMA SENT BLANKETS").
posted by Etrigan at 10:18 AM on November 21, 2019 [7 favorites]


I also think there's no way Castor was their first choice, but rather the first lawyer that agreed to do it. I imagine there was a fair number of NOPE answers before him.
posted by mcstayinskool at 10:20 AM on November 21, 2019 [4 favorites]


>Man, if you watch any single minute of Dr. Hill's testimony and don't come away thinking that immigration is good.
>If only the Trumpists would let more immigrants in to get the job done.


Three immigrants have been among the most important witnesses in the impeachment -- Marie Yovanovich, Alexander Vindman and Fiona Hill.

It seems that immigrants care more about democracy and rule of law than nativist Republicans.
posted by JackFlash at 10:21 AM on November 21, 2019 [45 favorites]


Wow As bad as Castor is, Nunes is simply HORRIBLE at examination as a lawyer. Whoa.
posted by Harry Caul at 10:23 AM on November 21, 2019 [4 favorites]


That same day September 9 was when Trump told Sondland "I want nothing." Trump knew the jig was up. He knew the report was going to congress. Trump only said "I want nothing" after he was caught.

And that conversation September 9 happened sometime during the four-plus hour gap in texts between Bill Taylor and Gordon Sondland.

Taylor, 12:47 a.m.: "As I said on the phone, I think it's crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign."

Trump to Sondland, sometime in between: "I WANT NOTHING! I WANT NOTHING! I WANT NO QUID PRO QUO! TELL PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TO DO THE RIGHT THING!"

Sondland, 5:19 a.m.: "Bill, I believe you are incorrect about President Trump's intentions. The president has been clear no quid pro quos of any kind."
posted by kirkaracha at 10:24 AM on November 21, 2019 [16 favorites]


Guardian: Nunes digs in on Ukraine election tampering conspiracy theory
Nunes: “do you know Sergey Lutschenko?” the journalist and former parliamentarian.

Holmes does.

Nunes goes off on the Lutschenko- Nellie Ohr- Fusion GPS conspiracy theory. “He was in the parliament at the time... he provided the black ledger... is that seen as credible information?”

“Yes.”

Nunes: “The black ledger is credible?”

“Yes.”

Nunes: but wait, Mueller did not! find it credible.

Holmes: “I’m not aware that Bob Mueller did not find it credible,” but it was used as evidence in other criminal proceedings.

Nunes: Didn’t Lutschenko want to hurt Trump?

Holmes said Lutschenko was motivated by his usual motivation: “To expose corruption in Ukraine.”
posted by katra at 10:31 AM on November 21, 2019 [12 favorites]


Three immigrants have been among the most important witnesses in the impeachment -- Marie Yovanovich, Alexander Vindman and Fiona Hill.

It seems that immigrants care more about democracy and rule of law than nativist Republicans.


"There were hundreds of fantastically important success stories in the US government. They just never got told. Stier knew an astonishing number of them. He had detected a pattern: a surprising number of the people responsible for them were first-generation Americans who had come from places without well-functioning governments. People who had lived without government were more likely to find meaning in it. On the other hand, people who had never experienced a collapsed state were slow to appreciate a state that had not yet collapsed."
posted by wildblueyonder at 10:39 AM on November 21, 2019 [45 favorites]


Never have I been watching a person making a call, which was not on speakerphone, and been able to hear or understand a conversation!

When's the last time Trump was in a public library?
posted by Gray Duck at 10:43 AM on November 21, 2019 [5 favorites]


Hill explains plainly that the actual Trump/Giuliani foreign policy re:Ukraine was apparently being withheld from all the actors that normally would be enacting that policy. I'm guessing Bolton was on the Venn diagram overlap, and bailed.
posted by Harry Caul at 10:43 AM on November 21, 2019 [3 favorites]


Republicans: 0 Days Since Adam Schiff Followed House Rules

They really don't get how this logic stuff works, do they?
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 10:49 AM on November 21, 2019 [23 favorites]


They have never worked at a place with a safety sign.
posted by Horkus at 10:55 AM on November 21, 2019 [13 favorites]


When's the last time Trump was in a public library?

2005, fundraiser for Florence-Lauderdale in Muscle Shoals, AL?
posted by box at 10:57 AM on November 21, 2019


Watching Fiona Hill testify is like watching a master of their craft. Absolutely exquisite.
Simple, detailed factual testimony doesn't go over well in some committee hearings, LOL.
posted by Harry Caul at 11:04 AM on November 21, 2019 [7 favorites]


Guardian: "Under questioning from Democrat Jim Himes, Hill is explaining why the points of “evidence” brandished by Nunes that Ukraine was tampering in the 2016 campaign against Trump are .. not evidence of that. Hill said a lot of foreign leaders talked trash about Trump before the election, but that did not make Trump turn against those countries the way he reportedly loathes and resents Ukraine, she says. So why did he turn so decisively against Ukraine?"
posted by katra at 11:35 AM on November 21, 2019 [4 favorites]


NYT: Hill: Ukraine pressure campaign was a ‘domestic political errand.’
Her testimony during Thursday’s impeachment hearing made it clear that Dr. Hill, a longtime Russia expert, saw the pressure campaign on Ukraine as a purely political effort that had nothing to do with the longstanding United States goal of confronting corruption in Ukraine, the explanation that Mr. Trump and Republicans have frequently given for his actions.

Under questioning from the top Republican counsel on the House Intelligence Committee, Ms. Hill said she confronted Gordon D. Sondland, the ambassador to the European Union, days before she left the White House on July 19 about his failure to coordinate with other members of the administration.

She said she later realized that Mr. Sondland was “being involved in a domestic political errand, and we were being involved in national security, foreign policy — and those two things had just diverged.”

Dr. Hill said she had told Mr. Sondland at the time that, “this is all going to blow up. And here we are.”
posted by katra at 11:40 AM on November 21, 2019 [15 favorites]


She said she later realized that Mr. Sondland was “being involved in a domestic political errand, and we were being involved in national security, foreign policy — and those two things had just diverged.”

Dr. Hill said she had told Mr. Sondland at the time that, “this is all going to blow up. And here we are.”


Sounds like another big win for Trump and the GOP!
posted by thelonius at 11:42 AM on November 21, 2019 [9 favorites]


Guardian: "A third consecutive Republican, Chris Stewart, makes a speech without asking a question. They’ve seemingly decided that the best strategy from here is to minimize the witnesses’ speaking time."
posted by katra at 11:53 AM on November 21, 2019 [24 favorites]


Guardian: White House wants a Senate trial in case of impeachment – report
The White House and Senate Republicans have met and agreed that a trial in the Senate would be better than an abrupt dismissal in case of impeachment, Politico scoops: [...] "Two attendees said that the White House wants the Senate to hold a trial of some length and not immediately dismiss any articles of impeachment with the GOP’s majority, as some Republicans have suggested. The White House and Trump’s GOP allies decided instead “they want some kind of factual affirmative defense on the merits,” said one attendee."

A “factual affirmative defense on the merits” – what would that look like? The Republicans have so far failed to summon any such thing
posted by katra at 12:22 PM on November 21, 2019 [11 favorites]


"The White House and Trump’s GOP allies decided instead “they want some kind of factual affirmative defense on the merits,” said one attendee."

Maybe their hope is dragging out the threat of Senate impeachment is a net boon to Trump and keeps his base fired up.
posted by mike_honcho at 12:28 PM on November 21, 2019


Josh Marshall: "I must say I have grave concerns about ending this inquiry without testimony from Giuliani, Mulvaney, Bolton, Parnas to name just the most obvious."
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 12:28 PM on November 21, 2019 [24 favorites]


The Senate is Republican controlled and they want their turn to push back against the Democratic House's public message. They're thinking in terms of equal and opposite lies, and they estimate that the truth will have no impact.
posted by Horkus at 12:33 PM on November 21, 2019 [8 favorites]


A “factual affirmative defense on the merits” – what would that look like? The Republicans have so far failed to summon any such thing

I've got a bad feeling we're hearing it now from Devin Nunes. An elaborate fictional narrative. The same one "perpetrated and propagated by the Russian security services,” as Hill put it.

Amplified by the US Senate majority.
posted by OnceUponATime at 12:34 PM on November 21, 2019 [19 favorites]


Guardian: White House wants a Senate trial in case of impeachment – report

The White House and Senate Republicans have met and agreed that a trial in the Senate would be better than an abrupt dismissal in case of impeachment, Politico scoops: [...] "Two attendees said that the White House wants the Senate to hold a trial of some length and not immediately dismiss any articles of impeachment with the GOP’s majority, as some Republicans have suggested. The White House and Trump’s GOP allies decided instead “they want some kind of factual affirmative defense on the merits,” said one attendee."

A “factual affirmative defense on the merits” – what would that look like? The Republicans have so far failed to summon any such thing


oh please oh please
posted by azpenguin at 12:35 PM on November 21, 2019 [2 favorites]


Castor doesn't seem to have a cohesive strategy in his questioning of witnesses.

Elie Mystal explains that When You Have A Dog Of A Client And Work For A Complicit Party, You End Up Sounding Like Steve Castor.
posted by a snickering nuthatch at 12:39 PM on November 21, 2019 [7 favorites]


A trial in the Senate has the potential to interfere with the campaign plans of Senators running for President. (And it might also interfere with Senate campaigns of existing incumbents.)
posted by ZeusHumms at 12:39 PM on November 21, 2019 [3 favorites]


They're thinking in terms of equal and opposite lies, and they estimate that the truth will have no impact.

And that a substantial portion of people will remember the last version of a story they heard rather than the correct one.
posted by Candleman at 12:39 PM on November 21, 2019 [7 favorites]


White House backs full Senate trial if House impeaches Trump (Marianne Levine, Burgess Everett, and Meridith McGraw; Politico)
A group of Republican senators met Thursday morning with White House counsel Pat Cipollone, counselor to the president Kellyanne Conway and Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner to discuss impeachment strategy.

Two attendees said that the White House wants the Senate to hold a trial of some length and not immediately dismiss any articles of impeachment with the GOP's majority, as some Republicans have suggested.

The White House and Trump's GOP allies decided instead “they want some kind of factual affirmative defense on the merits," said one attendee.

One attendee noted that the White House wants to show a commitment to due process, particularly since Republicans have criticized House Democrats for how they've conducted their impeachment proceedings.

Senators also informed the White House that there simply aren't the votes to approve a motion to dismiss the trial; it would take just three Republicans to block any impeachment vote on the Senate floor.
posted by ZeusHumms at 12:45 PM on November 21, 2019 [2 favorites]


A trial in the Senate has the potential to interfere with the campaign plans of Senators running for President. (And it might also interfere with Senate campaigns of existing incumbents.)

They did this in 2018 too, keeping the Senate in session for most of October in what was seen as a transparent bid by McConnell to limit vulnerable incumbents' campaign time.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 12:50 PM on November 21, 2019 [3 favorites]


“If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the law and the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell”

Carl Sandburg
posted by kirkaracha at 12:52 PM on November 21, 2019 [2 favorites]


FYI - Joni Ernst thinks impeachment is a winner for her re-election prospects.
posted by Big Al 8000 at 12:54 PM on November 21, 2019


If there were a trial in the senate, is there anything that would keep Mitch from dictating every aspect such that nothing that approximates a real trial occurs? E.g. just Fox News but in the senate chambers?
posted by avalonian at 12:55 PM on November 21, 2019 [4 favorites]


If the trial extends beyond the time of primaries for Senate seats, several Republicans might willing to vote for impeachment versus losing their Republican primary from the right, due to an impeachment vote beforehand, e.g. Susan Collins, Maine, March 3rd.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 12:55 PM on November 21, 2019 [1 favorite]


Yeah, he does not preside over it - the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court does.
posted by thelonius at 12:56 PM on November 21, 2019 [5 favorites]


Nope nope nope nope nope nope. Won't happen. People said the same thing about senators who were up in 2018, and it never materialized. They're not doing a month to month triangulation, they're just like this now.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 12:57 PM on November 21, 2019 [11 favorites]


A Senate trial keeps dem candidates in D.C. instead of campaigning.
posted by Mei's lost sandal at 1:04 PM on November 21, 2019 [1 favorite]


Ok that's not better.
posted by avalonian at 1:05 PM on November 21, 2019 [2 favorites]


FYI - Joni Ernst thinks impeachment is a winner for her re-election prospects.

That's not what the story says -- she's saying it would be damaging to Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren because they'd be at the trial and not campaigning for the Iowa caucuses. She doesn't bring up her own re-election, and statistics at the bottom of the article suggest it's not likely to help, as Trump's approval rating is underwater in Iowa.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 1:07 PM on November 21, 2019 [1 favorite]


White House backs full Senate trial if House impeaches Trump
And a thousand trial balloons bloom!
posted by Harry Caul at 1:07 PM on November 21, 2019 [1 favorite]


Yeah, he does not preside over it - the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court does.

Not in any binding way, he's just the MC. The Senate can overturn any decision he makes by simple majority.
posted by GCU Sweet and Full of Grace at 1:17 PM on November 21, 2019 [2 favorites]


Yeah, he does not preside over it - the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court does.

The Heritage Guide to The Constitution, Trial of Impeachment:
In the first presidential impeachment trial in 1868, Chief Justice Salmon Chase claimed the authority to decide certain procedural questions on his own, but the Senate challenged several of his rulings and overruled him at least twice. In President Clinton's impeachment trial in 1999, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist ruled on some procedural questions, but the Senate never challenged, much less overruled, any of these rulings.
...
Because the Constitution both provides the Senate with the "sole power to try impeachments" and empowers "Each House...to determine the Rules of its Proceedings," the Senate has formulated its own special impeachment trial procedures (first written down by Thomas Jefferson when he was Vice President). In President Johnson's impeachment trial, the Senate formulated an additional set of rules that have largely remained intact ever since and were followed by the Senate in President Clinton's impeachment trial.

In 1936, the Senate amended these rules to include Rule XI, which allows the appointment of a small number of Senators to operate as a trial committee to gather evidence and take testimony. The Senate has used trial committees on only three occasions in the 1980s to assist with fact-finding regarding impeachment articles approved by the House against three federal district judges.
See also: Rules of Procedure and Practice in the Senate When Sitting on Impeachment Trials

Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is impeachment. There are rules.
posted by kirkaracha at 1:19 PM on November 21, 2019 [4 favorites]


Can the Senate Decline to Try an Impeachment Case?, Lawfare, Bob Bauer, January 21, 2019:
Does the Senate have an obligation to conduct a trial of the president if the House impeaches him? With the increased prospects for an impeachment inquiry now that the Democrats have taken control of the House of Representatives, most discussions of impeachment have assumed that, should the House vote to impeachment, the Senate will then hold a trial. This is the logical construction of the Constitution’s provisions setting out the impeachment process: If the House impeaches, then it would follow that the Senate tries the case. This is what the Senate did on the two occasions, in the cases of Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton, that the House voted articles of impeachment.

The current Senate rules [PDF] would further support this view. They contemplate that when the House has voted an impeachment, the Senate will be notified, the House managers will present their case and trial proceedings, which the rules prescribe in some detail, will begin.

But it is also possible that, in this time of disregard and erosion of established institutional practices and norms, the current leadership of the Senate could choose to abrogate them once more. The same Mitch McConnell who blocked the Senate’s exercise of its authority to advise and consent to the Supreme Court nomination of Merrick Garland, could attempt to prevent the trial of a House impeachment of Donald Trump. And he would not have to look far to find the constitutional arguments and the flexibility to revise Senate rules and procedures to accomplish this purpose.

The Constitution does not by its express terms direct the Senate to try an impeachment. In fact, it confers on the Senate "the sole power to try,” which is a conferral of exclusive constitutional authority and not a procedural command. The Constitution couches the power to impeach in the same terms: it is the House’s “sole power.” The House may choose to impeach or not, and one can imagine an argument that the Senate is just as free, in the exercise of its own “sole power,” to decline to try any impeachment that the House elects to vote.
...
No, we don't want to, 'twouldn't be prudent, and you can't make us, so there.
posted by cenoxo at 2:04 PM on November 21, 2019 [3 favorites]


The White House and Trump's GOP allies decided instead “they want some kind of factual affirmative defense on the merits," said one attendee.

I see the strategic value in keeping people stuck in the Senate during campaign season, but in the end I think it's way simpler than that.

After all this testimony, Trump feels attacked and he wants people to defend him. He wants it to go longer and louder than these attacks. He wants Senate Republicans and whoever they decide to bring in to jump up and down defending his honor and his genius and his awesomeness.

This, like everything else, is a demand for a show from an audience of one.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 2:08 PM on November 21, 2019 [28 favorites]


Big Al 8000: "FYI - Joni Ernst thinks impeachment is a winner for her re-election prospects."

Galaxy Brain: Impeaching your own party's president to "own the libs"
posted by schmod at 2:12 PM on November 21, 2019 [6 favorites]


It's hard enough for me to imagine a more long and drawn out circus than a GOP-led Senate impeachment trial of a GOP president on an impeachment charge sent up by a Democratic House in an election year.

Then to see that the goal is to put on an aggressive reality TV style bullshit defense, I realize that 'circus' can't even capture the full breadth and especially not the true depth of what this could turn out to be.

In the absence of a genuine affirmative defense they don't have many options other than to go scorched earth on everything even remotely connected to this. Their defense strategy is inevitably going to be to just go ahead and destroy as much of what remains of civil political discourse as possible.

However, just to underscore the true insanity of the situation, this very same trial could also easily end up producing a scene that so humiliates the GOP that they're done for the cycle. I'm not making any predictions but I will tell you that I hate everything about this and most of the people involved at this point, and I am the type of person who thinks hate is generally a cop out.
posted by feloniousmonk at 2:19 PM on November 21, 2019 [13 favorites]


WaPo: White House and Republicans discuss limiting impeachment trial to two weeks
No final decisions were made on strategy for a trial that, if it happens, would come in January at the earliest. But one prominent scenario discussed, according to officials, was a trial that would last for roughly two weeks, which several Senate Republicans view as the ideal option because they believe it would be long enough to have credence without dragging on too long.

. . .

“I don’t want them to believe there’s an ability to dismiss the case before it’s heard,” Graham said Thursday following the meeting with Cipollone. “I think most everybody agreed, there’s not 51 votes to dismiss it before the managers get to call the case.”
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 2:21 PM on November 21, 2019 [2 favorites]


This will all end in a successful vote to impeach Hillary, mark my words.
posted by Eddie Mars at 2:24 PM on November 21, 2019 [29 favorites]


Pleading guilty would be one way to ensure a short trial.
posted by schmod at 2:26 PM on November 21, 2019 [4 favorites]


And if the mods will allow a photojournalistic sidebar, here's Why Photographer David Burnett [website, bio] Shot 4×5 Film at Impeachment Hearing (PDN Pulse), and a look at John Minnick's customized, new modern classic Aero Liberator cameras.

No school like the old school.
posted by cenoxo at 2:34 PM on November 21, 2019 [17 favorites]


I think what the House needs to do is craft articles of impeachment that compels the Senate to take action. Make explicit challenges to their authority that, if ignored, will have negative bounce-back effects.

In my mind, there should be 4 articles of impeachment:

1. Failing to faithfully uphold the laws as prescribed by Congress. This is where you point out that the aid to Ukraine was contingent upon certification by the administration and address how Trump’s supposed concerns about corruption were not brought up during that review.
2. Bribery. Show how Trump attempted to withhold the $400M in aid until Zelensky publicly announced an investigation into Burisma.
3. Obstruction - natch.
4. Use of Giuliani as a shadow official. This is probably the most novel charge, but it’s also the one most directly challenging to the Senate. Per Article 2, Section 2 of the constitution the president “ shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States”. So, anyone acting on his behalf must be known to and approved by the Senate. Trump essentially made Giuliani a shadow cabinet member, and even went so far as to give him power to dictate authority on Ukraine policy to the Three Amigos (who were all lawfully appointed under Article 2, Section 2). This directly challenges the Senate’s power and - I think - will make the GOP Senators most uncomfortable when they look in a mirror.
posted by Big Al 8000 at 2:38 PM on November 21, 2019 [13 favorites]


5. Emoluments (assuming the 10 instances of obstruction of justice noted in Meuller's report are in #3).
posted by kirkaracha at 3:08 PM on November 21, 2019 [12 favorites]


I'm not sure Giuliani was a shadow cabinet member. I have some misgivings about the appelation of "cabinet member," so I think "Presidential operative" is closer to the mark for me.

But it shouldn't matter, since I think Rudy should go to jail for quite a while, possibly the rest of his life, for acting against national interests. I would think some espionage and FARA should be in the mix as well. Aside from Rudy even accepting the gig(s), which should be dealt with under criminal law, there should be impeachment charges against others for hiring him, feeding him information, and basically communicating with him in any way. I don't want to get all justice-boner about it, but he did a bad thing, and he knew it all the way through.
posted by rhizome at 3:10 PM on November 21, 2019 [3 favorites]


So, for a moment of levity: "I Want Nothing", Trump's sharpie notes in Morrissey's voice.
posted by SecretAgentSockpuppet at 3:10 PM on November 21, 2019 [15 favorites]


would witness intimidation and disparagement of judges fall under the obstruction article?
posted by 20 year lurk at 3:13 PM on November 21, 2019 [1 favorite]


White House and Republicans discuss limiting impeachment trial to two weeks

The inquiry into Benghazi took ten investigations over two years, at a cost of more than 7 million dollars. Clinton was questioned by the House Select Committee on Benghazi for eleven hours.

Length of Congressional Investigations

Pearl Harbor: 9 months, 15 days
JFK Assassination: 9 months, 27 days
Watergate: 16 months, 21 days
Sept. 11: 19 months, 25 days

Republicans who held 33 hearings on Benghazi complain that Cohen’s testimony was a waste of time (ThinkProgress, Feb. 28, 2019)
posted by Iris Gambol at 3:29 PM on November 21, 2019 [27 favorites]


The Daily Beast story that Rep. Maloney mentioned near the end of the hearings:

Lev Parnas Helped Rep. Devin Nunes’ Investigations

Lev Parnas, an indicted associate of Rudy Giuliani, helped arrange meetings and calls in Europe for Rep. Devin Nunes in 2018, Parnas’ lawyer Ed MacMahon told The Daily Beast.

Nunes aide Derek Harvey participated in the meetings, the lawyer said, which were arranged to help Nunes’ investigative work. MacMahon didn’t specify what those investigations entailed.
...
Nunes has been at the center of the broader story about foreign influence in President Donald Trump’s Washington. When congressional investigators began probing Russian interference in the 2016 campaign, Nunes made a late-night visit to the White House and announced the next day he’d found evidence of egregious wrongdoing by Intelligence Community officials. The move appeared to be an effort to corroborate a presidential tweet claiming that Obama wiretapped Trump Tower. Nunes then stepped back from the committee’s work scrutinizing Russian efforts. Instead, he ran a parallel probe looking at the origins of Mueller’s Russia probe. The undertaking made him a hero to the president and Sean Hannity, and a bête noire of Democrats and Intelligence Community officials. That work was still underway when he traveled to Europe in 2018.

Last month, federal prosecutors in the Southern District of New York charged Parnas and Fruman with illegally moving money from foreign donors to American political campaigns. Both men maintain their innocence.
posted by biddeford at 3:42 PM on November 21, 2019 [4 favorites]


Or maybe Mitch splits the difference: lets the trial proceed, even allow a conviction of Trump. But then refrain from taking the next step, voting for removal. (Remember, removal of Trump is a separate vote.) The ultimate expression of "yeah, he did it, so what?"
posted by SPrintF at 3:43 PM on November 21, 2019 [2 favorites]


Mitch refusing to hold a vote for removal would not surprise me. He could use the same playbook as the Merrick Garland nomination. It's not up to the Senate to remove a president during an election year... let the voters decide if he should be removed.
posted by team lowkey at 3:58 PM on November 21, 2019 [3 favorites]


The optional thing is barring from future federal service. Conviction is removal.
posted by GCU Sweet and Full of Grace at 4:21 PM on November 21, 2019 [11 favorites]


I wonder if Republicans will eventually come down to “I would convict but there would be civil war if he were removed”.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 4:47 PM on November 21, 2019 [1 favorite]


Ooops! Thanks for the correction, GCU S&FoG. So maybe Trump gets removed and then runs for re-election. It could happen.
posted by SPrintF at 4:47 PM on November 21, 2019 [2 favorites]


Article I, Section 3:
Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States: but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law.
Regardless of how impeachment goes, Trump could be charged with whatever crimes he may have committed in office.

I guess the comma in "removal from office, and disqualification" is why the Senate does them separately. Those 18th century dudes and their fuckin' commas, man.
posted by kirkaracha at 4:48 PM on November 21, 2019 [3 favorites]


They’ve seemingly decided that the best strategy from here is to minimize the witnesses’ speaking time.

The speeches the Republicans have been making are wholly disconnected from the proceedings. They're made to be cut out and then shown on FOX News to present an alternate reality where there's no evidence of wrongdoing.
posted by xammerboy at 4:58 PM on November 21, 2019 [21 favorites]


I wonder if Republicans will eventually come down to “I would convict but there would be civil war if he were removed”.

This is a very nice country, it would be a shame if anything were to happen to it. And will no one rid us of our troublesome opposition?
posted by wildblueyonder at 4:59 PM on November 21, 2019 [3 favorites]


They're made to be cut out and then shown on FOX News to present an alternate reality where there's no evidence of wrongdoing.

Fox News and Facebook.
In fact we should probably get used to saying them together like that.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 5:32 PM on November 21, 2019 [37 favorites]


Fiona Hill to those who have refused to testify: “I believe that those who have information that the Congress deems relevant have a legal and moral obligation to provide it.”

Gee, I wonder if her former boss John Bolton is listening. Every witness so far has testified in defiance of orders from the White House, at great risk to themselves. Bolton still refuses.

Cowardice or avarice? Why not both.
posted by JackFlash at 5:35 PM on November 21, 2019 [9 favorites]


Bolton doesn't want to testify because he's a far-right wack job who hates Trump for not being a purist far-right wack job but knows his testimony will hurt the right wing overall.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 5:40 PM on November 21, 2019 [5 favorites]


The one aspect of the Republican screeds I found telling was their relentless focus on how long the proceedings are taking. Boy, they really don't want these hearings to go on, do they?
posted by xammerboy at 5:46 PM on November 21, 2019


If it’s a foregone conclusion that republicans won’t convict and will make an circus out of a trial, isn’t the smarter play to push the subpoenas for Bolton and Pompeo and Gulianni and the President to testify and get all the emails via subpoena and then just have the voters decide? I’m not sure why you wouldn’t tie this up in the courts and then start pouring money into sizzle reels with all the crazy shit Trump has said until November 2020.
posted by jasondigitized at 5:51 PM on November 21, 2019 [9 favorites]


Hillary Clinton did a bunch of sizzle reels of Trump saying crazy shit in 2016.
posted by kirkaracha at 7:01 PM on November 21, 2019 [6 favorites]


...isn’t the smarter play to push the subpoenas for Bolton and Pompeo and Gulianni and the President to testify and get all the emails via subpoena...

that's playing the odds. no telling what scotus will decide. a ruling against would set an incredible precedent - basically castrating Congress' subpoena power - no one would ever appear again.
posted by j_curiouser at 7:17 PM on November 21, 2019 [2 favorites]


No one will ever appear again right now. Subpoena Trump himself to defend the perfect call.
posted by benzenedream at 7:22 PM on November 21, 2019 [3 favorites]


Perhaps as a foreshadow of things to come, Trumpenyahu Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu indicted for bribery and fraud, The Guardian, 21 Nov 2019.
posted by cenoxo at 8:03 PM on November 21, 2019 [11 favorites]


I'd rather see 'inherent contempt' exercised than put congressional subpoenas in judicial jeopardy. Let's test that first. But, you're right benzene: it's already fucked.

I wouldn't mind seeing articles published that itemize one count of 'obstruction of Congress' for each ignored subpoena to the executive branch. (Shrugs) either way, this ends without conviction at the trial.
posted by j_curiouser at 8:21 PM on November 21, 2019


"Bolton doesn't want to testify because he's a far-right wack job who hates Trump for not being a purist far-right wack job but knows his testimony will hurt the right wing overall."

Barring something even more bizarre, I think this angles closest to the truth.
posted by bz at 8:56 PM on November 21, 2019 [4 favorites]


anec(up)datum: i offered above my account of a friend who changed his mind about the possibility the president's interest in an investigation might be legitimate (& thus within the righteous authority of the office) until he had watched kent and taylor testify last yearmonthweekend. upon the close of today's sessions he texted me
I was waiting for Holmes to talk about overhearing the call. Then Fiona Hill totally stole the show.... I don't think the Dems should let time pass. The (sic) should draw up articles of impeachment and get them passed. Trump is terrified of conviction now....
(i will blockquote him at some length) he then speculated that senate democrats "will ask Chief Justice to Compel Bolton to appear for first time at senate trial" instead of house democrats now, and recommended those house democrats pass two articles of impeachment:
Abuse of power and witness intimidation. That's it.

I think there's a lurker that will be key from Sondland: his rather gratuitous statement that his understanding of the demand was an 'announcement of' not actutual conducting investigation. I'm sure he thought that would help. But instead it shows circumstantially it was all and only about a political benefit. That's all he wanted and needed. Overall I'm more impressed than I ever thought I'd be about how strong Dems put the case about Trump's intent. I don't know how it could be stronger without a confession.
i asked why sentate republicans would behave more nobly than their house counterparts and he responded
I don't know that they will. But these hearings have changed my mind (or given me a mind about this for the first time since I wasn't reading tr.s). ... Fiona: scores of countries are in the same position but not had aid withheld except the one that could harm Biden with just an announcement.

Pompeo Pence and Mulvaney would obfuscate, even if Trump would let them testify. Frankly the only one who can rebut the prima facie case now is Trump himself, and that won't happen, and everything he's said indicates he would deny it but without credibility bc I don't see how he personally could state a defense consistent with all the facts. ... Sondland was credible yesterday (and probably got himself out of perjury charges)... And what he said was consistent with all the circumstantial evidence so far. But to do so, he implicated everyone Trump and pompeo etc. Fiona corroborated it today. Sondland was on a domestic errand....

I also find myself compelled that new facts emerged in the live testimony every day that the prior depositions had not revealed and, uniformly, the new facts lead to the conclusion that political hurt to Biden was the sole and precise goal at the cost of aid approved by Congress..Thank god. He deserves it. All of it. And were I senator, I would still vote to convict Trump. I wasn't there 10 days ago.
i was trying to not defraud my employers (more than this week already cost them in putative attention) and did not engage his stream of analysis deeply, hitting him with some quips and spinning off into dropped tangents. but it is deep, and cogent; it is legally/constitutionally essential; it is strategically compelling. if i were to engage it deeply now, i'd encourage him to start drafting, or at least outline, his proposed articles, and he'd say oh it's simple and start rattling off one or two fluid sentences of profound ceremonial legalese, and if i were quick enough i'd record it or something.

abuse of power. and witness intimidation. now.
posted by 20 year lurk at 9:13 PM on November 21, 2019 [13 favorites]


Mitch has to consider losing the senate in 2020 if they don't convict. That's why I'm dreaming of a March 15 date for the senate trial.

Et tu Mitch?
posted by adept256 at 9:33 PM on November 21, 2019 [4 favorites]


Beware the ides of Mitch.
posted by MrVisible at 9:34 PM on November 21, 2019 [22 favorites]


I wasn't there 10 days ago.

Republican opposition to impeachment is stiff, but will fold if the public comes around. Until these hearings, basically no Republicans were for impeachment. Now it's something like 15% of Republicans and 40% of Independents support impeaching Trump.

But even if the public doesn't come around, I'm proud of the hearings, which have been mostly public, and damning. History will show that at least some Americans finally stood up to this administration. That's more important than whether Trump is ultimately impeached.
posted by xammerboy at 10:18 PM on November 21, 2019 [25 favorites]


Meanwhile, on the Senate side.. Lindsey Graham, in his role as Senate Judiciary Chairman, launches a probe seeking to tie Joe Biden to corruption in the Ukraine.
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey O. Graham sent a letter to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on Thursday requesting documents related to former vice president Joe Biden and his communications with Ukrainian officials, a step seen as a GOP effort to counter the House impeachment investigation of President Trump.

The inquiry by Graham (R-S.C.) is focused on any calls Biden may have had with Petro Poroshenko, then the Ukrainian president, regarding the firing of the country’s top prosecutor, as well as any that referenced an investigation of Burisma, the Ukrainian natural-gas company that employed Biden’s son Hunter Biden.
posted by Nerd of the North at 12:37 AM on November 22, 2019 [2 favorites]


Well, they've learnt that accusations are just as good as facts. Donny never wanted a real investigation, just the soundbite. Make some smoke so people think there's a fire. It'll work too.

This inquiry will stumble at the fact that Hunter doesn't have a time machine and therefore wasn't at Burisma during the time under investigation, but that doesn't matter.
posted by adept256 at 1:02 AM on November 22, 2019 [9 favorites]


Hunter doesn't have a time machine

"Hasn't he, though??" (Family of "and her e-mails")

You wouldn't want to put any ideas into their heads.
posted by Namlit at 2:02 AM on November 22, 2019 [1 favorite]


Trump and His Corrupt Old Party
Krugmans opinion on the impeachment process.
But I'm actually posting this because of a comment on that piece, by Michael H. of Oakhurst, California. I think I've linked to it, but if not:
If you ever have a raccoon in your house, you want to make sure it has an easy line of escape when you try to shoo it out. If the raccoon feels cornered it will do everything in it's power to stay alive.

I think the Republican Party is increasingly in the position of a cornered raccoon. They no longer see any way to be a successful party, winning more votes than their opponents. They are on the losing end of history, and they know it.

Hence voter suppression, hence support for Trump. Democrats should mention at every turn: Trump lost by 3 million votes! Many Republican senators come from itty-bitty states. Some, but not all, of their base feels the same way about being cornered.

We need to recruit Republican voters and we need to vote that animal in the White House out.
posted by mumimor at 3:17 AM on November 22, 2019 [28 favorites]


Curious to see how Senate subpoenas go. If a witness declines to respond, I expect a quick referral to justice. And I half-anticipate an experiment in inherent contempt. They have no bottom, and aren't scared of their own shadow (looks sideways at house Ds).
posted by j_curiouser at 5:20 AM on November 22, 2019 [1 favorite]


At some point we will need to pivot from impeachment and reach out to the rural and blue collar swing voters that turned to Trump. As important as these hearings are, for the rural areas left behind they seem like a distraction for the privileged. I get it. I've been to some of these areas. They just want to know how the heartland will continue to survive.
posted by xammerboy at 5:37 AM on November 22, 2019 [5 favorites]


Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu indicted for bribery and fraud
They seem to have witches in Israel, too. Nice to see what can happen if your Attorney General is interested in the rule of law.
posted by MtDewd at 5:56 AM on November 22, 2019 [4 favorites]


I get it. I've been to some of these areas. They just want to know how the heartland will continue to survive.

Via subsidy to a transitioned economy and in-migration to rebuild the tax base and revitalize the local economy and culture. But they've heard this, and pointedly rejected it.
posted by pseudophile at 5:56 AM on November 22, 2019 [26 favorites]


how the heartland will continue to survive.

Unfortunately, they're not ready for the real answer to that, which is "It will not." Barring a full-on return to a human/horse powered pre-petroleum agrarian lifestyle, the rural parts of our country are utterly useless for human habitation and industry, unless we decide to open up immigration to the point where we need to fill places like South Dakota to the density of Manhattan. Oh, and there's that pesky water issue, so...

Seems like we should be asking some folks in the medical profession about how to handle this, because this is the political version of having the "end of life" discussion with your patient.
posted by Xyanthilous P. Harrierstick at 5:57 AM on November 22, 2019 [24 favorites]


xammerboy The term "heartland" is insulting because it implies that the vast empty areas of America are the really important parts and those nasty cities and coastal areas are just periphery and unimportant or not really, in some quintessential sense, American.

They don't give a shit about the "heartland" surviving, they want white supremacy. Hillary Clinton bent over backward trying to reach out to the bigots of the "heartland" and they told her to fuck off and voted en masse for the man who told them comforting racist lies. Eventually we need to start believing them when they say that they want white supremacy not economic security.

And, as Clinton demonstrated, we've been reaching out to the bitter white racists for literally my entire life and they've done nothing but give us the finger and vote for the most vile Republicans they can find. Far from agreeing that what we really need to do is redouble our efforts to coddle them I think it's time we smacked them down and stopped treating them like they're the best thing ever and the people we most need to court and appease.

There comes a time when you have to stop playing nicey nicey and play hardball. This is that time. They want the Federal money (that is, money from the despised not-Heartland places they want to say aren't really American like California and New York) to keep their infrastructure going they need to drop the bullshit and start being civilized. We tied highway funding to a 55mph speed limit for a long time, we've tied funding to a 21 drinking age since forever, it's time we tied 100% of Federal money going to states to those states ending gerrymandering, protecting the rights of people of color and LGBT people, and so on. They want California money? Then they can be decent people instead of screaming bigots for a change.

And finally, the "heartland" won't survive. It can't. We've automated farm labor which means there's no need for many people to live there anymore so people moved away. We need a policy that recognizes this reality and ends entirely the wasteful programs that are doomed to fail. Help people leave the "heartland", don't squander money on revitalization projects that will never work.
posted by sotonohito at 6:19 AM on November 22, 2019 [68 favorites]


For those of you who missed it, Dr. Fiona Hill's testimony yesterday on the final day of impeachment hearings was outstanding; the Washington Post has compiled some highlights via YouTube. I found the full closing statement made by Representative Adam Schiff, the House Intelligence Committee chair, so worthwhile that I watched it twice. In this crazy, black-is-white up-is-down Trumpian world we live in, it was heartening to watch Dr. Hill's amazing competence at work as well as witness Schiff's carefully crafted, fact-based fury toward his lying, abusive Republican colleagues and his plea that Congress show concern for the Constitution.
posted by Bella Donna at 6:36 AM on November 22, 2019 [48 favorites]


Seconding Schiff's closing statement. It's righteous.
posted by rp at 6:45 AM on November 22, 2019 [17 favorites]


And finally, the "heartland" won't survive. It can't. We've automated farm labor which means there's no need for many people to live there anymore so people moved away. We need a policy that recognizes this reality and ends entirely the wasteful programs that are doomed to fail. Help people leave the "heartland", don't squander money on revitalization projects that will never work.

Well, sure, if we're going to continue in perpetuity to fertilize the farmland with petrochemicals and power agricultural automation with fossil fuels. But I was under the impression that we were going to need to stop that at some point, and the effort to stop might legitimately revitalize the heartland. In fact, it's very hard to see how it would be possible to do it without a massive influx of working people.

Also, plus, too, a whole lot of the land where the cities are is on the coasts and thus will shortly be under the sea.

And if we don't resolve agriculture's fossil fuel dependency, then the whole map, all the counties, blue, red, and purple, drown, burn, and starve, hello. We can't continue to live in cloud cities and scoff at farming as if it were the purview of filthy dirty corporations and beneath our dignity to consider.

Everybody pick up and move to the coasts is not the solution to this problem. This attitude is the problem. The problems we have now began largely because racists wanted to keep the prairies white and empty. The genocide of the people who lived there first; the asinine notion that we needed to prevent an influx of WWII refugees at the cost of the peace in the Middle East. We seem to have decided then and clung to it since: Okay, we're going to keep everyone out forever even if it kills us. South Dakota et al. will remain white and empty: this is our hill to die on, forever and ever, amen, even if we all starve.
posted by Don Pepino at 6:57 AM on November 22, 2019 [19 favorites]


Plus, who needs Chicago, Minneapolis, or St. Louis?! Nothing happens there anyway: no teaching hospitals, museums, central banks, residences, museums, or universities. You can't even get a good slice of pizza, or so I am told.

Abandon the middle 70% of the country! Head for the low ground and bayous!
posted by wenestvedt at 7:03 AM on November 22, 2019 [8 favorites]


Mod note: Let's keep this on impeachment proceedings, folks.
posted by cortex (staff) at 7:08 AM on November 22, 2019 [18 favorites]


Trump’s Crime Against America (Adam Serwer, The Atlantic)
Sums up the past few weeks and Trump's offenses directly.
The president’s offense is abusing his power to stay in office, not disputing Ukraine policy.

The impeachment inquiry has revealed the president’s personal corruption, but it has uncovered a more abstract one as well. The broken reputations of weak, conniving men litter the Trump era like corpses on a Civil War battlefield. Each of them believed, as some Trump officials currently do, that the president’s racism and corruption might be bent toward legitimate ends, and each of them has paid the price for his folly. […]

[As] the impeachment inquiry shows, it is Trump who has bent the establishment to his will, turning the party of Lincoln into little more than a subsidiary of the Trump Organization, with no higher purpose than executing the president’s corrupt schemes and shielding him from the potential consequences.

The rest of the country, however, should not lose sight of why the president is being impeached, and it is not because of a good-faith dispute over Ukraine policy. Trump and his advisers conspired to rig the 2020 election on his behalf, scheming to defraud the American people of a free and fair election. A genuine republic cannot survive chief executives who utilize their powers to make anyone who might challenge their authority into a criminal by extorting weaker entities into leveling false charges at their political rivals. Indeed, the republic’s Founders foresaw such a circumstance, and created the impeachment clause as a last resort against it. The high crime that the president has committed is not against Ukraine, but against America.
posted by ZeusHumms at 7:14 AM on November 22, 2019 [23 favorites]


Now, as I understand it, there are other House committees working on impeachment, so would it be likely that we have another round of House hearings from say the Judiciary Committee looking into the Mueller report's obstruction issue, or say Ways and Means re: emoluments?
posted by mikelieman at 7:17 AM on November 22, 2019 [1 favorite]


Impeachment is about to get a Robert Mueller reprise
Now that House Democrats have wrapped up public hearings on President Donald Trump’s pressure campaign to get Ukraine to launch politically advantageous investigations, there are plans to hold at least one public impeachment hearing on Trump’s misdeeds as alleged in the special counsel’s report.

It’s a gathering that could fuel articles of impeachment beyond those tied to the Ukraine controversy. Democrats say they have new Mueller-related fodder after Roger Stone’s recent trial raised questions about whether Trump provided false statements to the special counsel’s team. And the hearing could even feature a star witness — former White House counsel Don McGahn. A judge is set to rule in the coming days on whether McGahn must comply with a House subpoena.
Ceterum censeo, Trumpo delenda est
posted by kirkaracha at 8:09 AM on November 22, 2019 [18 favorites]


Now, as I understand it, there are other House committees working on impeachment, so would it be likely that we have another round of House hearings from say the Judiciary Committee looking into the Mueller report's obstruction issue, or say Ways and Means re: emoluments?
Short answer: It's all up in the air.

Long answer, provided pretty well by Poltico: Questions over next steps as Judiciary moves into impeachment spotlight
posted by jammer at 8:11 AM on November 22, 2019 [4 favorites]


The inquiry by Graham (R-S.C.) is focused on any calls Biden may have had with Petro Poroshenko, then the Ukrainian president, regarding the firing of the country’s top prosecutor, as well as any that referenced an investigation of Burisma, the Ukrainian natural-gas company that employed Biden’s son Hunter Biden.

Speaking of nepotism, it might not surprise you to know that Rudolf Giuliani's failson Andrew is on the payroll at the White House pulling in $95,000 of your tax money. His job is Public Liaison Assistant which means he arranges those photo ops of Trump with well-known athletes in the Oval Office.

Andrew's only qualification, in fact his only accomplishment on his resume in his 33 years, it that he was once, briefly, on the Duke University golf team. He was such a shitty golfer that he was kicked off the team, whereupon he immediately sued the coach and the school in federal court for $200,000. The case was finally thrown out by the federal judge two years later in 2010. Now he's grifting $95,000 a year of your money.
posted by JackFlash at 8:27 AM on November 22, 2019 [53 favorites]


Something I suddenly realized, looking at my screen: two years ago, I was getting a lot of my information about the Trump regime from relatively off sources: Teen Vogue, Buzzfeed, TPM, Lawfare, sometimes The Daily Beast, sometimes Salon. There were more, but the common denominator was that none of them were remotely mainstream, and even journalist and politics geek friends had no idea what they were. I mean, they knew Trump was unusual and unreliable, but many people I know were willing to write off the reporting I showed them as conspiracy theories.
Now I have tabs open with NYTimes, WaPo, BBC, The Guardian, and they are reporting stuff we have known here on MetaFilter for years. I think this does make a difference.

Also: it was just mentioned during the hearings, but Trump was bullying at least two other US allies for personal political gain during the same time period: Sweden and Denmark. An obvious third victim that we haven't heard about would be UK.
posted by mumimor at 8:47 AM on November 22, 2019 [21 favorites]


Don't quit now, Democrats: Wrapping up impeachment early is the dumbest idea ever (Heather Digby Parton, Salon)
If Democrats believe that there's no serious prospect of Republicans changing their minds in the face of such clear evidence — and it appears they are correct — why are they so intent upon rushing through this process? Why not take their time and try to get as much as possible before the public and into the record?

[It] seems counterproductive for the Democrats to be so anxious to close this impeachment inquiry when we now know that the highest levels of the administration were involved. Without hearing from Giuliani, John Bolton, Mick Mulvaney and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo (who reportedly wants to resign because this scandal is damaging his reputation) — all of whom have been heavily implicated, and all of whom appear to have further political ambitions — this case doesn't accurately convey what happened and continues to happen in this White House. You'd think they'd at least want to hear from Rudy Giuliani's accomplice Lev Parnas, who has signaled a willingness to talk. Who knows what he might have to say?

I realize that Democrats like the idea of having this staid, formal, very tight case, with unimpeachable experts and patriotic public servants as the only witnesses. It leaves less room for them to be called partisan. But in this polarized environment, the whole thing is partisan whether they like it or not. That doesn't make it unethical, dishonest or biased. It's just a function of how politics is organized at the moment.

Since the Republicans are acting as Trump's accomplices, oversight of this corrupt administration requires that the House keeps the pressure on to prevent them from continuing to engage in criminal behavior and abusing their power. An early Senate acquittal is likely to have the opposite effect. If the Democrats aren't doing all this to stop Trump's outrageous criminality and expose the massive corruption of this White House, why are they doing it at all?
Why indeed?
posted by ZeusHumms at 8:49 AM on November 22, 2019 [23 favorites]


Trump’s Defenders Have No Defense (Peggy Noonan, WSJ Opinion)
Witnesses were uneven, but even his closest allies don’t try to deny he did what he’s accused of doing.
Look, the case has been made. Almost everything in the impeachment hearings this week fleshed out and backed up the charge that President Trump muscled Ukraine for political gain. The pending question is what precisely the House and its Democratic majority will decide to include in the articles of impeachment, what statutes or standards they will assert the president violated.

What was said consistently undermined Mr. Trump’s case, but more deadly was what has never been said. In the two months since Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced a formal impeachment inquiry was under way and the two weeks since the Intelligence Committee’s public hearings began, no one, even in the White House, has said anything like, “He wouldn’t do that!” or “That would be so unlike him.” His best friends know he would do it and it’s exactly like him. [...]

On Wednesday Gordan Sondland, the ambassador to the European Union, was both weirdly jolly and enormously effective in doing Mr. Trump damage. He followed the president’s orders; there was a quid pro quo; “everyone was in the loop, it was no secret“; Rudy Giuliani was the point man, with whom Mr. Sondland worked “at the express direction of the president.” [...] On Thursday Fiona Hill, the former White House Russia expert, was all business, a serious woman you don’t want to mess with. She reoriented things, warning that those who excuse or don’t wish to see Russian propaganda efforts against America, and targeting its elections, are missing the obvious. The suspicion of the president and his allies that Ukraine is the great culprit in the 2016 election is a “fictional narrative.” They are, in fact, bowing to disinformation Russia spreads to cover its tracks and confuse the American people and its political class. [...]

What became obvious in the hearings was the sober testimony from respectable diplomats—not disgruntled staffers with nutty memoirs but people of stature who don’t ordinarily talk—about how the administration operates. [...] He not only doesn’t know where the line is; he has never wanted to know, so he can cross it with impunity, without consciousness of a bad act or one that might put him in danger.
Noonan's conclusion that the Senate should simply "take seriously the idea of censuring him for abuse of power" seems at odds with everything else she writes, but it does seem to speak to how "politics is organized at the moment."
posted by katra at 9:13 AM on November 22, 2019 [7 favorites]


> I was getting a lot of my information about the Trump regime from relatively off sources: Teen Vogue, Buzzfeed, TPM, Lawfare, sometimes The Daily Beast, sometimes Salon.

we shouldn’t make the assumption that media outlets in the old-guard centrist bubble are in any way “mainstream” anymore. iirc buzzfeed has been the most read news source — bigger than the new york times, significantly bigger than the washington post — for years now. the only news outlet that really competes with buzzfeed in terms of genuine broad reach is usa today.
posted by Reclusive Novelist Thomas Pynchon at 9:16 AM on November 22, 2019 [3 favorites]


"take seriously the idea of censuring him for abuse of power"

This is an exact mirror to what became MoveOn on the Democratic side -- it came up during the Clinton impeachment, as short for "censure the president and move on."
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 9:21 AM on November 22, 2019 [2 favorites]


>> [It] seems counterproductive for the Democrats to be so anxious to close this impeachment inquiry when we now know that the highest levels of the administration were involved. Without hearing from Giuliani, John Bolton, Mick Mulvaney and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo (who reportedly wants to resign because this scandal is damaging his reputation) — all of whom have been heavily implicated, and all of whom appear to have further political ambitions — this case doesn't accurately convey what happened and continues to happen in this White House.

One explanation, passed along by Josh Marshall this morning, is that it may be much easier to compel Mulvaney, Bolton, Pompeo, etc. to testify during the Senate trial.
posted by AndrewInDC at 9:22 AM on November 22, 2019 [5 favorites]


This is an exact mirror to what became MoveOn on the Democratic side -- it came up during the Clinton impeachment, as short for "censure the president and move on."

Furiously checking to see which conservative dark money group is camping out on Getoverit.org
posted by Exceptional_Hubris at 9:40 AM on November 22, 2019 [10 favorites]


Susan Simpson lays out some previously-unremarked on inconsistencies in Sondland's testimony and tries to piece together what really happened with other testimony.
...
Yesterday, Sondland kept playing the victim of his poor memory and the State Dept, claiming that because State had refused to give him access to his records and call logs, he couldn't verify his recollection of his calls with Trump.

But I don't think that's what happened at all. What Sondland actually testified is that the White House and State Department told him they "cannot locate" records of his Sept. 9th "no quid pro quo" call with Trump.

But of course they couldn't. That call doesn't exist!
...
posted by a snickering nuthatch at 10:18 AM on November 22, 2019 [26 favorites]


> Furiously checking to see which conservative dark money group is camping out on Getoverit.org

Registrant Organization: Get Over It Dog Training ????
posted by stonepharisee at 11:00 AM on November 22, 2019


: Registrant Organization: Get Over It Dog Training

"Because there's no problem a dog whistle can't solve! (tm)"
posted by mike_honcho at 11:07 AM on November 22, 2019 [9 favorites]


Much more Sondland skepticism from Vox's Andrew Prokop: Is Gordon Sondland still covering for Trump?
posted by a snickering nuthatch at 11:34 AM on November 22, 2019


The War on Words in Donald Trump’s White House — How to Fudge, Obfuscate, and Lie Our Way into a New Universe, Karen J. Greenberg, TomDispatch.com, November 21, 2019:
...when it comes to the Trump presidency, there is so much more to the strategy of degrading public discourse and debasing the facts than anything as simple and straightforward as mere lying. Political scientist Kelly Greenhill has aptly termed Trump’s assault on the truth “extra-factual information,” pointing to “distraction, threat conflation, normalization, and repetition” as among the methods he employs to make facts anything but what they used to be.

For Trump, lying is but the tip of the iceberg and in this he reflects far more than his own predilections. He reflects as well our moment, our age. George Orwell, that prescient twentieth-century observer, warned in his classic essay “Politics and the English Language” [link] about one key aspect of such a lying mindset: the way “lack of precision” in language can pose a danger to society and to political stability.

When it comes to imprecision today, the dangers couldn’t be more real. In fact, the strategies employed in Washington to confuse and mislead the public have subtly eaten away at the country’s collective mindset, creating fertile ground for Trumpian-style lying to successfully take root. In many ways, the focus on Donald Trump’s blatant and persistent lying only serves to obfuscate other no less destructive methods of deceiving the public that preceded him into the White House and helped create the conditions that make the president’s lies so destabilizing.

Consider just six ways in which, in this century, imprecision and cloudiness have come to define American political discourse. [details in the article]

• The Recasting of Language:
• Uncertain Numbers:
• Willful Ignorance:
• Withholding Evidence:
• The Destruction of the Record:
• Spreading Conflicting Facts:
...
Any government 'leaders' who imagine themselves above the rule of law (and who disrupt language in these ways) need to be removed from office.
posted by cenoxo at 11:56 AM on November 22, 2019 [27 favorites]


Now, as I understand it, there are other House committees working on impeachment, so would it be likely that we have another round of House hearings from say the Judiciary Committee looking into the Mueller report's obstruction issue, or say Ways and Means re: emoluments?

Probably not. This is the downside of the "narrow impeachment" approach they took.
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 12:10 PM on November 22, 2019 [2 favorites]


What is going on with John Bolton's twitter?
We have now liberated the Twitter account, previously suppressed unfairly in the aftermath of my resignation as National Security Advisor. More to come.....

Re: speaking up -- since resigning as National Security Advisor, the @WhiteHouse
refused to return access to my personal Twitter account. Out of fear of what I may say? To those who speculated I went into hiding, I’m sorry to disappoint!
He could be just trying to sell his book, or it could be some elaborate hoax, but I have to admit I'm keeping popcorn nearby--didn't see this one coming...
posted by cudzoo at 12:34 PM on November 22, 2019 [8 favorites]


NPR deservedly gets a lot of flack around here for framing, but I wanted to give props for the pushback against the Republican talking points on this interview this morning.
posted by DebetEsse at 12:38 PM on November 22, 2019 [12 favorites]


Susan B. Glasser, The Awful Truth About Impeachment (New Yorker):
After five days, twelve witnesses, lots of shouting, and dozens of angry tweets from the President, the House Intelligence Committee’s public impeachment hearings into Donald Trump’s Ukraine affair ended on Thursday with one unequivocal result: a Republican stonewall so complete that it cannot and will not be breached. The G.O.P. defense, in essence, is that facts are irrelevant, no matter how damning or inconvenient, and that Trump has the power to do whatever he wants, even if it seems inappropriate, improper, or simply wrong. Recognizing this, Democrats on Thursday evening signalled that they will move ahead with impeachment by the full House anyway, and soon. It was a grim choice, made with the knowledge that the case against Trump will likely proceed without any Republican votes, or even testimony from key Administration witnesses who have obeyed the President’s command not to appear.
posted by theodolite at 12:44 PM on November 22, 2019 [5 favorites]


What is going on with John Bolton's twitter?
We have now liberated the Twitter account, previously suppressed unfairly in the aftermath of my resignation as National Security Advisor. More to come.....

Re: speaking up -- since resigning as National Security Advisor, the @WhiteHouse
refused to return access to my personal Twitter account. Out of fear of what I may say? To those who speculated I went into hiding, I’m sorry to disappoint!
He could be just trying to sell his book, or it could be some elaborate hoax, but I have to admit I'm keeping popcorn nearby--didn't see this one coming...
posted by cudzoo at 3:34 PM on November 22 [+] [!]


I think there is a 99.9% chance he is trying to hype his upcoming book and a 0.1% chance his mustache has achieved sentience and stolen his twitter password. There is no real chance, as I see it, that he's hinting he'll voluntarily come in and provide explosive testimony in the impeachment inquiry. I have no special knowledge about his state of mind beyond the fact that he's an inveterate shithead.
posted by scarylarry at 12:45 PM on November 22, 2019 [10 favorites]


Bolton and his twitter is grift as usual. Former Obama National Security Adviser Susan Rice says that White House ethics policy is that when a senior official leaves office, that their twitter account used officially during their tenure must be archived as official documents and given up.

Bolton wants to keep his twitter AmbJohnBolton, which he used for government business, even though no longer in government.

What Bolton wants to do is monetize his hundreds of thousands of followers he acquired while working for Trump and before that, Bush. This is contrary to White House ethics rules. It's always about the grift.

And you can just imagine what kind of followers John Bolton has.
posted by JackFlash at 1:29 PM on November 22, 2019 [26 favorites]


The NPR clip linked by DebetEsse above is totally worth listening to if you have abandoned NPR news, as I have. One strong clip does not rehabilitate the entire outlet, but it was nice to hear Steve Inskeep being dogged about something important for a change.
posted by Bella Donna at 1:33 PM on November 22, 2019 [3 favorites]


I have a memory of Bolton saying, circa 2014, that sending then-Sec'y of State John Kerry to talk to his Russian counterpart about Ukraine was like sending a cupcake to negotiate with a steak knife, but all the sources I'm finding are specious at best so maybe not. ["You just don’t in the 21st century behave in 19th century fashion by invading another country on completely trumped up pre-text,” Kerry told the CBS program Face the Nation. (Reuters, March 2, 2014)]

Some of the Ukraine-related timelines in various media outlets start in 2014, when Hunter Biden started at Burisma, but all seem to miss:
Ukraine election narrowly avoided 'wanton destruction' from hackers (CS Monitor, July 17, 2014)
If it had not been discovered and removed, the malicious software would have portrayed ultra-nationalist Right Sector party leader Dmytro Yarosh as the winner with 37 percent of the vote (instead of the 1 percent he actually received) and Petro Poroshenko (the actually winner with a majority of the vote) with just 29 percent, Ukraine officials told reporters the next morning. Curiously, Russian Channel One aired a bulletin that evening declaring Mr. Yarosh the victor with 37 percent of the vote over Mr. Poroshenko with 29 percent, Ukraine officials said. [...]

The Ukraine hack is a stark warning for the US and other democracies that use the Internet for tabulation and even direct voting, election security experts say. One clear lesson, they say, is to always have paper ballots to back up election results – like Ukraine – and to avoid Internet voting.
Trump, without evidence, cites Ukraine ties to ex-rival Clinton. (Reuters, July 25, 2017)

Trump's been laying this groundwork, to pressure Ukraine for Russian gain, for years. At this point I wouldn't be surprised if the powers that be secretly manipulated this year's election, only to learn that the inexperienced Zelensky isn't the hoped-for patsy.

The hearings were too brief, and the time period they focused on too narrow.
posted by Iris Gambol at 1:45 PM on November 22, 2019 [20 favorites]


Of course, missed linking time period.
posted by Iris Gambol at 2:01 PM on November 22, 2019 [3 favorites]


I'm not linking it on purpose, but the NYT is now breathlessly reporting that the Ukraine Meddling Rumours are the product of a Russian disinformation campaign.

I mean, who knew?
posted by Dashy at 2:42 PM on November 22, 2019 [21 favorites]


Justice Dept. watchdog finds political bias did not taint top officials running the FBI’s Russia probe but documents other errors (WaPo)
The Justice Department’s internal watchdog is expected to find in a forthcoming report that political bias did not taint top officials running the FBI investigation into possible coordination between Russia and the Trump campaign in 2016, while at the same time criticizing the bureau for systemic failures in its handling of surveillance applications, according to two U.S. officials. [...] But Horowitz will conclude that the application still had a proper legal and factual basis, according to the officials, who like others spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the sensitive report.

In broad terms, the report refutes accusations of a political conspiracy by senior law enforcement officials against the Trump campaign to favor Democrat Hillary Clinton, while also knocking the bureau for procedural shortcomings, said the officials. [...] According to the two officials, Horowitz is expected to conclude that opening of Crossfire Hurricane was legally and factually justified. His report will not provide fodder for several conservative conspiracy theories surrounding the case — particularly the notion that Papadopoulos was set up as part of a nefarious western intelligence operation.

[...] The inspector general also is expected to find that the application and subsequent renewals to monitor Page’s communications was proper and observed relevant guidelines, the officials said. But there was an issue with a low-level FBI lawyer who altered an email to the Justice Department as part of the process for renewing the FISA warrant, which expires after 90 days. One of the attorneys in the National Security Division, which handles wiretap applications under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), asked the lawyer if he could document a certain claim, the officials said. He misled them when he said he could and, to cover his tracks, he altered the email, the officials said. The serious error in judgment led to his removal from the bureau, and his case has been referred for criminal investigation, officials said.
Russia Inquiry Review Is Said to Criticize F.B.I. but Rebuff Claims of Biased Acts (NYT)
More broadly, Mr. Horowitz’s report, to be made public on Dec. 9, portrays the overall effort to seek the wiretap order and its renewals as sloppy and unprofessional, according to the people familiar with it. [...] At the same time, however, the report debunks a series of conspiracy theories and insinuations about the F.B.I. that Mr. Trump and his allies have put forward over the past two years, the people said, though they cautioned that the report is not complete. [...] In particular, while Mr. Horowitz criticizes F.B.I. leadership for its handling of the highly fraught Russia investigation in some ways, he made no finding of politically biased actions by top officials Mr. Trump has vilified like the former F.B.I. director James B. Comey; Andrew G. McCabe, the former deputy who temporarily ran the bureau after the president fired Mr. Comey in 2017; and Peter Strzok, a former top counterintelligence agent.
posted by katra at 2:52 PM on November 22, 2019 [3 favorites]


Charges of Ukrainian Meddling? A Russian Operation, U.S. Intelligence Says (NYT)
In a briefing that closely aligned with Dr. Hill’s testimony, American intelligence officials informed senators and their aides in recent weeks that Russia had engaged in a yearslong campaign to essentially frame Ukraine as responsible for Moscow’s own hacking of the 2016 election, according to three American officials. The briefing came as Republicans stepped up their defenses of Mr. Trump in the Ukraine affair. [...] American intelligence agencies believe Moscow is likely to redouble its efforts as the 2020 presidential campaign intensifies. The classified briefing for senators also focused on Russia’s evolving influence tactics, including its growing ability to better disguise operations. [...]

This time, Russian intelligence operatives deployed a network of agents to blame Ukraine for its 2016 interference. Starting at least in 2017, the operatives peddled a mixture of now-debunked conspiracy theories along with established facts to leave an impression that the government in Kyiv, not Moscow, was responsible for the hackings of Democrats and its other interference efforts in 2016, senior intelligence officials said.

The Russian intelligence officers conveyed the information to prominent Russians and Ukrainians who then used a range of intermediaries, like oligarchs, businessmen and their associates, to pass the material to American political figures and even some journalists, who were likely unaware of its origin, the officials said.

That muddy brew worked its way into American information ecosystems, sloshing around until parts of it reached Mr. Trump, who has also spoken with Mr. Putin about allegations of Ukrainian interference. Mr. Trump also brought up the assertions of Ukrainian meddling in his July 25 call with President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine, which is at the heart of the impeachment inquiry into whether he abused his power by asking for a public commitment to investigations he stood to gain from personally. [...]

Mr. Trump repeated the baseless claim on Friday in an interview with “Fox & Friends,” laying out the narrative and doubling down after a host gently pressed him on whether he was sure of one aspect of the debunked theory, that the F.B.I. gave a Democratic server to what Mr. Trump had inaccurately described as a Ukrainian-owned company. “That is what the word is,” Mr. Trump replied.
posted by katra at 3:06 PM on November 22, 2019 [17 favorites]


I've just finished a book that is relevant, I think, to the impeachment thread. And by now I've read dozens of books on our current political situation and a bunch of the factors that may have contributed to it. I've read books by Comey and Clapper and Clinton, books by journalists, books by economists, books by historians and philosophers.

But this book I have just finished is the one single book which explains the MOST, which I wish I could make EVERYONE read. It's called "Mindf*ck: Cambridge Analytica and the Plot to Break America" by Christopher Wylie.

It's also just begging to be made into a movie, full of high drama and absurdist comedy.

It's the story of a young Canadian nerd, Chris, who likes computers and data. And he does some working trying to build voter data systems for a Canadian political campaign similar to the one the Obama campaign built. And then he goes to grad school in the UK and he gets a job while in school with SCL Group, a UK defense contractor which studies psychological warfare and propaganda. Seems like worthwhile work, studying how terrorists radicalize people and how they can be de-radicalized. Chris's boss is this enormous jerk named Alexander Nix, but lots of people have jerk bosses. He copes.

And then Nix manages to get a $20 million investment from an American hedge fund guy named Robert Mercer, who presumably thinks some of this research on modeling societies using big data and on targeted messaging can help his hedge fund make money? And Mercer's investment is used to create an American subsidiary called Cambridge Analytica, which will be headed by the guy Mercer picks -- some little known (at the time) media guy named Steve Bannon. And Bannon has some weird political ideas but he's also smart and nerdy in his own way and genuinely interested in the research Chris is doing. So what if Bannon has some delusions of grandeur about remaking society? He doesn't have an army. Just some nerds and a lot of Facebook data.

But slowly Chris begins to feel that something is not right. Nix isn't just a jerk. He is amoral. He is willing to lie and cheat and blackmail people on behalf of his political clients. And Bannon isn't trying to de-radicalize people. He is radicalizing them. And as Cambridge Analytica grows Chris starts to feel that they are spying on people (they have access to Facebook data for hundreds of millions of Facebook users) and helping political candidates cheat, in places like Nigeria, and Trinidad. And people are acting like it's no big deal because who expects elections to be fair in those places anyway? But it bothers him. And though it doesn't seem like a huge deal at the time, it is a little weird that their research in the US involves polling people about their feelings on Vladimir Putin and presenting data about American elections to Russian clients. It also involves testing the effectiveness of phrases like "drain the swamp" and "build the wall." He is studying how to make propaganda more effective through big data and social media targeting. He is studying how to play on human cognitive biases to divide and enrage people. He is an expert. He explains how it works, in the book.

Chris eventually quits, feeling like he no longer wants to be complicit in what is going on, even though it means quitting his PhD too, since he loses access to his data.

Two years later, Steve Bannon leaves Cambridge Analytica to run the Trump campaign. He hires Cambridge Analytica to do all the digital media for the Trump campaign. His friend Nigel Farage hires Cambridge Analytica to work for Leave.EU, one of the campaigns for Britain to leave the European Union.

Chris hears phrases he recognizes. "Drain the swamp." "Build the wall." And then the DNC is hacked. Apparently it's the Russians. Chris realizes that one guy at Cambridge Analytica was pretty closely connected to Paul Manafort and his Russian former co-worker Konstantin Kilimnik. Alexander Nix reaches out to WikiLeaks with an offer to help sort through the e-mails. People Chris knows who are still associated with Cambridge Analytica tip him off that a Canadian subsidiary may have helped Leave.EU violate UK spending limits on the Brexit campaign. Chris thinks about all that Facebook data, and the people who have no idea how much Cambridge Analytica knows about them.

He decides to be become a whistleblower. Facebook gets angry at him. Also the governments of the US, and the UK. He learns more about connections between people at Cambridge Analytica and in Leave.EU, and Russian government cut outs like WikiLeaks, Lukoil, mining firms, and Konstantin Kilimnik. He testifies before the British parliament and the American House of Representatives. He helps journalists conduct a sting operation to expose Alexander Nix and his dirty tactics.

And then -- nobody is punished. Nothing really changes.

And he lays out for us exactly what that means. What Big Data makes possible, in terms of social control.

He is a smart guy and a great writer, with a compelling story to tell. But the real reason to read this book is to understand how we got here, and what might come next, and what we can do. I have not found any other author who lays it out so clearly.
posted by OnceUponATime at 6:22 PM on November 22, 2019 [71 favorites]


Giuliani associate willing to tell Congress Nunes met with ex-Ukrainian official to get dirt on Biden

Oh, this should be good.

Schiff: Mr. Lev Parnas, is it your testimony that a U.S. congressman met with Ukrainian prosecutor Shokin to illegally solicit campaign dirt on the Bidens?

Lev: Yes.

Schiff: Can you identify that congressman?

Lev: Yes, sir. He's sitting right there in the chair next to you.
posted by JackFlash at 6:48 PM on November 22, 2019 [24 favorites]


Mercer and Bannon show up in 2013. Bannon had been running Breitbart for about a year. But Chris Wylie was living in Englad and was not familiar with him or Mercer.
posted by OnceUponATime at 6:56 PM on November 22, 2019 [5 favorites]


So, could Schiff subpoena Nunes to testify in front of a committee that he's on? This is bananas. I assume there's not even a semblance of a process for what happens if a congressperson on the committee investigating impeachment is themselves involved in the things that the president is being investigated for.
posted by mrgoat at 7:01 PM on November 22, 2019 [8 favorites]


I mean, the problem here is that none of these assholes think that there's anything wrong with any of this. The defense isn't that they didn't do it. The defense is yeah, we all did it, it was awesome and it makes us American heroes. (I mean, this mostly worked for Ollie North in the end, but it was a more innocent time.)

There was some Ask a couple weeks ago where one of the answers referred to r/AskTrumpSupporters and whoever it was that suggested that sub...I ain't gonna thank you. It's a fucking trainwreck and I can't look away every as reading it is making my mental health demonstrably worse.
posted by soren_lorensen at 7:09 PM on November 22, 2019 [2 favorites]


...Cambridge Analytica...a compelling story to tell.

Truly — see also the Netflix July 2019 documentary, The Great Hack (WP article).
posted by cenoxo at 7:10 PM on November 22, 2019 [3 favorites]


The Great Hack is pretty good, but it leaves a lot out about everybody's backgrounds. For an account of how CA all came together there are some glaring holes that enable them to put the most shiny bow on the whole thing [ominous background music]. Furthermore, I don't trust Christopher Wylie, who similarly describes his history as essentially, "went to college, then got a job ripping countries apart for some reason. I'm good with data." Hey, but pink hair amirite?

I suspect the book is also like this.
posted by rhizome at 7:15 PM on November 22, 2019 [1 favorite]


@CuomoPrimeTime: An indicted associate of Rudy Giuliani is willing to tell Congress about meetings in Vienna between Devin Nunes and a former Ukrainian prosecutor. As @VickyPJWard tells @ChrisCuomo, the purpose of the meetings was to discuss digging up dirt on Joe Biden. [Video clip included in tweet.]

This looks like one of those "huge if true" moments, though I'm hoping it's more like "huge if the reporting holds up and there's more to go on than Parnas's word" as I feel like that dude's credibility is, uh, not quite up to "career foreign service official" standards.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 8:09 PM on November 22, 2019 [11 favorites]


State Department Releases Ukraine Documents to American Oversight

FOIA requested documents finally released by court order show a paper trail to link Pompeo to Giuliani. Redacted documents are also posted to the site.
posted by p3t3 at 8:35 PM on November 22, 2019 [10 favorites]


This looks like one of those "huge if true" moments

I have to think that Parnas will need to have film or other extraodinary evidence for any story he wants to tell.
posted by rhizome at 8:59 PM on November 22, 2019


I have to think that Parnas will need to have film or other extraodinary evidence for any story he wants to tell.

Well you can see for yourself that Nunes was in Europe at the time in question, as documented by law in the Congressional Record. Of course he was spending taxpayer dollars on his trip/crime spree -- $20,000.

That confirms opportunity from the three elements of a crime - means, motive and opportunity. And he has certainly made clear his motive. All that remains is the means, to confirm that he actually met for the discussion with Shokin as Parnas claims. Numes was reportedly traveling with aides, so they could be called as supporting witnesses.
posted by JackFlash at 9:20 PM on November 22, 2019 [4 favorites]


Laura Rozen is tweeting about the newly-released cache of documents. Worth reading her finds.
posted by MonkeyToes at 9:23 PM on November 22, 2019 [1 favorite]


Jesus Christ I fucking hate Twitter. Especially essay-length content broken up into a kazillion tweets.
posted by kirkaracha at 10:32 PM on November 22, 2019 [20 favorites]


[Sondland] relayed that, on September 9, much later than the Ukraine White House meeting, Trump said "I want nothing. I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo. Tell Zelensky to do the right thing. This is the final word from the U.S." which is a little bit of clunky, expository dialogue that seems to have escaped revision.

Trump might as well have continued, "I am not committing an impeachable offense and if this ever comes up in front of Adam Schiff make sure you tell him that there's nothing I hate more than intimidating other people to get what I want and if you don't tell him that I will destroy you and everyone you've ever met."
...
This video is high art. Trump gives a dramatic reading like he's auditioning for the part of "Mobster #2" on an episode of Law & Order. "'WHAT. DO YOU. WANT? FROM ME?' HE ASKS ME." Trump shouts, again over the deafening din of a large flying vehicle and also with a random family in the background. This thing is staged like a Christopher Guest movie. I have never loved a piece of cinema more.
...
Meanwhile, for some reason Ivanka Trump hovered in the background like a character at the end of an Ocean's 11 movie.
posted by kirkaracha at 10:54 PM on November 22, 2019 [12 favorites]


Well you can see for yourself that Nunes was in Europe at the time in question

Under the curent Republican strategy Nunes is expendable. And Trump has to burn some more people soon.
posted by rhizome at 11:08 PM on November 22, 2019




Oh wow. These dipshits need to get their stories straight because as far as I can tell, "So what if we did, there's nothing wrong with it!" is working on a not insignificant segment of the populace. Nunes getting out the lawhammer because someone reported that maybe he might have been in on the totally above board perfectly legal and fine unimpeachable activities seems like a weird choice.
posted by soren_lorensen at 6:57 AM on November 23, 2019 [4 favorites]


Netanyahu's indictment exposes Trump, too, Newsday Opinion/Commentary by Ishaan Tharoor, The Washington Post, Updated November 22, 2019:
...Israel's attorney general dropped the long-awaited bombshell Thursday evening. In a news conference, Avichai Mandelblit announced formal charges against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on counts of bribery, fraud and breach of trust...

The decision makes Netanyahu, who has dominated his country's politics for close to two decades, the first Israeli prime minister to be indicted while still in office. And it takes Israel deep into uncharted territory: Netanyahu is vociferously resisting the charges, and the long, tangled legal process behind each case may take years to play out...

...The bribery case, the most serious one, is a scenario in which the evidence appears to show Netanyahu engaging in a corrupt quid pro quo to boost his own political fortunes. Sound familiar?

Netanyahu's indictment ought to unsettle President Donald Trump. Not only is a close Trump ally in legal jeopardy, but his situation echoes that of the American president, who has raged for days from the sidelines of the House's ongoing impeachment inquiry. What's happening in Washington is primarily a political, rather than a legal, process, but it also hinges on a similar allegation - that a top leader misused his authority for personal gain.

But neither Trump nor Netanyahu is calmly allowing government institutions to adjudicate on these alleged abuses of power. Instead, they are lashing out, demonizing the independent news media and their political opposition, while casting apolitical civil servants as pitchfork-wielding participants in "witch hunts" and distracting their nationalist supporters with fearmongering about minorities and immigrants. On Thursday, the Israeli prime minister described what was happening to him as a "coup" and called to "investigate the investigators," the kind of language that Trump has also frequently deployed.

"Their responses are so similar that one is tempted to assume that Trump and Netanyahu are advising each other or reading from the same 'How to get away with murder' spinoff playbook," wrote Haaretz columnist Chemi Shalev last month. "Circumstantial evidence shows that Netanyahu, for one, has certainly been inspired by Trump's no-holds-barred audacity. The prime minister's willingness to flout norms, ignore traditions and upend Israeli democracy would have been inconceivable had Trump not set a precedent and shown him the way."

Netanyahu is under no legal obligation to resign, retains significant support within his party's rank-and-file and may hope to convince more Israelis of the illegitimacy of the cases against him. Analysts fear the effect that may have on Israel's democratic institutions.
...
His situation underscores a new irony in Washington. Trump's Republican allies have rejected claims that the White House specifically withheld military aid to Ukraine to trigger an investigation in Kyiv of a possible political rival by insisting that the president was more broadly concerned about reports of Ukrainian corruption. Yet, Trump's track record shows little in the way of acting against perceived cultures of graft overseas, said Nancy Boswell, the former chief executive of Transparency International USA.

"In contrast, Trump and multiple Cabinet officials have expressed robust support for leaders of countries with endemic corruption and anti-democratic policies," Boswell wrote in The Washington Post. "Trump has embraced, among others, the anti-democratic leaders of Russia, Turkey and Egypt, and even said 'we fell in love' of the North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un." Add his close embrace of a norm-smashing, allegedly corrupt Netanyahu to the list.
...
[Jail] birds of a feather, sticking together.
posted by cenoxo at 7:22 AM on November 23, 2019 [9 favorites]


seems like a weird choice

the reflexive desire to punish inquiry (or criticism) is a GOP hallmark.

a fascist one too huh.
posted by One Thousand and One at 7:26 AM on November 23, 2019 [4 favorites]


I'm right now watching the late night shows from the last couple of days for some comic relief, and just speaking for myself the whole thing is just slowly sinking in. I'm someone who always saw Trump as a crook, and a Russian asset. I believe he has acted as a criminal since his earliest days as a "businessman", and because I'm an architect who once lived in NYC, I noticed back then. But I am still only beginning to phantom the extent of his crimes, just on this one case. This is just to say that for people who have been indifferent, or otherwise not paying attention, even deliberately not paying attention like Hurd, it might take some time before they can parse all of this new information.

The horrible Bret Stephens should have been paying attention, and this opinion piece does not redeem him, but it is interesting to read how the hearings have changed his mind.

The career diplomats were all amazing, sharp and very clear in their statements. I enjoyed every second. I reminded myself to improve my note-taking discipline. But in retrospect, Sondland was interesting because he so clearly had been advised by his council to put it all out now and not later. Which tells me that the legal opinion on this is that everyone is going to jail. Lawyers are not always right, some of them trend towards very careful. But we know from the Miller report proces that people who get themselves involved with Trump tend to get jail-time. And who knows if there is anyone left to pardon them in a year?

(I think Bolton is the same but different).

If I were the Republican leadership, I'd say this is the time to get Pence to resign and put in Romney or Huntsman as VP to be a placeholder in 2020. Maybe, Pence can avoid prosecution if he runs far away and hides in some local talk radio. Maybe the new Mormon President will pardon Pompeo, but I can't think of any of the others they will feel the need to protect (apart from those who put them in office).
posted by mumimor at 7:53 AM on November 23, 2019 [8 favorites]


I don’t think replacing Pence is an option for them. It requires Trump’s cooperation, and I don’t think it’s an accident that Pence is implicated up to his eyeballs. That’s part of Trump’s insurance policy. He knows that if he goes down, Pence goes down, and hence the Republican Party will defend them both at all costs rather than cede the Oval Office to the Dems. Why would Trump give that up?

That’s quite apart from the point I made a few days ago, where the 25th Amendment requires majority ratification from both chambers for the appointment of a new VP. I can’t imagine the Republicans wanting to rely on that happening in the House.
posted by notoriety public at 8:41 AM on November 23, 2019 [7 favorites]


Yeah, replacing Pence would be a huuuuge message implying guilt. Aside from Trump's ego, I don't think the party itself could ever defend it in a way that improves (or even maintains) their electoral chances.
posted by rhizome at 9:52 AM on November 23, 2019 [5 favorites]


I don’t think replacing Pence is an option for them. It requires Trump’s cooperation

It also requires Pelosi's; new VPs have to be approved by both chambers.
posted by GCU Sweet and Full of Grace at 10:43 AM on November 23, 2019 [1 favorite]


Pence could decide to resign on his own, though. Then he could testify if granted immunity.
posted by Gadgetenvy at 10:43 AM on November 23, 2019 [2 favorites]


I'm just thinking that suddenly the Republicans will be in a place where they have no choice. Right now we're still where no-one expects the Senate to convict the President. But things are moving so fast, that could be very different in a couple of weeks. Even now, the only "defense" they have is yelling and "investigating" Hunter Biden. They will always have the 27%, but when (not if) the support for Trump goes downhill, there will be a point where the Republicans will need to save what can be saved, regardless of costs. Your regular reminder of the slow movement of the Watergate inquiry. This is already going a lot faster than Watergate.
posted by mumimor at 10:58 AM on November 23, 2019 [16 favorites]


Well, the American Oversight FOIA Ukraine documents (thanks p3t3!) mention a scheduled call between Pompeo and Devin Nunes on April 1, 2019, so ... maybe there's some other info linking Nunes and Ukraine besides just Parnas's information.

I love this bit from the American Oversight page:
That American Oversight could obtain these documents establishes that there is no legal basis for the administration to withhold them from Congress. That conclusively shows that the administration is engaged in obstruction of justice. The president and his allies should ask themselves if impeachment for obstruction is worth it if the strategy isn’t even going to be effective.
posted by kristi at 11:40 AM on November 23, 2019 [24 favorites]


I'm skeptical of the Rs willingness to ever act on anything - no matter how cut-and-dried the white house offense. Ezra Klein goes into this at length in the most recent Impeachment Explained podcast episode. To paraphrase Klein: there is simply too much power at stake for Rs to adopt a principled approach. I agree - no matter the offense or evidence or even public opinion - they'll stand by the autocrat. Even the 5th avenue hypothesis.

Opinion: of all the billion impeachment podcasts, I think the vox one above and wnyc's are doing the best work.
posted by j_curiouser at 11:46 AM on November 23, 2019 [4 favorites]




Every mention of Nunes gives me a tiny spike in blood pressure. I'm *still* mad that he got re-elected in 2018! In the end it came down to just outspending his D opponent (shout out to Andrew Janz who got 47.3% of the vote). Nunes raised (and spent) most of $12 million dollars to keep the seat versus Janz's $9 million. [from Open Secrets]
Janz did really well considering the history of the district, but for some reason has decided to run for mayor of Fresno in 2020 (largest city in CA-22).
Point being, a new challenger has appeared! Phil Arballo. And it looks like Phil is hoping for the same kind of "impeachment bump" that Tedra Cobb experienced after Elise Stefanik decided to hop on the Trump train with both feet on national TV. I'm sending Phil a small donation and I encourage others to channel their rage in a similar fashion.
posted by ButteryMales at 12:32 PM on November 23, 2019 [7 favorites]


Hey, without the 2018 elections giving the house to the dems, the whistleblower complaint would have landed on Nunes desk and gone nowhere. Hopefully he'll be a convicted felon by the time of the next election, everything points to him being guilty AF of cooking up Biden smoke. Really want to know about that meeting with Shokin.
posted by adept256 at 12:47 PM on November 23, 2019 [12 favorites]


Rudy is clarifying his "insurance".
TRUTH ALERT:

The statement I’ve made several times of having an insurance policy, if thrown under bus, is sarcastic & relates to the files in my safe about the Biden Family’s 4 decade monetizing of his office.

If I disappear, it will appear immediately along with my RICO chart.
My question is, why do Rudy and his goons need to bum around Ukraine if Rudy already has four decades worth of dirt?
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 2:34 PM on November 23, 2019 [23 favorites]


My question is, why do Rudy and his goons need to bum around Ukraine if Rudy already has four decades worth of dirt?
Yeah, that's just BS. I hope Biden isn't the D nominee, but all of these sleazy attacks are disgusting and also worthless. He was never a grifter.
Rudy's insurance is far more interesting and Trump knows it.
posted by mumimor at 2:41 PM on November 23, 2019 [7 favorites]


Yeah, my impression is that Rudy is floating this "Biden dirt" as a wink to his Republican colleagues that he has actual dirt on them, if anything goes south for him.
posted by biddeford at 2:49 PM on November 23, 2019 [6 favorites]


It's the Republicans' biggest impeachment lie, and Americans could fall for it (Daley Gruen, Salon)
Trump did not fail to extort the Ukrainians — he got caught in the act. This distinction is incredibly important
posted by ZeusHumms at 3:07 PM on November 23, 2019 [35 favorites]


> Justice Dept. watchdog finds political bias did not taint top officials running the FBI’s Russia probe but documents other errors (WaPo) [...] Russia Inquiry Review Is Said to Criticize F.B.I. but Rebuff Claims of Biased Acts (NYT)

Trump says FBI tried to 'overthrow the presidency' (Guardian)
On Friday night, he duly seized on news reports that an FBI lawyer is suspected of altering a document related to surveillance of former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page, alleging the FBI tried to “overthrow the presidency”. [...]

The New York Times and the Washington Post have reported that the investigation is expected to find mistakes by lower-level officials within the FBI but will not accuse senior leaders of being motivated by political bias.

The allegation against the lawyer was first reported by CNN. The Post subsequently reported that the conduct of the FBI employee did not alter Horowitz’s finding that the surveillance application of Page had a proper legal and factual basis, though the lawyer was forced out.
posted by katra at 3:24 PM on November 23, 2019 [4 favorites]


Top Dem says ethics investigation into Devin Nunes likely (Politico)
The top Democrat on the House armed services committee said Saturday that Republican Rep. Devin Nunes is likely to face an ethics investigation over allegations he met with an ex-Ukrainian prosecutor at the center of the impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump.

“Quite likely, without question,” House Armed Services Committee chairman Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash) said when asked by MSNBC’s Joy Reid whether Nunes (R-Calif.), the House Intelligence Committee’s top Republican and a longtime Trump ally, could be investigated. [...] “I understand a lot of this is about Joe Biden but the bigger thing is about what President Trump and the Russians and all these people have been doing ... is a systematic problem that is a threat to the country because of what Russia is doing to democracy,” Smith said. [...]

Giuliani came to Nunes' defense Saturday, claiming that while Nunes never met with Shokin, "there would have been nothing wrong" with a meeting between the two. "I would have heard of it if he would have," Giuliani said during a Fox News interview. The former New York City mayor also chided Parnas for his assertions about the meetings when asked about CNN's reporting, comparing his former client to Michael Cohen, the president's disgraced and imprisoned former personal lawyer. "Poor Lev. I don't know what he's doing to himself," Giuliani said. "I feel sorry for him."
posted by katra at 3:29 PM on November 23, 2019 [11 favorites]


The Proper Recipients For Lev Parnas' Allegations Are The Ethics Committee and SDNY (Marcy Wheeler, emptywheel)
The story has generated a lot of excitement among the left, with people calling to give Parnas’ attorneys exactly what they’re looking for, a date with HPSCI.

That would be a mistake.

I say that for several reasons. First, this is part of a larger disinformation campaign, in which Parnas is a key player. He is legally fucked and has little downside to share just part of his information, while leaving the key bits (such as who is behind the larger campaign) obscured. His lawyers no doubt want to wring immunity from HPSCI to screw up the SDNY case.

But thus far, particularly given HPSCI’s narrow focus, Parnas’ story doesn’t help the impeachment case much. Moreover, it risks inserting disinformation into a thoroughly credible story of corruption. More importantly, it would make most Republicans even more defensive, as members of HPSCI came under scrutiny, making it less likely rather than more they’d support impeachment.

Finally, Schiff has gotten nowhere with his demands for the documentary backup to these stories. Thus, HPSCI would be at a distinct disadvantage in trying to suss out what was true and bullshit in Parnas’ claims (in the same way that both HPSCI and SSCI did not have the key details on Don Jr’s involvement in 2016 events, which is why he would meet with them but not Mueller).

The proper place in Congress for these allegations is the Ethics Committee. Schiff has the ability to ask all three staffers and Nunes to step down from the committee until such issues are adjudicated, where they would be pursued in private, tamping down the polarizing aspect of this. And, too, these allegations also belong in FBI, where they already are, with investigators whose subpoena power actually works. Anything that would undercut that effort would backfire in the long run.
posted by katra at 3:40 PM on November 23, 2019 [11 favorites]


My question is, why do Rudy and his goons need to bum around Ukraine if Rudy already has four decades worth of dirt?

Fascinating!

So did Rudy just recently come into this 4 decades of dirt or has he been collecting it over 4 decades during which he was an elected official and and an Attorney General?

Why sit on it now or then? Only blackmailers would do that.
posted by srboisvert at 3:43 PM on November 23, 2019 [18 favorites]


"On Friday night, [Trump] duly seized on news reports that an FBI lawyer is suspected of altering a document related to surveillance of former Trump campaign advisor Carter Page, alleging the FBI tried to “overthrow the presidency."

This presumes the alteration was made to the detriment of the Trump camp.

Also: "[A] Trump campaign spokesman denied that Page had ever been part of the campaign.

“Mr. Page is not an advisor and has made no contribution to the campaign,” the campaign’s communications director Jason Miller said in an email to The Hill. “I've never spoken to him, and wouldn't recognize him if he were sitting next to me.”

Presented with a statement from a campaign spokesperson in August that characterized Page as an “informal adviser,” albeit one who “does not speak for Mr. Trump or the campaign,” Miller doubled down.

“He’s never been a part of our campaign. Period,” he said.

Another spokesman, Steven Cheung, said Page “has no role” in the campaign."
posted by bz at 4:15 PM on November 23, 2019 [5 favorites]


the files in my safe about the Biden Family’s 4 decade monetizing of his office.

One thing you can say for sure about Joe Biden is that he has never "monetized" his office. He has been long known as one of the "poorest" members in congress (in relative terms). He has disclosures going back decades. He has lived only on his own and his wife's salaries. No big real estate deals. No company ownership.

When Biden's son Beau got brain cancer in 2015, Biden was close to selling his own Wilmington home to help out Beau's family, but Obama talked him out of it, offering to loan him the money. This is not a guy with a lot of resources.

When he left office in 2017, his financial disclosure showed him to have a net worth near zero. Both Sanders and Warren are much wealthier than Biden. However since then he has brought in a couple of million dollars on speaking fees and book tours. But monetizing while in office -- nope.

Giuliani is the guy who has been raking in millions dealing with every gangster in Ukraine, Turkey, Romania, Iran, Central and South America. Giuliani is shameless.
posted by JackFlash at 4:26 PM on November 23, 2019 [71 favorites]


That's incredible. So Biden spearheaded student loan bankruptcy reform in 1992 or whenever out of sheer malice?
posted by hobo gitano de queretaro at 5:27 PM on November 23, 2019 [5 favorites]


Mod note: Psst, impeachment.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 6:01 PM on November 23, 2019 [16 favorites]


Both Sanders and Warren are much wealthier than Biden.

I know we've just been admonished, but just so there's no error lingering, according to Business Insider, at the present moment, the net worths of Buttigieg, Sanders, Biden and Warren are $100K, $2.5 million, $9 million, and $12 million, respectively, with both Biden and Sanders having earned the vast majority of their wealth from book and speaker fees since 2016.
posted by chortly at 7:24 PM on November 23, 2019 [5 favorites]


Trump opens up Camp David as an ‘adult playground’ to woo GOP lawmakers during impeachment (MSN) (Seung Min Kim, Rachael Bade, Josh Dawsey; WaPo)
The systematic courting may prove to be one pivotal factor if Republican lawmakers continue to rally behind Trump, who is almost certain to become the third U.S. president in history to become impeached by the House in the coming weeks. The idea, at least for the Camp David getaways, is to make Republicans feel as if they are part of Trump’s family — and make it more difficult for them to vote in favor of impeaching him.

The administration-wide effort to court Republicans was described by 20 lawmakers, administration officials, congressional aides and others familiar with the endeavor.

In all, Trump has met with or reached out personally to 100 GOP members of the House since the impeachment inquiry was launched, and 50 of the 53 Senate Republicans have attended a White House lunch — where chicken is often served — with the president. More than 40 House Republicans, from moderates to conservatives, have made the visit to Camp David at the invitation of Mulvaney and the legislative affairs team — who have invited groups of about 10 for overnight stays.

The wooing appears to be working, particularly the Camp David effort.
There are other aspects to this, but I was reminded of the Lincoln bedroom controversy.
posted by ZeusHumms at 7:45 PM on November 23, 2019 [9 favorites]


Aside from it being gross to sell out democracy for a Camp David vacay, I'm 100% certain that place is bugged floor to ceiling.
posted by adept256 at 7:52 PM on November 23, 2019 [11 favorites]


Trump Privately Frets ‘What’s Going on With Drudge?’ During Impeachment, Asks Jared Kushner to ‘Look Into It’ (Asawin Suebsaeng, Daily Beast)
"One of the most powerful media organs in the conservative movement hasn’t been kind to the president during impeachment. He’s noticed."

The fact that the president himself hasn’t yet taken to Twitter to bash Drudge in recent weeks may also have something to do with his general assessment of— and, at times, begrudging respect for—how Drudge operates, according to people who’ve spoken to Trump about the website and its famously reclusive creator.

“[Trump] understands his influence; knows he can be a little mercurial, though, and prone to stir the pot,” said a former senior White House official. “He also knows Drudge isn’t able to be bullied. [Matt] doesn’t owe his career to anyone…[and] can’t be moved the way others can because he’s not afraid—not just of Trump but in general.”

Through it all, the president remains an avid Drudge reader. But since Trump doesn’t regularly visit or browse websites on a computer himself, he relies heavily on White House staff to include printouts of Drudge headlines and the homepage in his daily packages of printed articles and media clips.
posted by ZeusHumms at 8:03 PM on November 23, 2019 [5 favorites]


None of us would mind if they just torched the big orange man at the end of the retreat...
posted by PhineasGage at 8:03 PM on November 23, 2019 [4 favorites]


Trump doesn't seem to go to Camp David himself; he just calls in to compliment guests while the retreats are hosted by senior White House staff.
posted by ZeusHumms at 8:07 PM on November 23, 2019 [1 favorite]


If Trump wants the Senators to like him, he should probably avoid treating them like family.
posted by orange ball at 8:25 PM on November 23, 2019


During the Camp David retreats, maybe the R Senators get to piss on a bed the Obama's once slept in.

Then Mulvaney shows them the hacked RNC and NRA emails involving them in felonies.
posted by benzenedream at 8:36 PM on November 23, 2019 [3 favorites]




"In the spring of 2017, following the president accusation that Trump had been wiretapped by the previous administration, Nunes held a series of unusual press conferences in which he expressed concern over improper “unmasking” of Trump transition officials. After reporters discovered that Nunes had received from the White House the “unmasking” information on which he claimed to have briefed the president, Democrats and watchdogs organizations raised concerns over Nunes’s leadership that forced him to informally recuse himself from the House intelligence committee’s Russia investigation. Nunes recused himself from the HPSCI probe pending a House ethics investigation, which cleared him in December 2017." (Lawfare blog Nunes timeline, February 2, 2018)

Then Nunes came back swinging in January 2018, with that memo alleging "government abuses of surveillance authority" -- attacking the FBI, pissing off Schiff/House Dems/the DOJ, and propping up Trump's paranoia. His combativeness (incl. the whistleblower obsession) during the current hearings is obscene... yet Pelosi hasn't removed him from the House Intelligence Committee. Nunes was on that transition team, and he's carried Trump's water for years. He may believe he's untouchable.
posted by Iris Gambol at 12:17 AM on November 24, 2019 [7 favorites]


Lev Parnas’s attorney has told me that his client would not be making these claims if he didn’t have text messages and other such evidence to back them up.

Fraud Guarantee, indeed.
posted by Rykey at 4:00 AM on November 24, 2019 [2 favorites]


Someone took a screencap of competing chirons on the news channels:

CNN: Sondland: yes, there was a quid pro quo

FOX: Sondland: no, there was no quid pro quo


what are we going to do about fox news
posted by adept256 at 5:31 AM on November 24, 2019 [38 favorites]


My question is, why do Rudy and his goons need to bum around Ukraine if Rudy already has four decades worth of dirt?

More importantly, since when would Giuliani just sit on incriminating evidence instead of leak it?

what are we going to do about fox news

Boycott every sponsor.
posted by Gelatin at 5:34 AM on November 24, 2019 [14 favorites]


Boycott every sponsor.

Pretty sure we can’t effectively boycott the Russian government.
posted by notoriety public at 7:59 AM on November 24, 2019 [14 favorites]


More importantly, since when would Giuliani just sit on [forty years of] incriminating evidence instead of leak it?

Even more importantly Rudy was United States Associate Attorney General from 1981 to 1983. and then United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York until 1989. Why was he sitting on a bunch of incriminating evidence? And did he get it in a way that privilege would be attached?
posted by Mitheral at 8:12 AM on November 24, 2019 [7 favorites]


The only possible answer is that Giuliani has secretly been in cahoots with the Bidens this entire time.
posted by Faint of Butt at 8:21 AM on November 24, 2019 [3 favorites]


“I have a cunning plan, m’lud...”
posted by Huffy Puffy at 8:55 AM on November 24, 2019 [4 favorites]


I'm shocked—shocked!—to find that Bidening is going on in here!
posted by kirkaracha at 9:14 AM on November 24, 2019


In trying to figure Giuliani's plan that "the Biden information in my safe is my insurance policy" against being thrown under the bus by Trump. The only way it makes sense (yeah, I know) is if it's forty boring years of Biden being a straight arrow which would be a terrible embarrassment to Trump if Giuliani revealed it.
posted by JackFlash at 9:48 AM on November 24, 2019 [5 favorites]


The Corrupt Orange Toddler's enablers and henchmen continue their campaign to sow FUD:
"Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) reiterated a debunked conspiracy theory on 'Fox News Sunday' that Ukraine may have interfered in the 2016 presidential election by hacking the Democratic National Committee's computer servers, despite consensus in the U.S. intelligence community that Russia was responsible for the attacks."
posted by PhineasGage at 9:48 AM on November 24, 2019 [3 favorites]


When one "reiterates a debunked conspiracy theory" or the like, one admits that lies work for one's position better than the truth.

Democrats, liberals, and journalists should never stop pointing that fact out. Or at least start.
posted by Gelatin at 9:56 AM on November 24, 2019 [16 favorites]


Or better yet, call "debunked conspiracy theory" what it really is, "known disinformation from Russian intelligence services".
posted by bcd at 9:59 AM on November 24, 2019 [18 favorites]


Or even better, just "Russian propaganda."
posted by Gelatin at 10:02 AM on November 24, 2019 [36 favorites]


What has our republiic come to when we are likely going to need Chris Wallace to be the one to voice this era's "Have you no sense of decency" moment, which even then has only a slim chance of changing our authoritarian trajectory...
posted by PhineasGage at 10:03 AM on November 24, 2019 [1 favorite]


The Biden information is Giuliani's insurance with Putin. Putin's disfavor is why Trump is in hot water and these impeachment hearings exist; he would like Biden to be the Democratic candidate in 2020, and here Trump is gumming up the works again by going overboard with the Ukraine business. Putin's fine with useful idiots, until those idiots start plotting for themselves.
posted by Iris Gambol at 10:09 AM on November 24, 2019


> Trump says FBI tried to 'overthrow the presidency' (Guardian)

Time to call out and remove Putin’s propagandists (Jennifer Rubin, WaPo Opinion)
In the case of Trump, he not only picks up the propaganda from domestic sources carrying Russian President Vladimir Putin’s water, which “worked its way into American information ecosystems, sloshing around until parts of it reached Mr. Trump”; he was duped right from the source speaking “with Mr. Putin about allegations of Ukrainian interference.” Whether the president is being blackmailed is unknown; what we do know is that he is a malleable puppet whose strings are pulled in the Kremlin. [...]

The Post reports that a forthcoming inspector general’s report will affirm that the FISA application submitted for surveillance of Carter Page “had a proper legal and factual basis, and, more broadly, that FBI officials did not act improperly in opening the Russia investigation,” although a low-level employee “inappropriately altered a document that was used during the process" to renew a FISA warrant. In other words: Russia did it. Period. [...]

Republicans must bear full responsibility for raising a specious defense of Trump that aids Russia, and the president should be held responsible for his inability to defend our national security by virtue of his susceptibility to Russian propaganda. The former, presumably, have not lost their powers of reason, and therefore, must be denounced and voted out of office for perpetuating known propaganda from a hostile power. As for Trump, there are plenty of grounds for impeachment, but let’s not forget a big one: He is intellectually incapable of recognizing reality. He cannot carry out the responsibilities of commander in chief.
posted by katra at 10:19 AM on November 24, 2019 [20 favorites]


yes. this impeachment has certainly spread the biden slanders far broader and deeper than an announcement about investigations by a foreign head of state might have. don't mistake that the bribery extortion have failed: it turns out the president of ukraine got the meeting and aid he wanted (or was required by law to receive) and the president of the united states got to have biden widely slandered, at a magnitude far beyond what he could have hoped to achieve with ukraine and cnn. quid and quo.

i don't think rudy's television statements (ever) merit our serious attention. but they need not make sense so long as they a) grab headlines b) allude to mob-speak insurance policies (for the headlines as well as any hypothetical rube out there who may think rudy's talking to him) and c) flog the biden slander.

i have told that "anecdatum" person that i don't engage on the possible factual corruption of a or some bidens affirmative defense because it is a rhetorical feint, not germane to the topics of the charged abuses of the president's authority (and because i have reason to doubt the veracity of facts i've heard asserted by both biden-detractors and biden-defenders (and so don't know where to idly find reliable information), and, being irrelevant is not worth chasing down, and because "the risk of the appearance of a conflict of interest" of one politician is uninteresting amid a sea of similarly-conflicted (or worse) politicians and civil servants and regulators and captains of industry, etc: why him why now?). but the more we talk about it, and the more rudy links it to things that sound like newsworthy claims, making us talk about it, the more it ascends in relevance, politically if not in actual legal fact. hell: i just read a bunch of foia'd john solomon articles among germane evidence i'd never have otherwise seen.

on edit: it's "...but clinton!" incorporated by reference and propelled into the future.
posted by 20 year lurk at 10:24 AM on November 24, 2019 [3 favorites]


speaking of quid & quo, though: that other guy, putin, gets to watch both the abasement of ukraine to the debased u.s. government and the ongoing degradation of both, in the eyes of the public as among the community of nations, who consider that he may be the puppetmaster behind it all.
posted by 20 year lurk at 10:37 AM on November 24, 2019 [1 favorite]


Trump impeachment: Schiff calls on Bolton to testify and slams Republicans (Guardian)
House intelligence committee chairman Adam Schiff blasted former national security adviser John Bolton on Sunday, for failing to appear for testimony in the impeachment inquiry while teasing a forthcoming memoir. Bolton “wanted to wait for a book instead of telling the American people what he knew”, Schiff told CNN’s State of the Union, drawing a contrast between Bolton and his former deputy, Fiona Hill, who appeared before the committee on Thursday.

“The obligation right now to show the courage Dr Hill did,” Schiff said. “She made the decision that this is the right thing to do. John Bolton should make the same decision.” [...] While he said he would prefer for witnesses such as Bolton and secretary of state Mike Pompeo to answer the committee’s questions, Schiff warned that moving the impeachment process forward was “urgent”, in order to prevent Trump tampering in the 2020 election. [...] The intelligence committee is working on a report it is expected to submit to the judiciary committee in early December, although the report could have “addenda”, Schiff said. “We don’t foreclose the possibility of more depositions or hearings,” he said. “We are in the process of getting more records.”

[...] On NBC’s Meet the Press, Schiff said: “I mean they seem to be saying, ‘Unless Donald Trump writes out ‘I bribed Ukraine’, the evidence will be insufficient.” “Are we prepared to say that soliciting foreign interference, conditioning official acts... to get political favors is somehow now compatible with the office?” he continued. “Are we also prepared to say that Congress will tolerate the complete stonewalling of an impeachment hearing or process? Because if we do it will mean that the impeachment clause is a complete nullity.” Schiff said a party-line vote on impeachment was a possibility: “I think it will mean a failure by the GOP to put the country above their party and it will have very long-term consequences if that’s where we end up.”
posted by katra at 11:34 AM on November 24, 2019 [12 favorites]


Rudy talking about “insurance” is the political equivalent of shitposting. He says it to work reporters into a lather and the more they report on it, speculating on the nature of his “insurance” and put effort into figuring it out, the more enjoyment he derives from their gullibility.

As with everything the GOP says these days, the point is not to make statements that are truthful. The point is to make statements that get repeated.
posted by Big Al 8000 at 12:28 PM on November 24, 2019 [36 favorites]


Niklas Luhmann argued that we should see social structures as communications of communications. This allows you to better recognise their agency and relative autonomy. When you see the power of repetition, you see some of his point. The Germans and I think the Russians are well up on this. The US and the Anglosphere, not so much.
posted by stonepharisee at 1:11 PM on November 24, 2019 [3 favorites]


Howdy Doody Rudy has known Dotard for decades. I would imagine he has all kinds of dirt on Donny from his days as a prosecutor in NYC. His 'insurance' probably has little or nothing to do with Biden.
posted by pee tape at 1:51 PM on November 24, 2019 [10 favorites]


I imagine that Putin has insurance or kompromat on everyone.
posted by ZeusHumms at 2:10 PM on November 24, 2019 [2 favorites]


From Putin's perspective of the Ukraine fiasco:

1) Trump is weaker, the State department looks weak as shit, US looks completely untrustworthy as a military ally
2) Propaganda about Biden got spread far and wide
3) Zelensky's reformer government can now be called out as cowards and willing to generate falsehoods for payback
4) Military aid got delayed, but not fully blocked.

All of this at Trump's direction and it just so happens that every foreign policy decision he has made has benefited Putin. Huh. I guess he must be easily duped on Twitter!
posted by benzenedream at 2:58 PM on November 24, 2019 [25 favorites]


White House review turns up emails showing extensive effort to justify Trump’s decision to block Ukraine military aid (WaPo)
A confidential White House review of President Trump’s decision to place a hold on military aid to Ukraine has turned up hundreds of documents that reveal extensive efforts to generate an after-the-fact justification for the decision and a debate over whether the delay was legal, according to three people familiar with the records.

The research by the White House Counsel’s Office, which was triggered by a congressional impeachment inquiry announced in September, includes early August email exchanges between acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney and White House budget officials seeking to provide an explanation for withholding the funds after President Trump had already ordered a hold in mid-July on the nearly $400 million in security assistance, according to the three people familiar with the matter who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal White House deliberations.

One person briefed on the records examination said White House lawyers are expressing concern that the review has turned up some unflattering exchanges and facts that could at a minimum embarrass the president. It’s unclear if the Mulvaney discussions or other records pose any legal problems for Trump in the impeachment inquiry, but some fear they could pose political problems if revealed publicly. [...] The document research has only exacerbated growing tension between [White House Counsel Pat] Cipollone and Mulvaney and their offices, with Cipollone tightly controlling access to his findings, and Mulvaney’s aides complaining Cipollone isn’t briefing other White House officials or sharing important material they need to respond to public inquiries, according to people familiar with their relationship. [...]

Also included in the review are email conversations between OMB and State Department officials and others discussing why the White House was holding up nearly $400 million in military aid and whether the hold might violate the law, one person said. In December 2018, months before the Ukraine issue surfaced as a top priority for the president, the Government Accountability Office had warned OMB it was not following the law in how it chose to disburse and withhold congressionally-approved funds.

Cipollone has told House impeachment investigators that the White House will not cooperate in with the inquiry in any way, including by greenlighting witnesses or turning over documents.
posted by katra at 3:01 PM on November 24, 2019 [22 favorites]


NEW: The House Intelligence Committee is in possession of audio and video recordings and photographs from Giuliani associate Lev Parnas.

The recordings & photos reportedly include Giuliani and Trump. Other materials are already in possession of SDNY. < ABCNews
posted by Harry Caul at 3:30 PM on November 24, 2019 [44 favorites]


it turns out the president of ukraine got the meeting and aid he wanted (or was required by law to receive)

Unfortunately, Pentagon confirms $35 million in aid still being withheld from Ukraine despite impeachment inquiry (Salon, Nov. 20, 2019): Lt. Col. Carla Gleason, a spokesperson for the Pentagon, confirmed to the LA Times that $35.2 million in aid had yet to be distributed to Ukraine but declined to provide an explanation for the delay. She said the money will be transmitted to Ukraine "over the next several weeks."
posted by Iris Gambol at 4:08 PM on November 24, 2019 [7 favorites]


I imagine that Putin has insurance or kompromat on everyone.

or as the KGB guy puts it in Chernobyl (the miniseries) -- Circles of Accountability.
posted by philip-random at 4:21 PM on November 24, 2019 [1 favorite]


it turns out the president of ukraine got the meeting and aid he wanted

No, Zelensky still has not gotten the meeting at the White House he requested. He only had a little side press conference at the UN in New York.

Zelensky wanted a formal meeting at the White House as a sign to Putin that the U.S. is fully backing Ukraine in its independence from Russia. Zelensky is still waiting for that recognition and Trump is still signalling his loyalty to Putin. Trump's actions are weakening Zelensky's political position domestically, which is just fine for Trump since Zelensky hasn't delivered like his defeated predecessor promised.
posted by JackFlash at 4:54 PM on November 24, 2019 [19 favorites]


That press event at the UN looked like a total shitshow. Zelensky said there was no pressure while his eyes screamed, “I can’t handle the fucking pressure this guy is putting on me.” And Trump encouraged Zelensky to make peace with Putin while his eyes said, “I can’t wait to build a shiny hotel in Kiev once you’re back to being a client state of Russia.”
posted by Big Al 8000 at 5:15 PM on November 24, 2019 [5 favorites]


On Friday, a former AUSA wrote to Josh Marshall at TPM and began his email with this:
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.
He argues that litigating these, which would go all the way to SCOTUS, would take months, well into 2020. It's not clear how the court would rule or what Chief Justice Robert's position would be as the justices work out the ruling. It could go either way, but Roberts would in the end be the deciding factor. In my opinion, an expansive reading of executive privilege favoring the admin would be transparently indefensible but it's all such inside baseball and the general public so uninformed that Roberts would get away with it as far as public opinion is concerned.

On the other hand, if Trump is impeached and it goes to trial in the Senate, two critical facts will be in play: the House managers can subpoena anyone, and Chief Justice Roberts will be the Presiding Officer who adjudicates any objection to a subpoena, unless he refers it to the full Senate. Keep in mind that this would be regarding testimony by people already on record personally involved in the misdeeds of the impeachment in the context of an actual Senate trial closely watched by, well, everyone. I don't think all the GOP senators would vote to block such testimony -- and so by that dual-edged blade of public ignorance, this argument would be easily and widely understood and why wouldn't these people testify in something so historically important and where their testimony is clearly crucial?

By the same token, I don't think Roberts would defer this question to the full Senate because it seems like a common sense judgment for a judge to make, and in favor of the testimony for the reasons I just described. And in that context, he'd just look like an impartial judge ruling on an important matter and his reputation even among conservatives would probably survive it.

Regardless, if the House impeaches Trump, a Senate trial must begin before February.

In both cases -- litigating this now or leaving it be and moving right on to a vote on impeachment -- Roberts will end up being the deciding factor. The difference is that in the former, it will take much longer and be more obfuscated, while in the latter it will be quite soon and as highly visible as one can imagine.

Josh Marshall, as he says in that link, was initially a bit skeptical that this explains Schiff's strategy. But as he thought about it, he found it very persuasive.

So now it's Sunday and Schiff has appeared on the big Sunday morning political shows.

On State of the Union, Jake Tapper asks Schiff:
TAPPER: What about the idea — I have heard this legal theory posited [...] as to why you’re doing it that way. Is there any merit to that?

SCHIFF: Well, I think there’s certainly merit to the idea that we may get a quicker ruling from a chief justice in a Senate trial, if it ever came to that, than we would get by going months and months on end litigating the matter.
Then on Meet the Press with Chuck Todd:
CHUCK TODD: And one last thing, on the Senate trial, is one of the reasons you’re not going to fight to try to — in the courts right now for Bolton is that you believe – -there’s this theory that’s been on, I think, Talking Points Memo, a liberal news organization, Josh Marshall. There’s a legal theory running around that it’s a lot easier to get the Chief Justice to compel John Bolton to testify at a Senate trial than it would be waiting around to get him to Congress. Do you buy into that theory?

REP. ADAM SCHIFF: I think that may very well be true. Now, people like John Bolton, whose deputies had the courage to come in and testify, are going to have to answer one day why they saved what they knew for a book rather than tell the country when the country needed to know. But I do think that when it comes to documents and witnesses, that if it comes to a trial, and again we’re getting far down the road here, that the Chief Justice will have to make a decision on requests for witnesses and documents.
This has been very interesting and a bit exciting to see play out. Over almost twenty years, Josh has cultivated email correspondence with readers which has blossomed into a whole bunch of expert and insider info and opinion sent his way. I've particularly noticed lots of AUSA's, though there's no way to know if it's a few or many. But between this sort of thing and TPM hiring reporters like Josh Kovensky -- who happened to have previously been reporting for several years in Ukraine and has broken several stories and provided huge amounts of informed context -- it's another place like MeFi that I happily support monetarily even though I have few resources.posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 5:29 PM on November 24, 2019 [36 favorites]


Fascinating. Won’t the Senate itself vote on the rules of the proceedings and thereby have some say in who can and may be called to testify?
posted by notyou at 5:43 PM on November 24, 2019


While I think Schiff's strategy is fairly sound, let's not forget that the Senate can overrule the Chief Justice on these questions. And they've shown themselves craven enough to do so.
posted by suelac at 6:08 PM on November 24, 2019 [4 favorites]


What would compel the republican senate to call these witnesses in a trial? Couldn’t they just push some BS concern about national security? Limit it to written questions? I’m certain they can come up with some lame justification to shut it down, leave the Democrats squawking and make themselves look clever to their base....and the low info “undecideds“ that half follow the game.

While the Democrats have the football, I think they need to keep throwing as many lateral passes as they can.
posted by bonobothegreat at 6:16 PM on November 24, 2019 [1 favorite]


"Won’t the Senate itself vote on the rules of the proceedings and thereby have some say in who can and may be called to testify?"

Yes, but it would be highly irregular and controversial if the GOP majority changed the rules to protect a GOP president in an impeachment trial. McConnell has already resisted the pressure to just have an immediate preemptive vote if it comes to trial. I don't think you get enough Republicans to go along with such an obviously rigged rule change.

"While I think Schiff's strategy is fairly sound, let's not forget that the Senate can overrule the Chief Justice on these questions."

That's true, but these would be extraordinary circumstances. Also, Pence doesn't get a vote. As I argued, it's really absurd to argue that these people shouldn't be called as witnesses in an impeachment trial. They're first-hand witnesses to the events in question. It's absurd to argue that blanket executive privilege would apply to prevent witnesses from testifying in an impeachment trial against the executive. I don't think Roberts would dare make that ruling during trial or that enough Republicans would. Their margin is slim -- again Pence doesn't come into play in those proceedings (for obvious reasons, I'm sure).

"What would compel the republican senate to call these witnesses in a trial?"

They wouldn't. It's the House of Representatives which will have voted to impeach and their appointed House Manager will act as the prosecution and call prosecution witnesses in a Senate trial. As the House is controlled by the Democratic Party, the Republicans wouldn't be able to prevent this. Unless the Senate changes the rules, as discussed above.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 7:02 PM on November 24, 2019 [13 favorites]


> Yes, but it would be highly irregular and controversial if the GOP majority changed the rules to protect a GOP president in an impeachment trial. McConnell has already resisted the pressure to just have an immediate preemptive vote if it comes to trial. I don't think you get enough Republicans to go along with such an obviously rigged rule change.

You're absolutely right that this would be highly irregular and controversial. So much so that I think that SCOTUS would have to weigh in, and who knows what could happen there with Merrick Garland as the swing vote.
posted by tonycpsu at 7:16 PM on November 24, 2019 [13 favorites]


It's useful to distinguish between what Schiff has called a"friendly" subpoena and a "hostile" subpoena. What all of the government witnesses so far have done is have their lawyers confer with the House lawyers and agree that if a subpoena is issued, they are willing to testify. That is a "friendly" subpoena. Since these are government employees who have received an order from Trump not to testify, the subpoena gives them legal cover for defying his order.

Schiff was hoping for the same from Bolton and his colleague Kupperman, doing the patriotic duty. But what Kupperman did as soon as he received his subpoena is he ran to a federal judge and said "you have to decide if I should agree to this subpoena." -- a "hostile" subpoena. What this does is give him instant immunity from the House. No one can ask him to testify until the judge, all of the appeals courts and the Supreme Court agrees, many months from now.

Schiff realized this error and tried to rescind the Kupperman subpoena, but the judge refused. It's going all the way up the court system before Kupperman testifies.

So Bolton has been practically begging Schiff to subpoena him too, because he wants the same temporary immunity from testifying so he can do his book deal. If he gets the subpoena and goes to a judge, Bolton has public relations cover -- "I would love to testify, but of course this pesky judge won't let me until he and all the other courts make up their minds."

Instead, Schiff is not falling for the scheme. By not issuing a subpoena he's leaving Bolton without an excuse for not testifying and shaming him in public for it. He's not even a government employee so Trump can't give him orders. Bolton is simply not testifying because he is putting his personal interests above his duty to the Constitution.
posted by JackFlash at 7:29 PM on November 24, 2019 [58 favorites]


While I think Schiff's strategy is fairly sound, let's not forget that the Senate can overrule the Chief Justice on these questions. And they've shown themselves craven enough to do so.

Craven for sure, but would they vote to overturn the Chief Justice ruling that, for instance, Giuliani has to testify for non-privileged conversations with POTUS under the “crime–fraud exception”?
posted by stopgap at 9:22 PM on November 24, 2019 [1 favorite]


Craven for sure, but would they vote to overturn the Chief Justice ruling...

I'm pessimistic that the sen Rs will allow *anything* to occur that jeopardizes a full acquittal. We'll see rule changes, parliamentary hijinx, votes overruling the CJ, and fresh surprises. And I am still *very* curious about how handling subpoena-deniers will go.

Has anyone authoritative put together an impeachment trial primer or faq?
posted by j_curiouser at 9:41 PM on November 24, 2019 [6 favorites]




I don't understand the move

As I understand it, Roberts is running the Senate impeachment trial. If he doesn't call Bolton to question him, Roberts will look like a political hack. If the Republicans over-rule him, they will look like lawless political hacks.

This strategy has more teeth than one might think. Robert's job is to protect the legitimacy of his Supreme Court. It really does hang in the balance, and it really is probably more important to him than anything else. Republicans may, and should, be nervous about overriding a decision of Roberts.
posted by xammerboy at 10:31 PM on November 24, 2019 [4 favorites]




Pretty sure we can’t effectively boycott the Russian government.

Back up your files and don't pay any ransoms.
posted by acb at 2:28 AM on November 25, 2019 [6 favorites]


The Republican leadership, 2019:
— a greedy imbecile lost and wandering in a soupy fog of dementia
— his hand-picked goon at the Department of Justice
— a shouty half-dressed degenerate wrestling coach
— a sneering shithead suing an imaginary cow
— an evil turtle
— Vlad Putin
posted by growabrain at 3:12 AM on November 25, 2019 [6 favorites]


Just a note, and I know it's been said before: Russians do not shorten the name Vladimir to Vlad. For informal versions of the name, they might use Volodja or Vova.
posted by Too-Ticky at 3:46 AM on November 25, 2019 [26 favorites]


Forget the Oval. The real Trump action is in the residence. (Nancy Cook, Politico)
Fixated on impeachment proceedings against him, Trump is increasingly taking his official business to the White House’s executive residence to escape perceived risks of his formal office space.
posted by ZeusHumms at 6:30 AM on November 25, 2019 [5 favorites]


Why Giuliani Singled Out 2 Ukrainian Oligarchs to Help Dig Up Dirt (NYt).

"But interviews with the two Ukrainian oligarchs — Dmitry Firtash and Ihor Kolomoisky — as well as with several other people with knowledge of Mr. Giuliani’s dealings, point to a new dimension in his exertions on behalf of his client, Mr. Trump. Taken together, they depict a strategy clearly aimed at leveraging information from politically powerful but legally vulnerable foreign citizens.

"In the case of Mr. Firtash, an energy tycoon with deep ties to the Kremlin who is facing extradition to the United States on bribery and racketeering charges, one of Mr. Giuliani’s associates has described offering the oligarch help with his Justice Department problems — if Mr. Firtash hired two lawyers who were close to President Trump and were already working with Mr. Giuliani on his dirt-digging mission. Mr. Firtash said the offer was made in late June when he met with Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman, both Soviet-born businessmen involved in Mr. Giuliani’s Ukraine pursuit."
posted by MonkeyToes at 6:34 AM on November 25, 2019 [12 favorites]


I don't understand the move - embarrassing Bolton still doesn't get him to testify. Fucker needs to be actually subpoenaed and if he refuses it sent to fucking jail.

If Schiff subpoenas Bolton and he goes to a judge to decide who wins, White House or Congress on the issue of conflicting orders, then they can't put him in jail until the judge rules and all of the appeals judges rule, months from now. That is exactly what Bolton wants, a legal excuse not to testify.
posted by JackFlash at 8:12 AM on November 25, 2019 [6 favorites]


Bolton is a private individual, he doesn’t have the same legal footing to claim there’s a legitimate reason for him to refuse a legal subpoena issued as part of an impeachment proceeding.

You, I and most people agree but "legal footing" is exactly the sort of issue that judges and appeals courts decide.
posted by JackFlash at 8:42 AM on November 25, 2019 [7 favorites]


The reason Bolton is on the same footing is that Trump has ordered him not to testify (or it's assumed he will?). If congress subpoenas Bolton, he can go to a judge and ask them to decide whether to obey congress or the president.

I believe Obama argued that Holder was immune from a subpoena, and won that decision, though it was not made into precedent law. My takeaway from that is that the case is not a sure thing. Besides it would take a long time to get through the courts.
posted by xammerboy at 9:02 AM on November 25, 2019 [2 favorites]


If Schiff subpoenas Bolton and he goes to a judge to decide who wins, White House or Congress on the issue of conflicting orders, then they can't put him in jail until the judge rules and all of the appeals judges rule, months from now. That is exactly what Bolton wants, a legal excuse not to testify.

But if he's not testifying now and not being tossed in jail now, what's the difference? Would issuing a subpoena at this stage, assuming it's challenged, interfere in some way with House managers calling Bolton to testify in a Senate trial?

If the value of not issuing a subpoena now depends on people having shame or caring about honor, duty, or public service, it seems like an outdated strategy unlikely to accomplish anything.
posted by Jonathan Livengood at 9:13 AM on November 25, 2019 [1 favorite]


I think the argument is that, since the House intends to draft articles of impeachment based entirely on what's been presented so far anyhow, there's no use tangling up anything further in the courts and muddying the waters. Issuing clean subpoenas from the Senate proceedings at least clarifies the issue and forces Roberts and the Senate into either doing it right, or plainly hacking the rule of law to bits in front of a live studio audience.

That's kinda where we're at - there isn't enough Law left to get the job done anymore, there is only the exposition of lawbreaking by the people who are supposed to protect it. There's nothing higher that can be aspired to at this point since the Law itself is paralyzed.
posted by dragstroke at 9:22 AM on November 25, 2019 [7 favorites]


It gives the Republican House and John Roberts both an excuse not to call Bolton for questioning. They can say the question of whether or not Bolton should testify is a separate matter currently winding through the judicial system.

It's not just a question of honor, but of historical legacy. Does Roberts really want an asterisk put next to all of his court's decisions? The way things are going that asterisk will read: Decision made by Roberts court and therefore not to be taken seriously as a matter of jurisprudence.
posted by xammerboy at 9:23 AM on November 25, 2019 [2 favorites]


Oh, for Pete's sake. Just grab Bolton in the middle of the night, take him to a black site, and find out what he knows with some good old enhanced interrogation techniques. Sauce for the goose, right?

Except then you run into the same problem George W. Bush's incompetence led to: That evidence isn't admissible, and we want to put these people behind bars.
posted by Gelatin at 9:24 AM on November 25, 2019 [3 favorites]


But if he's not testifying now and not being tossed in jail now, what's the difference?

It's the difference between 100% guaranteeing he won't testify and the possibility he could testify. At the very least you take away his excuse and expose his recalcitrance as obstruction. If you subpoena him he looks like a good guy standing up for the law. If you don't subpoena him, he looks like he's covering something up. Appearances are everything in an impeachment.
posted by JackFlash at 9:24 AM on November 25, 2019 [5 favorites]


That evidence isn't admissible, and we want to put these people behind bars.

Indefinite detention without trial is old enough to buy cigarettes.
posted by Rust Moranis at 9:27 AM on November 25, 2019 [15 favorites]


They don't have to call Bolton to testify, but if they don't... every serious reporter and lawyer in the country will call those proceedings a sham. Roberts will be called a Republican puppet who is less interested in justice than in partisan short term interests. The charge will follow Roberts court for the rest of his life.

I'm not saying this is a great option. Rather, I agree with JackFlash. This is the only play left with the cards dealt. But it's not a terrible play either. If I were Roberts there is no way I would throw away the legitimacy of my past and future life's work to keep Trump in office.
posted by xammerboy at 9:32 AM on November 25, 2019 [6 favorites]


Some Relevant Points of Law on Impeachment (Robert S. Litt, Lawfare)
An impeachment trial is not, of course, a criminal trial, and the rules of law and evidence applicable in criminal trials do not necessarily apply. Nonetheless, for citizens trying to evaluate the evidence they have heard during the proceedings before the House Intelligence Committee, it may be helpful to refer to some of the standard instructions that a jury would be given in a criminal case under similar circumstances. [...]

Evidence and Witnesses Withheld From the Proceedings

You have heard evidence about witnesses who have not been called to testify. The House has argued that the witnesses could have given important testimony not furnished by other witnesses in this case, and that the president was in the best position to produce these witnesses.

If you find that these witnesses could have given such testimony and were not available to the House to call, you are permitted, but you are not required, to infer that the testimony of the uncalled witnesses would have been unfavorable to the president.
posted by katra at 9:38 AM on November 25, 2019 [4 favorites]


It gives the Republican House and John Roberts both an excuse not to call Bolton for questioning. They can say the question of whether or not Bolton should testify is a separate matter currently winding through the judicial system.

This is really interesting, and I'd like to understand it better. Suppose the House managers call on Bolton to testify. He says, "No." At that point, a subpoena has to be issued, right? Even if Roberts and McConnell go along with issuing a subpoena, which I think is doubtful, Bolton could take the Senate to court, right? Why do you think that Bolton going to court against a Senate subpoena is worse for the Republicans than Bolton going to court against a House subpoena?

Appearances are everything in an impeachment.

This is the part that I'm most skeptical about. I'd like to think better of people. But I don't. Impeachment has always been the right thing to do, and I support it. I don't expect any of it to matter, though.
posted by Jonathan Livengood at 9:38 AM on November 25, 2019 [2 favorites]


Indefinite detention without trial is old enough to buy cigarettes.
The detentions of a certain type of detainee can buy smokes now and will one day will be in the catheter and life alert demographic, but this would be a detainee of the sort whose detentions end, one way or another, before they make it out of onesies.
posted by Don Pepino at 9:39 AM on November 25, 2019


1) The current impeachment rules allow the House managers (essentially, the prosecution) to subpoena witnesses without approval by the full Senate.

2) The idea is that rather than taking the Senate to court, Bolton would simply seek a decision from the presiding officer, Chief Justice Roberts. This would produce the exact same result as a court case (since any such case would go to SCOTUS where Roberts is the swing vote) but in much less time.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 9:46 AM on November 25, 2019 [6 favorites]


2) The idea is that rather than taking the Senate to court, Bolton would simply seek a decision from the presiding officer, Chief Justice Roberts. This would produce the exact same result as a court case (since any such case would go to SCOTUS where Roberts is the swing vote) but in much less time.

I understand the idea here, but I don't think it's this straightforward. What prevents Bolton from challenging a subpoena duly issued by the House managers and approved by Roberts? It would still have to wend its way through the federal courts, right? If so, then even if we granted that Roberts would function as a swing vote and would decide the same way in a real SCOTUS trial (by no means guaranteed, I think), it seems to me that Bolton could still "win" by delaying.
posted by Jonathan Livengood at 9:54 AM on November 25, 2019


Or put a bit differently: Why would Bolton bother seeking a decision from Roberts in his role as trial judge in the Senate, as opposed to challenging in federal court?
posted by Jonathan Livengood at 9:55 AM on November 25, 2019


Frankly, I'm not sure why you would even want Bolton to testify. I don't think he has anything new that hasn't already been said by other witnesses. Best case he would just be corroborating what has already been said.

Worst case he could go all Ollie North on you and blow up your case. Bolton is a snake and a looney wingnut. He's already demonstrated that he is a hostile witness. He's not your friend. You don't know what he's going to say.

That is why Schiff has always interviewed his witnesses in closed session before doing public hearings. You want to get an idea of what your witnesses are going to say before going public. At least you can be prepared for how your frame your questions.
posted by JackFlash at 9:57 AM on November 25, 2019 [10 favorites]


the House intends to draft articles of impeachment based entirely on what's been presented so far

I'm not sure that's the case. When she announced the impeachment inquiry, Speaker Pelosi said,“I’m directing our six committees to proceed with their investigations under that umbrella of impeachment inquiry.”
posted by kirkaracha at 9:58 AM on November 25, 2019




Watergate Articles of Impeachment (excerpts)
In his conduct of the office of President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed:
  1. prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice
  2. has repeatedly engaged in conduct violating the constitutional rights of citizens, impairing the due and proper administration of justice and the conduct of lawful inquiries, or contravening the laws governing agencies of the executive branch and the purposed of these agencies
  3. has failed without lawful cause or excuse to produce papers and things as directed by duly authorized subpoenas issued by the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives...and willfully disobeyed such subpoenas. The subpoenaed papers and things were deemed necessary by the Committee in order to resolve by direct evidence fundamental, factual questions relating to Presidential direction, knowledge or approval of actions demonstrated by other evidence to be substantial grounds for impeachment of the President
Ceterum autem censeo Trump delenda est
posted by kirkaracha at 10:16 AM on November 25, 2019 [4 favorites]


Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I thought the point with Mulvaney and other WH staff is that they are currently actively employed.... With a private citizen, e.g. Bolton, there is no such question. The President can't "order" private citizens to do shit.

I don't think so. I think at issue is whether or not the president can speak freely to his aides without worrying about whether or not they will be questioned on sensitive matters later. The debate is whether or not the president can grant his staff "immunity" from future questioning on matters he discussed with them. I don't think their current status comes into it.
posted by xammerboy at 10:34 AM on November 25, 2019






The merits of the case are basically irrelevant, the problem is the process. One way or another, Bolton is going to get his day in court but there are some options on when and how that day in court happens.

I suppose the other option is to decide that Bolton doesn't get access to the courts at all which isn't really a precedent I think we want to set.
posted by VTX at 11:00 AM on November 25, 2019


What prevents Bolton from challenging a subpoena duly issued by the House managers and approved by Roberts? It would still have to wend its way through the federal courts, right?

If Roberts subpoenas Bolton, that means Roberts, Chief Justice of the conservative Supreme Court, believes it to be necessary and legal. It's no longer Democrats asking for something questionable. Refusal would be defiance of an order from the highest judge in the land, who everyone knows is conservative.

Also, everyone would know that Roberts could call Bolton's bluff. "Oh really? Time out. We're going over the Supreme Court right now. We'll be back here in 15 mins." When Truman tried to shut down a steel plant in response to worker strikes, the Supreme Court met immediately and made a decision on the case that day (or something like).

Yes, this means the Supreme Court could have been holding hearings and making quick decisions on all Trump's cases all this time, but... this is impeachment. There's no second guessing the importance of this hearing, and Roberts is so personally, directly involved. It would be hard for Roberts to let Bolton's refusal go unanswered without it undermining his court or looking like he's ducking his official responsibilities.
posted by xammerboy at 11:01 AM on November 25, 2019 [2 favorites]


It would be hard for Roberts to let Bolton's refusal go unanswered without it undermining his court or looking like he's ducking his official responsibilities.

Not at all? He can say, "The process requires the lower courts to decide this matter first." Whether it's disingenuous or not. He would no more look like he's ducking responsibility than he already appears to be doing right now by not asserting original jurisdiction over the Kupperman subpoena. That is, if he could simply take the case from the lower courts to the Supreme Court, then he's already ducking responsibility. And if, on the other hand, it would be inappropriate in the case of Kupperman, it would be inappropriate in the case of Bolton. Maybe even more so given the obvious appearance of conflict of interest. Again, I'm not sure why Bolton's case would be different than Kupperman's. It's already impeachment. Why isn't the Supreme Court already hearing the Kupperman case and deciding it now? Why would Roberts appear more derelict if Bolton refused a Senate subpoena than he already does?
posted by Jonathan Livengood at 11:30 AM on November 25, 2019


If a subpoena is issued in the context of an impeachment trial, would the Supreme Court even have standing to hear a challenge to a subpoena? I would argue no. The Senate is solely vested the power of holding an impeachment trial and, unlike criminal proceedings, there is no appeal available to the accused.

If Bolton wanted to challenge a subpoena, he would need to convince the GOP to overturn Roberts, which I think enough (but not most) Senators would be loathe to do.
posted by Big Al 8000 at 11:31 AM on November 25, 2019 [5 favorites]


It's already impeachment.

Who has been impeached? Nobody that I know of. Once Trump is impeached and a trial is started, then things get very weird, judicially speaking. Until then, a person can make the argument that they are stuck between two countervailing directives and ask a judge to make a ruling.

While I think a judge should be tossing McGahn and Kupperman’s challenges on summary judgment, I can understand why a judge wouldn’t want to do that without solid precedent backing them up. So they need to go through the process and issue a ruling, knowing that no matter what they do, it will be appealed. The GOP is, in essence, hijacking the judicial branch’s deference to process and precedent to stall.
posted by Big Al 8000 at 11:42 AM on November 25, 2019 [3 favorites]


That won't work either unless the Kupperman case is currently being mishandled. The House has the sole power to impeach. But that hasn't stopped court challenges to its subpoena power.

If the Senate called on Trump to testify and he refused and the Senate convicted, that would not be reviewable. But the question is not whether the Senate can convict. The question is whether the Senate can compel Trump (or anyone else from the Executive) to testify. And that question is importantly different from who has power to convict in an impeachment trial.

I mean, just think of the kinds of abuses and mischief the Senate could theoretically get in to if just in virtue of running an impeachment trial, its actions were unquestionable. Could the Senate say, "In order to run this trial, we're going to need all of Bill Gates' money"? No way! But what would Gates' remedy be? He would have to take the Senate to court.
posted by Jonathan Livengood at 11:42 AM on November 25, 2019 [1 favorite]


My point is that "it's impeachment" carries political weight. The argument is that since it's impeachment, it would be urgent for the Supreme Court to look at it. But we're already in an official impeachment inquiry. Going to trial stage doesn't, I think, give it any more political weight than it already has.
posted by Jonathan Livengood at 11:45 AM on November 25, 2019 [1 favorite]


Well, Bill Gates is a private citizen, not a political official, and therefore isn’t subject to rules for one. Second it would not be germane to the question at hand.

The issue is if the presiding officer (Roberts) or the Senate body determines testimony or documents are required for trial, then there is no further appeal (the Senate is effectively the appeal to a presiding officer’s ruling). Remember, impeachment is solely about fitness for office, not criminal behavior (although that can come after removal in a separate criminal trial).
posted by Big Al 8000 at 12:09 PM on November 25, 2019 [2 favorites]


a righteous supreme court wouldn't come anywhere near an appeal of the chief justice's ruling in an impeachment trial conducted in the senate according to senate rules for impeachment as directed by the constitution. i suspect that's per se nonjusticiable as fuck... provided the senate rules for impeachment do not, themselves, direct judicial review of their own proceedings. not overconfident in the righteous character of the supreme court, though.

the question my mind keeps turning back to is whether those senate rules for impeachment are set, immutable, or whether moscow mitch and cohort are busy rewriting them as we speak. and whether such questions might be worthy of the attention of journalists.
posted by 20 year lurk at 12:10 PM on November 25, 2019 [2 favorites]


my state of mind is such that I saw this week's cover of the New Yorker with a stuffed turkey and because it was a) orange b) had its legs tied behind its back and c) there was a faint indentation that looked like a nose, I made a bet with the Mr. that it was a riff on Trump being in handcuffs.

I lost the bet and am now slightly questioning my sanity
posted by angrycat at 12:19 PM on November 25, 2019 [7 favorites]


This Navy thing is getting pretty scary. This Gallagher guy is so much a psychopath that his own Seal squad turned him in. Seals are more inclined to protect their own but even they don't want to own Gallagher.

Gallagher has been going around on Fox News and other media and flipping off the military chain of command and he has Trump backing him up. I'm guessing there are a lot of misfits and psychopaths in the military that would happy to be Donald J. Trump's personal army despite their oath to the Constitution. Trump is encouraging this, corrupting the military, which is pretty frightening. He has done the same thing with the police. It's all about personal loyalty to Trump.
posted by JackFlash at 12:50 PM on November 25, 2019 [46 favorites]


Final, final Republican defense strategy for Trump: Don the tinfoil, join the conspiracy (Amanda Marcotte, Salon)
Trump is often treated like an outlier, a man who is violating all the norms and laws and customs that supposedly defined Capitol Hill. That belief doesn't square with the fact that, at this point, pretty much every elected Republican in D.C., along with their entire staffs, isn't just tolerating Trump's Ukraine conspiracy but is actively participating in it. This is leading to a surreal situation where the very institutions that are supposed to work as a check on Trump's crime and corruption are, in fact, thick with co-conspirators. In the case of the Senate, it's fair to say that the institution is run by the president's co-conspirators.

In the face of that, it is impossible for anything resembling justice to happen. The only question now is whether the American public will see this and understand it, or whether the truth — that one of our two major political parties is in on the crimes — is too big and ugly to accept.
posted by ZeusHumms at 1:04 PM on November 25, 2019 [13 favorites]


Intelligence Panel to Release Impeachment Report Soon After Thanksgiving
Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee plan to deliver a report soon after Thanksgiving making the case for impeaching President Trump, the chairman said on Monday, moving quickly to escalate what he called “urgent” evidence of wrongdoing by the president.
...
The evidence will be detailed in a report being drafted for public release and transmittal to the House Judiciary Committee shortly after lawmakers return from their holiday break, Mr. Schiff wrote. The Judiciary panel is expected to promptly draft and debate articles of impeachment against Mr. Trump based on its findings.
posted by kirkaracha at 1:44 PM on November 25, 2019 [6 favorites]


Getting back to the usual things Trump's henchmen are known for: wire fraud, money laundering, campaign finance violations, acting as a foreign agent, aka being Michael Cohen V2.0. Investigators scrutinize Giuliani firm and donations to Trump super PAC as part of broad probe WaPo
posted by Harry Caul at 1:53 PM on November 25, 2019 [7 favorites]


This Navy thing is getting pretty scary.

Yes. Every raging asshole in the service knows they can get away with literal murder if they can get on Fox News, where a morning host is effectively now our Secretary of Defense. This is another of those five-alarm-fires that other people will dismiss as a distraction. All of Trump's "distractions" do real and serious harm. We have the SecDef saying the SecNav was going around his back and offering to rig a review board, only that basically means SecNav was fired for, um...trying to set up exactly the kind of bullshit Trump wants? And this is after Trump decided to bigfoot the military justice system to protect three war criminals.

In the end, a war criminal gets protected and many others see the example. So do our allies. And so, by the way, does everybody who stepped up to testify against the war criminals and everyone who called them out. People took real risks to their careers all for Trump to throw it aside and say "fuck you."

I don't even know how to articulate how bad this is.
A focused impeachment fails to call out all of the wrongdoing, yes. Conversely, a broad impeachment keeps us in investigations and fact-gathering forever and the nuclear dumpster fire rages on without Republicans ever having to definitively vote on whether they're fine with all this. We know they'll support Trump, but getting that on the record matters.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 1:58 PM on November 25, 2019 [52 favorites]


My concern with a focused impeachment means that shit like this Navy business goes completely unpunished so there's no deterrent to future presidents.
posted by kirkaracha at 2:12 PM on November 25, 2019 [7 favorites]


"Trump is encouraging this, corrupting the military, which is pretty frightening. He has done the same thing with the police. It's all about personal loyalty to Trump."

This is textbook populist, cult of personality fascism. This precise combination is why Trump has had the support he has -- it's exactly what a minority of the country wants.

I've felt from the beginning that this was the essence of Trumpism and why it's so dangerous. I'm temperamentally disinclined to doomsaying and conspiracy-theorizing and the like, but in the last two years I've found that I am willing to consider possible things that I never, ever would have thought were even remotely possible. I am very afraid that either with him removed from office or even if he just loses the election, there will truly be mass armed violence by this hate-filled, aggrieved, lunatic core. Doomsaying here is frowned upon and I don't intend to violate that norm, but just as people are saying here, this whole thing with the SEAL guy is indicative of something very, very wrong. I mean, the Pentagon brass are livid about this.

Which, BTW, this has given me some comfort: I don't doubt there are junior officers and some senior officers in the military that would support Trump in, well, a nightmare scenario -- but all indications are that the almost all of the top brass absolutely can't stand him and don't trust him and think he is both dangerous and harmful to the military institutions they love. The Pentagon has been fighting him all along. What's interesting to me is that he seems much less aware of this than he has been of the State Department's resistance. But that's explained by his and others' mindsets: Guys with Guns are Good and diplomats are untrustworthy wimps. Trump fetishizes the military, like so many right wing people do, and so he seems to have been blind to the fact that the Pentagon has been resisting him all along.

So few parts of the executive branch are actually supportive of Trump, not including the political lackeys at the top. And he's pretty much fought with almost all of them, too, eventually.

I guess this is both good and bad news. For us, it proves that our entire federal government isn't nuts and able to be co-opted by a truly dangerously erratic President. But for Trump's supporters, it just validates this whole "deep state" theory of theirs. I don't think that the view of the Presidency and the federal government that makes this thinking possible is unique to the right. I think the majority of Americans have magical thinking about Presidents, vastly overestimating their control of the federal government -- even, or especially, the vast machinery of the executive branch. So when a President is elected who is just as uninformed and has the same expectations, the fact that it turns out he can't do whatever he/she wants is just proof to many people that much of the government is corrupt in this "deep state" sense. It's all very disheartening to me.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 2:15 PM on November 25, 2019 [29 favorites]


odinsdream: Moreover we’re at the point where the QAnon Deep State myth is being turned into a reality by simply having those with actual levers of power redefine it to include career foreign service diplomats and anyone else they decide to smear.

Dissatisfied with his own collection of mirrors, Trump starts making his own.

Back to impeachment-adjacent news: National Enquirer company chief David Pecker talking with New York prosecutors (Kara Scannell and Mark Morales for CNN, November 25, 2019)
David Pecker, the head of the company that publishes the National Enquirer, has spoken with prosecutors with the New York district attorney's office as part of its investigation into the Trump Organization's handling of hush money payments to women who alleged affairs with President Donald Trump, sources with knowledge of the meeting tell CNN.

The America Media Inc. chairman's late October meeting with prosecutors from the major economic crimes bureau could provide key details on discussions that took place involving Stormy Daniels, the adult film star who allegedly had an affair with Trump, and agreements that were made with former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen, the sources said.

Cohen is cooperating with the investigation. Pecker is expected to continue talking with prosecutors, sources said.
...
Prosecutors are investigating whether any state laws were broken, such as whether the Trump Organization falsified any business records relating to the Daniels payment.

The DA's investigation is continuing as its effort to subpoena the President's accounting firm Mazars USA for business and personal tax returns makes it way to the US Supreme Court.

A US appeals court ruled last month that presidential immunity doesn't bar a third party, such as Mazars, from responding to a state grand jury subpoena even if it involves the President. Trump's attorneys have asked the Supreme Court to take up the case but the court has not yet decided whether it will hear arguments.
posted by filthy light thief at 2:36 PM on November 25, 2019 [5 favorites]


Let's be thoughtful and intellectually consistent in how we talk about the current "Navy vs. Tr*mp" situation. In many other situations with other Commanders in Chief, I would bet a lot of money that most MeFites were quite enthusiastic about civilian control of the military. (Similar to how a lot of folks here cheered Obama's use of executive orders when he couldn't get big parts of his agenda through Congress, but all of a sudden...)
posted by PhineasGage at 2:39 PM on November 25, 2019 [2 favorites]


Civilian control, fine.
Blatant criminal control, not fine.
Seems pretty consistent to me.
posted by notoriety public at 2:44 PM on November 25, 2019 [26 favorites]


Of course I agree on the merits of this case. Just reminding myself and others that civilian control means the president has ultimate control over military chain of command and decision making. Bandying phrases like "He's corrupting the military" isn't a useful or accurate framing.
posted by PhineasGage at 2:51 PM on November 25, 2019 [3 favorites]


Let's not forget that the military was desegregated by Truman's executive order, not by an act of Congress.
posted by PhineasGage at 2:53 PM on November 25, 2019


Federal Judge Rejects White House Claim of Immunity for Close Aides
posted by AJaffe at 2:57 PM on November 25, 2019 [7 favorites]


Wait, you don't think Trump is corrupting the military? Cripes he's giving every misfit and psychopath in the military a free pass to defy orders and their superior officers and the rules of military conduct as long as they are personally loyal to Donald Trump.

This Gallagher guy is still officially on active duty and going on TV bad mouthing his superior officers by name and he knows he is untouchable because Donald Trump has said that "he has his back."

If that is not corruption, frankly I don't know what you are talking about.
posted by JackFlash at 2:57 PM on November 25, 2019 [39 favorites]


Federal Judge Rejects White House Claim of Immunity for Close Aides

I assume that's in reference to this: Former White House counsel Donald McGahn must testify before Congress, judge rules -- Kristine Phillips, Bart Jansen, USA TODAY
posted by mikelieman at 3:02 PM on November 25, 2019 [4 favorites]


The phrase "corrupting the military" is both useful and entirely accurate. By making military justice decisions into partisan, political acts, Trump is undermining the integrity of the military. He is attempting to change the loyalty of the military from "allegiance to the country" to "allegiance to a person." This kind of alteration in loyalty, as with a bribe, is in the very definition of "corrupt."
posted by Jonathan Livengood at 3:02 PM on November 25, 2019 [38 favorites]


Mikelieman, yes...
posted by AJaffe at 3:04 PM on November 25, 2019


I am not a military lawyer, so I will link to the reputable and expert Lawfareblog: "Put another way, it is perfectly legal for the president to reserve to him- or herself the decision as to how a case is resolved within the military justice system."

I loathe what Trump is doing. But it is within the boundaries of the system we have established.
posted by PhineasGage at 3:05 PM on November 25, 2019


Apparently you are unable to distinguish between what is legal and what is corrupt. Abuse of power for private gain is corruption, regardless of legality.
posted by JackFlash at 3:11 PM on November 25, 2019 [14 favorites]


As has often been the case in the Trump administration, Trump does something that is nominally legal -- within his nominal authority to do. But he does it with a corrupt intent and/or in violation of norms that make the nominally legal action massively wrong to do. The mere fact that Trump's action, narrowly understood, is legally permissible does not mean it is not also corrupting the military.
posted by Jonathan Livengood at 3:12 PM on November 25, 2019 [15 favorites]


The president doesn’t need to break any laws to abrogate his oath.
posted by a box and a stick and a string and a bear at 3:12 PM on November 25, 2019 [12 favorites]


I think I see your point PhineasGage. That here, and other places, there has been the appearance of the argument that "we need to let the military set military discipline", and getting carried away with that can most definitely lead to some brutal disasters. Civilian oversight and control is needed.

But yeah no... bringing that conversation up here and now really feels like a dishonest attempt a derail through something like a "both sides" argument. And I'm quite certain that wasn't your intent.

It may be perfectly legal for Trump to do something in the shape of what he's doing... but again what he is doing is his usual giant fuck you to institutions and treating it as anything else isn't helpful.
posted by cirhosis at 3:18 PM on November 25, 2019 [7 favorites]


Could y'all define how you are using the word "corrupt" in this context? I am with you on "reprehensible" or even "immoral," but I am genuinely unclear how Trump pardoning a military officer is "corrupt."
posted by PhineasGage at 3:21 PM on November 25, 2019 [1 favorite]


I am genuinely unclear how Trump pardoning a military officer is "corrupt."

Read closer. It's right there.
posted by JackFlash at 3:29 PM on November 25, 2019 [8 favorites]


Trump disappointed to learn the turkeys he’s pardoning aren’t guilty of any war crimes WaPo)
WASHINGTON — President Trump raged at his discovery Monday that Bread and Butter, the two turkeys he will pardon in the traditional pre-Thanksgiving White House ceremony, have not committed even a single war crime.

The president, who had tirelessly advocated for Navy SEAL Eddie Gallagher to retain his Trident pin even after being accused of war crimes and convicted of posing for a photograph with the corpse of a prisoner, reportedly was furious upon discovering that these turkeys had not been responsible for even one atrocity. Unlike the three service members Trump cleared earlier this month, the turkeys had never ordered soldiers to fire into a group of civilians, were not on trial for murdering anyone and had never posed for a single photo with a slain combatant.
posted by Johnny Wallflower at 3:30 PM on November 25, 2019 [11 favorites]


Corrupt. verb. "to destroy the integrity of; cause to be dishonest, disloyal, etc., especially by bribery."
posted by Jonathan Livengood at 3:30 PM on November 25, 2019 [2 favorites]


Mod note: PhineasGage, you've made your point a few times; continuing to press for additional rounds on the precise meaning of "corrupt" vs other kinds of wrongness begins to seem like pushing-for-pushing's-sake which in general doesn't lead anywhere good.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 3:32 PM on November 25, 2019 [3 favorites]


Trump is actively supporting corrupt individuals in the armed forces (and the police etc.). He is deliberately doing it to encourage further corruption, because he believes that is the right direction.
posted by mumimor at 3:32 PM on November 25, 2019 [5 favorites]


Schiff: House Intel Preparing To Hand Off Impeachment To Judiciary Committee
In a “Dear Colleague” letter sent to House Democrats, Schiff said that his and the other committees that have been leading the impeachment probe are currently assembling a report that will be sent to the Judiciary Committee “soon” after the Thanksgiving recess.

He indicated that, while the committees may continue to investigate the Ukraine matter, they were not going to wait for more evidence to be produced before moving to the next steps.
Note that "the other committees " will also be contributing to the report, so there may be more impeachment counts than the ones coming from Schiff's Intelligence Committee.
posted by kirkaracha at 3:41 PM on November 25, 2019 [2 favorites]


The New York Times' Testimony and Evidence Collected in the Trump Impeachment Inquiry is a nice comprehensive overview.
posted by kirkaracha at 3:45 PM on November 25, 2019


I mean, just think of the kinds of abuses and mischief the Senate could theoretically get in to if just in virtue of running an impeachment trial, its actions were unquestionable. Could the Senate say, "In order to run this trial, we're going to need all of Bill Gates' money"? No way!

? The power to call witnesses sub poena (under penalty if they refuse) is one of the fundamental powers of a court – which is what the Senate is, in this context. Demanding money isn't a judicial power, which is why monarchs and governments have historically sought to constrain courts by withholding funds. That's not to say that a court couldn't abuse its powers, but it couldn't abuse them in this way.
posted by Joe in Australia at 3:57 PM on November 25, 2019 [4 favorites]


Note that "the other committees " will also be contributing to the report, so there may be more impeachment counts than the ones coming from Schiff's Intelligence Committee.

If Trump ends up with the bigliest listicles of impeachment ever, I won't begrudge him the record.
posted by Sparx at 4:03 PM on November 25, 2019 [1 favorite]


Shit, he'd probably tweet to brag about it.
posted by kirkaracha at 4:09 PM on November 25, 2019 [1 favorite]


? The power to call witnesses sub poena (under penalty if they refuse) is one of the fundamental powers of a court – which is what the Senate is, in this context. Demanding money isn't a judicial power, which is why monarchs and governments have historically sought to constrain courts by withholding funds. That's not to say that a court couldn't abuse its powers, but it couldn't abuse them in this way.

Which is why probably, Gates would win in my hypothetical and the Senate would win against Bolton. (I've lost so much faith in the Republicans at this point, I'm not willing to say either of those is a foregone conclusion.) My point was that the fact that the Senate has the relevant power doesn't mean that Bolton couldn't sue about it and thereby delay the proceedings. What I was saying was in reply to the idea that the courts simply couldn't adjudicate anything decided in the context of an impeachment trial, since the Senate has sole power to conduct such trials. Again: The Senate has the sole power to conduct impeachment trials, but what does that mean? What are the limits on that power? That is surely a question of Constitutional interpretation. And hence, a matter for the courts. If the Senate were to abuse its powers OR if someone with standing thought that the Senate had abused its powers and chose to sue, the matter could, I think, get tied up in the courts in just the same way as the Kupperman case.

One might say that in the trial phase, it's obvious that the Supreme Court would have original jurisdiction and would take the case immediately. But it seems to me that the end of Article 1, Section 2 is at least as unclear when it says that the House shall have the sole power of impeachment. We are now in the middle of an impeachment inquiry. I tend to think that questions about the subpoena power of the House in an impeachment inquiry are in the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, but that's not the way the case has been handled.
posted by Jonathan Livengood at 4:59 PM on November 25, 2019 [1 favorite]


meetings in Vienna between Devin Nunes and a former Ukrainian prosecutor

Not sure if the Nunes stuff is on or off topic, but I wanna note that Dimitry Firtash, who was paying Parnas et al, happens to be under house arrest (i.e., stuck) in Vienna since 2017.

Firtash was one of the most central oligarchs supporting Russia's interests in Ukraine, bankrolling pro-Russia political parties (which included Paul Manafort and his work) until he was ejected in an anti-corruption sweep in 2014.
posted by Rainbo Vagrant at 5:02 PM on November 25, 2019 [5 favorites]


the bigliest listicles

Please never say that again.
posted by mrgoat at 6:29 PM on November 25, 2019 [31 favorites]


Again: The Senate has the sole power to conduct impeachment trials, but what does that mean? What are the limits on that power? That is surely a question of Constitutional interpretation. And hence, a matter for the courts. If the Senate were to abuse its powers OR if someone with standing thought that the Senate had abused its powers and chose to sue, the matter could, I think, get tied up in the courts in just the same way as the Kupperman case.

Committee on the Judiciary v. Donald McGahn, Civ. No. 19-cv-2379 (D.D.C. Nov. 25, 2019), (via) at 4:
Jurisdiction exists because the Judiciary Committee’s claim presents a legal question, and it is “emphatically” the role of the Judiciary to say what the law is. Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 177 (1803). It also plainly advances constitutional separation-of-powers principles, rather than subverts them, when a federal court decides the question of whether a legislative subpoena that a duly authorized committee of the House of Representatives has issued to a senior-level aide of the President is valid and enforceable, or, alternatively, is subject to the President’s invocation of absolute testimonial immunity.
at 61 -62:
[...] DOJ’s odd idea that federal courts’ indisputable power to adjudicate questions of law evaporates if the requested pronouncement of law happens to occur in the context of a dispute between branches appears nowhere in the annals of established constitutional law. To the contrary, the Framers spoke specifically to the importance of maintaining an established rule of law to regulate government conduct—and, thus, to the significance of the judicial function—when they explained why a system that separates the powers of government and includes checks on the exercise of government power is crucial to sustaining a democracy:
[T]he great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department, consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others. The provision for defense must in this, as in all other cases, be made commensurate to the danger of the attack. . . . It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.
The Federalist No. 51 (James Madison).
posted by katra at 7:10 PM on November 25, 2019 [13 favorites]


My concern with a focused impeachment means that shit like this Navy business goes completely unpunished so there's no deterrent to future presidents.
posted by kirkaracha at 6:12 AM on November 26 [7 favorites +] [!]


I'm curious why multiple impeachments aren't possible. My understanding is that they completely are, but that they aren't being used. If my understanding is correct, I'd like to proceed with more inquiries.
posted by saysthis at 7:29 PM on November 25, 2019 [1 favorite]


There's no reason you couldn't impeach Trump again, and again, and again. If Democrats aren't doing it, it's because they don't believe it's good politics.
posted by xammerboy at 7:38 PM on November 25, 2019 [1 favorite]


There's no reason you couldn't impeach Trump again, and again, and again. If Democrats aren't doing it, it's because they don't believe it's good politics.
posted by xammerboy at 11:38 AM on November 26 [+] [!]


Alright, so why don't they think it's good politics? It stands to reason that it's certainly not good politics to let military pardons ruin morale or let Trump's dishonesty to unpunished and unexposed. That's a huge part of the reason 2018 was a blue wave. I'm curious why, after all these things we've learned about Ukraine using the power we elected the Democrats for, they wouldn't want to just keep going. Even if the Senate acquits Trump every time, Trump's messaging and credibility is in tatters, his allies and co-conspirators are being exposed and punished, and they've lost control of the narrative. Hell, we're creeping up on Giuliani and Nunes. Why wouldn't you just keep pushing?
posted by saysthis at 7:53 PM on November 25, 2019 [5 favorites]


Trump's strain with Pentagon inspires talk of more departures (Politico)
President Donald Trump came into office vowing to unshackle his military commanders from years of Obama-era micromanagement. But now he’s facing a rupture with his Pentagon leaders after steamrolling them on a series of decisions — from Mideast troop movements and the use of military funds for a border wall to disciplinary cases involving individual commandos.

Even before Navy Secretary Richard Spencer’s forced ouster this weekend, a handful of the Pentagon's highest-ranking officials have been debating just when they would feel compelled to resign over what they see as Trump's disregard for the chain of command, two current senior officials told POLITICO in recent days. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss internal deliberations.

"There's a sense of dejection by senior leaders in the Pentagon, that the president and the secretary of Defense is gonna side with the loudmouths at Fox News against the reasoned opposition of senior military professionals," said another Pentagon official with direct knowledge of high-level discussions. "That's the sense in a nutshell."
posted by katra at 8:06 PM on November 25, 2019 [11 favorites]


Alright, so why don't they think it's good politics?

Because life is very hard in the rural parts of the swing states. It's not that Trump being a criminal isn't important, it's just not as important as their economic recovery.

One party is talking about transitioning the economy, job training, a green new deal, and the other is saying they'll cut off the world and all the American mining and manufacturing jobs will return. One story is complicated and a little hard to follow. The other story is simple and exactly what those voters want to hear.

What's that now? The simple story is a lie? It doesn't make any sense? Okay, but you need to make your case to voters. You can either explain to them how you'll improve their lives, or you can make the case that Trump should be impeached. There's no longer time to do both. This is the last shot at impeachment before campaign season begins in earnest. That's why Democrats have rushed these proceedings.
posted by xammerboy at 8:29 PM on November 25, 2019 [20 favorites]


Why wouldn't you just keep pushing?

at some point it may no longer serve our interests as civil society to demonstrate, again, that dear leader is above the law at the cost of another pillar supporting civil society.

think the redirecting of monies the congress directed for various military support and maintenance projects from those projects instead to something to do with wall (and like diversions) would fit nicely in an article of impeachment. some plurality of the vol. ii mueller report obstructions of justice likely merit a shout out in a subchapter of the obstruction of justice article. there's something about taxes and emoluments hanging fire still. i think. maybe plenty more articles as judiciary gets its papers and reports and recommendations and evidence (and litigation posture) in order.

i do sort of like the idea of the one-article-of-impeachment-a-week approach. there must be enough material for years at that rate. at least for his next term and the one after that. so much ceremonial rigamarole in the senate rules, that'd really gum up those judicial appointments in the senate while putting some serious mileage on the chief justice.
posted by 20 year lurk at 9:32 PM on November 25, 2019 [3 favorites]


filthy light thief: Dissatisfied with his own collection of mirrors, Trump starts making his own.

Riffing on my own comment, in reply to odinsdream comment on how those in power are making the Deep State myth a reality, here's a semi-light-hearted clip from Late Night with Seth Meyer, in which others take up the "were you, or have you ever been a Never Trumper?*" line of questioning, picking up what ZeusHumms noted that Trump started earlier: Trump has claimed without evidence that [officials testifying against him] were “Never Trumpers” peddling false accusations.

Meyers goes on to look further into the, as he calls it, "paranoid alternate universe that Trump and his allies on Fox News inhabit," where Jeanine Pirro claims that Sondland is a member of the Deep State, continuing to beat her drum of having real dirt on the actual Deep State for months now (Newsweek, July 28, 2019). Also, in Pirro's eyes, Sondland's demeanor should cancel his testimony, because of "his arrogance, and his inappropriate smirking."

Oh man, Trump really did open up a mirror factory and has been selling Trump Brand Truth-Reflectors to his allies.

* Not the actual phrase used, but that question gave me heavy House Committee on Un-American Activities vibe.
posted by filthy light thief at 9:55 PM on November 25, 2019 [6 favorites]


a handful of the Pentagon's highest-ranking officials have been debating just when they would feel compelled to resign over what they see as Trump's disregard for the chain of command

AKA decapitating the military. This is bad! Like "the career people who left the State Department at the beginning of Trump's term" bad! Acting Whatevers! I think the popular conception underestimates the amount of damage that has already been done. Something like 1/4 of the current federal judiciary was hired by Trump? Syphilitic.
posted by rhizome at 10:42 PM on November 25, 2019 [9 favorites]


Sen. Kennedy takes back comments on alleged Ukrainian intervention in 2016 (Politico)
Sen. John N. Kennedy (R-La.) walked back on a comment he made Sunday supporting the debunked theory that Ukraine hacked the Democratic National Committee's emails in 2016. "I was wrong," Kennedy said Monday night on CNN. "The only evidence I have, and I think it's overwhelming, is that it was Russia to tried to hack the DNC computer."

The Monday night revision follows a comment the senator made over the weekend that appeared to reflect a largely discredited conspiracy theory. Fox News' Chris Wallace on Sunday asked Kennedy whom he believed was responsible for the 2016 hack, noting that the U.S. intelligence community resoundingly agree Russia was behind the attack. But Kennedy responded, "It could also be Ukraine."

But speaking with CNN's Chris Cuomo on Monday, Kennedy said he misheard Wallace's question. The ardent Trump ally said he'd thought Wallace had said only Russia interfered in the 2016 election, and Kennedy was skeptical of ruling out Ukrainian involvement as well. [...]

While speaking with Cuomo, Kennedy cited a POLITICO article from 2017 that revealed Ukrainian efforts to expose ties between Russia and Trump's team. Several Republicans have been attempting to equate those efforts with the systematic, top-down intervention by Russia in 2016 — a campaign longtime observers determined Ukraine would be incapable of carrying out.
Committee on the Judiciary v. Donald McGahn, Civ. No. 19-cv-2379 (D.D.C. Nov. 25, 2019), (via) at 73:
Fn 21 "[...] the Mueller Report found that “‘[t]he Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion’” (Compl. ¶ 1 (quoting Mueller Report Vol. 1 at 1)); that this interference was “intended to benefit the Trump Presidential campaign” (id. ¶ 26 (citing Mueller Report Vol. 1 at 1)) [...]"
posted by katra at 10:46 PM on November 25, 2019 [3 favorites]


Emerson Poll that Showed Plunging Support for Impeachment Also Showed Rasmussen-Level Black Support for Trump
One reason a lot of observers think impeachment is a flop for Democrats is that a recent Emerson College poll showed that support for impeachment is now underwater. The poll, conducted November 17-20 and published November 21, showed that support for impeachment had declined from 48%-44% in October to 43%-45% now. The poll also showed Trump with a net-positive job approval rating: 48% approval, 47% disapproval. And it showed Trump trailing Joe Biden by only 2 in a head-to-head match-up; Trump tied Elizabeth Warren, trailed Bernie Sanders by 1, and beat Pete Buttigieg by 4.

Bad news all around. But at least one number in the poll breakdown is awfully suspicious, though you have to look at the Excel data file to spot it. [...]

You won't be surprised to learn that the only other pollster that's ever shown Trump with a net-positive job approval rating over the past two and a half years -- Rasmussen -- has recently found Trump to have a 34% approval rating among black voters. [...]

Sorry -- it's just not possible that 34.5% of black voters regard Trump favorably.

It's possible that the number is up since 2016 -- according to a recent Economist/YouGov poll, 10% of blacks have a "very favorable" opinion of Trump and 8% have a "somewhat favorable" opinion. Combined disapproval is 77% (64% strong, 13% somewhat). By comparison, total black disapproval in the Emerson poll is only 58.7%.

In an October Quinnipiac poll, black approval of Trump was 10%. Disapproval was 88%. A November Gallup poll had Trump approval among all non-whites at 21%, and disapproval at 74%.

So I don't buy these Emerson numbers.
The Emerson numbers have been cited numerous times here on MeFi, including in the currently open debate thread, and I think it's time for people to file them in the "junk pollster" bin along with Rasmussen. If 34% of Black voters approve of Trump, then every American reading this right now needs to make sure their passport is up to date and get the fuck out of here right now.
posted by tonycpsu at 10:47 PM on November 25, 2019 [19 favorites]


The Monday night revision follows a comment the senator made over the weekend that appeared to reflect a largely discredited conspiracy theory. Fox News' Chris Wallace on Sunday asked Kennedy

So apologizing only on the left and center, Politico and CNN, would be a good way to test how many people only watch Fox News. Valuable campaign data.
posted by rhizome at 11:06 PM on November 25, 2019 [3 favorites]


New polls are in and the Emerson results seem to be a fluke.
posted by hat_eater at 11:08 PM on November 25, 2019 [12 favorites]


Committee on the Judiciary v. Donald McGahn, Civ. No. 19-cv-2379 (D.D.C. Nov. 25, 2019)

Just finished reading this 120 pages of wonderful, and I think the timing is PERFECT seeing as Intelligence is tossing their report over the wall to Judiciary, and Judiciary just got the kick it needed to collect private depositions w.r.t. Mueller's "The remedy for Trump's obstruction is impeachment" report, and then have public hearings on the relevant parts. I'd like them to move along quickly though. Perhaps dominating the news cycles between thanksgiving and christmas.
posted by mikelieman at 5:07 AM on November 26, 2019 [8 favorites]


Here comes the next horrible idea: Trump Tells Allies He Wants Absolved War Criminals to Campaign for Him Daily Beast
" Two people tell The Daily Beast they’ve heard Trump talk about how he’d like to have the now-cleared Clint Lorance, Matthew Golsteyn, or Edward Gallagher show up at his 2020 rallies, or even have a moment on stage at his renomination convention in Charlotte next year. Right-wing media have portrayed all three as martyrs brought down by “political correctness” within the military.

“He briefly discussed making it a big deal at the convention,” said one of these sources, who requested anonymity to talk about private conversations. “The president made a reference to the 2016 [convention] and where they brought on-stage heroes” like former Navy SEAL Marcus Luttrell, who refused to execute detained civilians ahead of a devastating Taliban attack."
posted by Harry Caul at 7:39 AM on November 26, 2019 [7 favorites]


> Here comes the next horrible idea: Trump Tells Allies He Wants Absolved War Criminals to Campaign for Him

War Criminals are Trump's Anti-Vindmans
There's the real contrast between our two nations: Yes, it's rural versus urban/suburban, and yes it's blue collar versus white collar, but it's also whether you feel inclined to cheer on midlevel career civil diplomats and deskbound military personnel who use brainwork to help keep America safe ... or whether your heroes are action-movie clichés come to life, "bad boys" who "don't play by the rules" because not playing by the rules is perceived as the only way to avoid apocalyptic consequences.

If that's your worldview, then Bill Taylor, George Kent, Marie Yovanovitch, and Fiona Hill aren't admirable people -- they're the cliché "bureaucrats" who try to prevent the lone-wolf hero from doing what he and everyone in the theater know is the right thing.

Vindman is a tougher case -- he's a wounded, decorated soldier. That's why the right had to rhetorically emasculate him -- recall the American Greatness piece I wrote about after Vindman's testimony, in which he was called "Lt. Col. Polly PrissyPants" and described as a "prissy little princess" and a "butt-hurt" "little snitch" who "sassed" Devin Nunes and was offered a job in the Ukraininan government because he had "an 'open for business' sign flashing" (I'll leave it up to you to imagine what exactly the American Greatness's Liz Sheld wanted you to think Vindman had left "open").

I don't know how many Americans will respond to Trump's war criminals. I continue to believe that it's a mistake for Trump to put so much effort into selling himself to voters who already love him and are certain to vote for him. But he knows what his fans like -- and it's the exact opposite of what you heard from the witnesses last week.
posted by tonycpsu at 7:50 AM on November 26, 2019 [16 favorites]


Trump Tells Allies He Wants Absolved War Criminals to Campaign for Him (Daily Beast)

Quid Pro Quo again?
posted by ZeusHumms at 8:01 AM on November 26, 2019 [9 favorites]


“He briefly discussed making it a big deal at the convention,” said one of these sources

Stephen Miller rears his head after last week's...unpleasantness. Actually, Miller probably wouldn't minimize it to "briefly discussed," so maybe it's Kellyanne.
posted by rhizome at 8:13 AM on November 26, 2019


Tucker Carlson casually mentioning he is rooting for Russia against Ukraine before walking it back seemed like a fun test balloon.
posted by mike_honcho at 9:05 AM on November 26, 2019 [15 favorites]


Democrats need to use the embarrassment of riches they have in articles of impeachment against Trump (Joan McCarter, Daily Kos)
The key discussion House Democrats are currently engaged in is about how broad a net they will cast in drawing up articles of impeachment against Donald Trump. The possibilities are endless, but there's still reluctance among the more moderate faction to trust in the American public to be engaged enough and patient enough for it all to be examined. […]

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi appears to be hearing her moderates. "The clarity for the public to understand what is there wasn't as clear, in my view, when you say obstruction of justice, obstruction of justice, obstruction of justice, 11 times in the Mueller report," she said. "That isn't justification enough for inquiring into an impeachment." All due respect, but obstruction of justice into an inquiry about Trump's potential collusion with Russia to win an election is absolutely justification for an impeachment inquiry. It is the House of Representatives’ job, Pelosi's job, to present that to the American public. At the same time, House general counsel Doug Letter has asked a U.S. appellate court, in his appeal for the full grand jury material from Mueller, "Did the President lie? Was the President not truthful in his responses to the Mueller investigation?"

That's definitely something the American people would understand: Trump lying to investigators about whether or not he was working with the Russians to gain the presidency. It's also something that would put additional pressure on Senate Republicans. To be clear, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is not going to let Trump be convicted. That's a given. But it's not a reason for providing a less-than-complete case to the Senate. In fact, it's the opposite: The strongest possible case needs to be shown to the American public, so that when McConnell and his cadre of Trumper Republicans blow it off, they are exposed for what they are. That's how Democrats win the White House and Senate next year.
posted by ZeusHumms at 9:15 AM on November 26, 2019 [9 favorites]


The New Yorker: “I’ve Never Seen Evidence So Clear”: Inside the House Effort to Draft Articles of Impeachment
[Bill] Weld says that the evidence presented in the House Intelligence Committee’s public hearings in the past two weeks amounts to “the most quintessential, classical example for impeachment and removal that, frankly, I’ve ever seen or could conceive of. I’ve read the transcript of every page of every impeachment trial in the history of the United States, and there’s nothing like this.”

A second article, Weld suggested, might comprise the “ten examples of clear and convincing evidence of obstruction of justice, which are contained in Volume II of Bob Mueller’s report.” There, too, he said, “I can tell you, having conducted and supervised many obstruction-of-justice investigations, I’ve never seen evidence like that. I’ve never seen evidence so clear.” Weld said “a third possible article would be—similar to the third article against President Nixon—contempt of Congress.” On that front, “President Trump and his defenders have gone beyond any historical claim ever made,” he added, by asserting that “Congress has no authority to investigate him at all.”
posted by kirkaracha at 9:26 AM on November 26, 2019 [26 favorites]


In private speech, Bolton suggests some of Trump's foreign policy decisions are guided by personal interest
Former national security adviser John Bolton derided President Donald Trump’s daughter and son-in-law during a private speech last week and suggested his former boss’ approach to U.S. policy on Turkey is motivated by personal or financial interests, several people who were present for the remarks told NBC News.
posted by kirkaracha at 10:06 AM on November 26, 2019 [1 favorite]


Trump primary'er Bill Weld, a person definitely in a position to affect Republican behavior.
posted by rhizome at 10:07 AM on November 26, 2019


I'm getting very strong Comey-esque "I saw all of these people doing terrible things, and I really wanted to the right thing, but... hey, how about them Nationals?" vibes from Bolton. If he's not going to testify, he can go fuck off forever.
posted by tonycpsu at 10:22 AM on November 26, 2019 [23 favorites]


Sen. Kennedy takes back comments on alleged Ukrainian intervention in 2016 (Politico)

To echo someone I saw earlier (sorry, attribution slips by): It's not a mistake that Kennedy supported the bullshit Ukraine conspiracy theory while on Fox News and then went to CNN to walk it back.

This is all still mindfully channeled misinformation and propaganda.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 10:25 AM on November 26, 2019 [35 favorites]


Weld says that the evidence presented is “the most quintessential, classical example for impeachment and removal that, frankly, I’ve ever seen or could conceive of.”

“Having conducted and supervised many obstruction-of-justice investigations, I’ve never seen evidence like that. I’ve never seen evidence so clear.”


This is what's missing from the news today. I just listened to an NPR report that presented both sides of the impeachment "debate". No. No debate. Trump's guilt is as clear as ever a case as there ever was. Anything short of reporting that is disingenuous and misleading.
posted by xammerboy at 10:29 AM on November 26, 2019 [36 favorites]


katra: Sen. John N. Kennedy (R-La.) walked back on a comment he made Sunday supporting the debunked theory that Ukraine hacked the Democratic National Committee's emails in 2016. "I was wrong," Kennedy said Monday night on CNN. "The only evidence I have, and I think it's overwhelming, is that it was Russia to tried to hack the DNC computer."

Emphasis mine. That's not a full walk-back, it's more of a side-step. Russia didn't try to hack the DNC computer. Specific individuals tied to the Russian government provided WikiLeaks with the stolen emails from the DNC, as well as stolen emails from Hillary Clinton's campaign chairman, who was also the target of a cyberattack (current Wikipedia summary).

Remember that then-candidate Trump encouraged Russia, a foreign adversary, to illegally hack into messages by a former secretary of state that might contain sensitive information, then release them publicly. “I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.” And then Russian operatives tried to spearphish individuals affiliated with the Clinton Campaign. (The Atlantic, recapping the Mueller report).

So Russia succeeded in hacking the DNC, and tried to get more access via spearphishing of HRC's campaign affiliates.

In other words, more misinformation from Republicans.


AJaffe: Federal Judge Rejects White House Claim of Immunity for Close Aides

More from NPR: In Blow To White House, Federal Judge Rules That Don McGahn Must Testify (Bobby Allyn for NPR, November 25, 2019 5:52 PM ET, Updated at 9:33 a.m. ET Tuesday, Nov. 26)
The decision by U.S. District Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson clears the way for McGahn's testimony, sought by House Democrats in exploring Trump's possible obstruction of justice related to the Russia probe.

Jackson declared in her 118-page ruling that "presidents are not kings" and that "no one is above the law."

She added: "However busy or essential a presidential aide might be, and whatever their proximity to sensitive domestic and national-security projects, the President does not have the power to excuse him or her from taking an action that the law requires."

A lawyer for McGahn says that his client will obey the court's ruling to testify.

"Don McGahn will comply with Judge Jackson's decision unless it is stayed pending appeal," McGahn's attorney William Burck tells NPR in an email.
...
On Tuesday, the Trump administration filed its notice of appeal and asked the court to pause the McGahn order until the appeal is decided.

Democrats subpoenaed McGahn on May 21, months before the start of the impeachment inquiry. But he is now considered by impeachment investigators to be a central witness to possible instances of obstruction of justice.
posted by filthy light thief at 10:50 AM on November 26, 2019 [9 favorites]


No, the new CNN poll is not good news for Donald Trump on impeachment (Analysis by Chris Cillizza, CNN, November 26, 2019)
A new CNN poll shows that half the country believes that President Donald Trump should be not only impeached by the House, but also removed from office by the Senate.

That result is being spun in some corners of the internet as great news for Trump, because that 50% number is unchanged from a CNN poll in mid-October, the conclusion being that the last 10 days of public impeachment hearings have not convinced more of the public that the President needs to go.
...
The peak of support for the impeachment and removal of then-President Bill Clinton in 1998 was 29% in CNN polling. That's the highest that number ever went, despite the fact that the House Republican majority did vote to impeach late that year!
Not quite "down is up," but more of pessimists vs optimists. Pessimistically, the GOP worked to confuse the topic, smear those speaking the truth, and generally muddy the waters for those who wanted to see Trump as not at fault here. Optimistically, this poll shows that the hearings didn't get spun so hard (or fail so badly) that opinions changed in favor of Trump.

Still, depressing that there's not much change, and Chris, it's not reassuring that the public broadly supported Bill in his Republican-lead impeachment hearings, it's a reminder that the GOP is not representing the public majority, but still got voted into power, back then and again now.
posted by filthy light thief at 10:56 AM on November 26, 2019 [5 favorites]


In Blow To White House, Federal Judge Rules That Don McGahn Must Testify

And immediately the Bolton/Kupperman lawyer issues a statement that the McGahn decision has no relevance to Bolton and Kupperman before a different judge because they are a special case due to their national security roles.

Face it. Bolton really, really, really doesn't want to testify and is doing everything he can think of to avoid it.

And why would Democrats want him to testify? He is obviously an extremely hostile witness and could do great damage to the impeachment case. Just write him off as an enemy of rule of law.
posted by JackFlash at 11:00 AM on November 26, 2019 [5 favorites]


House Judiciary schedules their first impeachment hearing, next Wed. It's our wedding anniversary, so we're delighted.

"The Committee intends this hearing to serve as an opportunity to discuss the historical and constitutional basis of impeachment, as well as the Framers’ intent and understanding of terms like ‘high crimes and misdemeanors,’ Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) wrote in a letter to Trump on Tuesday.
In the letter, Nadler asked whether Trump or his counsel plan to attend the hearing and question witnesses."
posted by Harry Caul at 11:43 AM on November 26, 2019 [16 favorites]


I wonder if Trump’s defense would think about calling Mulvaney or Bolton for their side. It seems like a terrible idea, so there’s no more than a 75% chance that they’d do it.
posted by Huffy Puffy at 11:47 AM on November 26, 2019 [5 favorites]


And why would Democrats want him to testify? He is obviously an extremely hostile witness and could do great damage to the impeachment case. Just write him off as an enemy of rule of law.

1) Republicans are screaming about "hearsay" and "thirdhand information" and how people who were on the Perfect Calls and in discussions about how to proceed weren't allowed to didn't testify. Well, this is the National Security Advisor during the fireworks. You can't get much more plugged-in than that.

2) There is at least circumstantial evidence that Bolton's resignation was in part _because of_ l'affaire Ukraine. He is visibly unamused as to what these rank, bumbling amateurs are doing to his finely tuned global domination machine, and has no love for Trump. Many expect that he would, at a minimum, confirm that the "drug deal" took place and that others testifying about Trump's handling of the entire scheme were accurate.

3) That MUSTACHE.
posted by delfin at 12:35 PM on November 26, 2019 [4 favorites]


That MUSTACHE.

Mustache him all the questions?
posted by Too-Ticky at 12:45 PM on November 26, 2019 [1 favorite]


It's real, and it's spectacular.
posted by kirkaracha at 12:59 PM on November 26, 2019 [1 favorite]


Congratulations on your upcoming wedding anniversary, Harry_Caul - we all pitched in and got you a quid pro quo...
posted by PhineasGage at 1:10 PM on November 26, 2019 [6 favorites]


I think Bolton is playing coy to boost his book sales and Democrats are letting him play the game in order to make his testimony must see TV. The only way to bring down a reality TV star President is by making Impeachment into a Reality TV show.
posted by interogative mood at 1:10 PM on November 26, 2019 [7 favorites]


I'm still waiting on the subpoena of what else is on that server that has all the notes on the Ukrainian call. Seriously, how many times has stuff been hidden there? I'd think the House Intelligence committee can look at it.
posted by baegucb at 1:30 PM on November 26, 2019 [15 favorites]


Yes, hard to understand why moving that call record inappropriately to the secure server hasn't gotten more overt attention from the House...
posted by PhineasGage at 1:38 PM on November 26, 2019 [2 favorites]


I’m pretty sure this has come up before but isn’t this whole “server” thing a myth, aren’t there like several cloud computers involved so the fact that Trump et al keep bringing up a single server sitting on someone’s shelf in Ukraine is just wrong.
posted by misterpatrick at 1:46 PM on November 26, 2019 [1 favorite]


Anyone could ask Robert Mueller about it, in October 2018 he indicted 12 GRU officers for the DNC intrusion and hacks targeting John Podesta and the DCCC.
posted by Harry Caul at 1:53 PM on November 26, 2019 [8 favorites]


What's talked about in the story isn't totally clear from the headline: the Ukraine affair is only one of many other apparent violations of law with respect to funding in general.

Even apart from all of the various Trump high crimes and misdemeanors, bribery and treason, we discuss in these threads, does anyone in the year 2019 actually imagine that this phone call to Ukraine was the only impeachable offense Trump committed?
posted by Gelatin at 2:05 PM on November 26, 2019 [3 favorites]


There’s a Simple Term for What Trump Did and Democrats Should Stick With It (Renato Mariotti, Politico Magazine)
Abuse of power, not bribery or extortion, should be the foundation of the articles of impeachment if Democrats hope to persuade skeptics.
The good news for Democrats is that they proved their case. There can be little dispute that Trump directed officials to withhold military aid appropriated by Congress until and unless Ukraine publicly announced investigations that would benefit Trump politically. At this point, if you don’t think the testimony established a quid pro quo involving aid to Ukraine, you weren’t paying attention.

The major challenge Democrats face is what to call this scheme, because “quid pro quo” isn’t itself an impeachable offense. Throughout the hearings, we’ve heard terms ranging from bribery to extortion to abuse of power. Democrats will need to pick charges that will pass the House and give them the best chance to move public opinion and pick up Republican votes in the Senate. [...]

“Abuse of power” is an obvious choice because it fits Trump’s conduct. Presidents are not supposed to use our tax dollars for their own gain, and Trump had no authority to withhold aid that had been appropriated by Congress. Charging Trump with abusing his power as president speaks to what is wrongful about what he did.

It is also well established that “abuse of power” is an impeachable offense. Richard Nixon was charged with abuse of power, as was Bill Clinton, although that particular charge against Clinton failed to pass the House of Representatives. In addition, there is no question that our founders intended for impeachment to be used when presidents engaged in corrupt conduct, which is what an “abuse of power” charge is intended to capture.
posted by katra at 2:08 PM on November 26, 2019 [5 favorites]


aren’t there like several cloud computers involved

Haha, good luck explaining the concept of cloud servers to the Noodlebrains In Chief. Pretty sure 'the server' is just another mnemonic device that got taken too literally, like 'the wall'. My dude probably thinks some Ukranians in black ski masks physically spirited away someone's laptop and left a note in Russian to throw us off the scent.
posted by echo target at 2:14 PM on November 26, 2019 [7 favorites]


I think people are underestimating how much of an asshole Bolton is and how relevant that is with regard to his primary interest in traditional neocon pugnacious foreign policy and how radically it conflicts with Trump's "foreign policy" (if it can even be characterized as such).

And he technically resigned, but really he was fired. Early on he wanted a job in the admin, but reportedly Trump just didn't like him, not the least because of the mustache. (Trump dislikes facial hair -- there's a whole Freudian analysis available about his germaphobia and fastidiousness; how he tends towards insults like "nasty", especially against women, etc.)

I think Bolton dislikes Trump, certainly disrespects him, and knows the feeling is mutual. Pre-election, I'd have predicted Bolton would very much be, like Bill Kristol, a Never Trumper for all the same reasons Kristol is.

Bolton has long been successfully riding a wave of bellicose Republican foreign policy, that's his brand, and it's all about those traditional Republican foreign policy obsessions. Trump is very much not in that group, he's one-part Pat Buchanon-style America First conservative isolationist with belligerent mercantilism, and one part purely corrupt self-interested plutocrat with the added bonus of a disturbing fetish for strongman dictators, even when they are enemies of the US.

But Trump has co-opted most of that Republican base. Kristol and Bolton and the like were sure that red-blooded Americans were pragmatic about torture when used in Afghanistan and Iraq. It turns out, though, that much of this base just likes torture itself.

Bolton probably believes -- correctly, in my opinion -- that if the Republican party survives Trump, things will mostly revert to the status quo. (Where I disagree is that I think it won't survive Trump, or at least only in name.) So he doesn't want to do something that would hurt his future credibility with the base. Kristol is as rabid as they come, but he will never again be trusted by the base. His fate is what Bolton wants to avoid.

If that were all he cared about and it were purely self-interest, then he wouldn't have clashed with Trump when he worked for him. But he did, frequently, because he really believes in and cares about things like fighting wars against Iran or Venezuela or (if it were possible) North Korea. And, again, by temperament he's an asshole. Possibly as vindictive as Trump, but with credible deniability.

All this to argue that I think Bolton would like to maximally embarrass and hurt Trump while minimally hurting his future standing with the hard right foreign policy establishment and the conservative base that has cheered it on. Probably, his public affect will be "more in sorrow than in anger" but with lots of subtextual malice.

"I think Bolton is playing coy to boost his book sales and Democrats are letting him play the game in order to make his testimony must see TV. The only way to bring down a reality TV star President is by making Impeachment into a Reality TV show."

That, too.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 2:16 PM on November 26, 2019 [11 favorites]


Bolton just popped up on Twitter again, with thousands of replies along the lines of "Testify to Congress or STFU."
posted by PhineasGage at 2:31 PM on November 26, 2019 [10 favorites]


The new bus schedule is out. Now making stops at Giulianiville. < Bloomberg
posted by Harry Caul at 3:20 PM on November 26, 2019 [11 favorites]




Rudy's perusing his "insurance" policy to see if it covers hailstorms where the hailstones are bus-shaped, bus-sized, and/or actual buses.
posted by tonycpsu at 3:30 PM on November 26, 2019 [8 favorites]


The mental image of Trump at his own impeachment hearing is pretty amazing to behold. What are the mechanics of this even like? Of course he'll say no, but if he said yes, would he expect a SOTU style glad handing entrance? Will he sit with the GOP/his defense team? Will he shout proto-Tweets at witnesses?
posted by feloniousmonk at 3:43 PM on November 26, 2019 [4 favorites]


The new bus schedule is out.
I am having a hard time finding any humor in this stuff any more...SNL, Seth Meters, etc. It's just not funny any more.
So thanks for making me LOL.
posted by MtDewd at 4:25 PM on November 26, 2019 [12 favorites]


So it seems like Trump is driving the bus at Rudy but Rudy knows the plan is to lay flat.

It sounds like they're trying to threat the needle and claim that Rudy was there working on Trump's behalf but not at his direction like we're supposed to believe it.
posted by VTX at 7:05 PM on November 26, 2019


Well, I suppose not really believe but that that'll be the message they get everyone to repeat in the usually troll/mold reality attempt.
posted by VTX at 7:07 PM on November 26, 2019


The Republican Party is just criminals all the way down.
posted by valkane at 7:29 PM on November 26, 2019 [6 favorites]


It sounds like they're trying to threat the needle and claim that Rudy was there working on Trump's behalf but not at his direction

Kind of a hard argument to make when Trump explicitly said in his infamous phone call to Zelensky: "Mr. Giuliani is a highly respected man. He was the mayor New York City, a great mayor, and I would like him to call you. I will ask him to call you."

"I would like him to call you. I will ask him to call you." That certainly sounds like Trump is giving Giuliani directions.
posted by JackFlash at 7:38 PM on November 26, 2019 [21 favorites]


Not while the Republican electorate will happily turf out any turncoats at the next primary. Without Trump losing the people the Republicans won’t abandon ship.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 8:11 PM on November 26, 2019 [1 favorite]


I honestly don't get what's in it for Republicans to hang this one out.

Among Republican voters, there is still 90% opposition to impeachment. Most Republican congress members are in relatively safe Republican districts. They don't worry about the general election. What keeps them up at night is getting through the Republican primary. If they don't get through the primary, there's no point worrying about the general election. They can't afford to offend their base.
posted by JackFlash at 8:17 PM on November 26, 2019 [9 favorites]


The major challenge Democrats face is what to call this scheme, because “quid pro quo” isn’t itself an impeachable offense.

This is the same goddamn playbook as with the Mueller investigation and "collusion". No collusion! Repeated again and again. When that, as readers here know well, was not a term used in the Special Counsel's authorization, nor is it used in law.
posted by thelonius at 8:18 PM on November 26, 2019 [3 favorites]


We ought to counter-stonewall. "I don't know what you mean by "quid pro quo". Let's talk about the evidence, which clearly shows that Trump made the aid release and White House meeting conditional on announcing investigations".
posted by thelonius at 8:23 PM on November 26, 2019 [7 favorites]


I think you can roll it all up together into a neat little package:

Trump abused his power by extorting a foreign government to act for his personal benefit in a quid pro quo exchange for promised monetary aid and a politically important visit to the White House, which actions the framers of the Constitution thought of as bribery and explicitly listed as a reason for impeachment.
posted by Jonathan Livengood at 8:44 PM on November 26, 2019 [13 favorites]


The major challenge Democrats face is what to call this scheme.

Take a play from the GOP book and try everything until something sticks: there's bribery, extortion, influence peddling, foreign lobbying, emoluments, ... It's all in there anyway.
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 8:44 PM on November 26, 2019 [7 favorites]


Trump Knew of Whistle-Blower Complaint When He Released Aid to Ukraine (NYT)
President Trump had already been briefed on a whistle-blower’s complaint about his dealings with Ukraine when he unfroze military aid for the country in September, according to two people familiar with the matter. Lawyers from the White House counsel’s office told Mr. Trump in late August about the complaint, explaining that they were trying to determine whether they were legally required to give it to Congress, the people said. [...]

It is unclear how much detail the lawyers provided Mr. Trump about the complaint. The New York Times reported in September that White House advisers — namely, Mr. Cipollone and Mr. Eisenberg — knew about the whistle-blower complaint in August. But the specifics of when and how Mr. Trump learned of it have not previously been reported. [...]

New details also emerged on Tuesday about that decision to freeze the security assistance to Ukraine. An official from the White House budget office, Mark Sandy, testified that on July 12, he received an email from the office of the acting White House chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney, notifying him that Mr. Trump had directed that administration officials freeze Ukraine’s military aid.
posted by katra at 9:05 PM on November 26, 2019 [9 favorites]


Trump Claims Rudy Giuliani Was Acting Alone, Despite Massive Evidence
...however well-signaled it is in advance, actually experiencing this fantastical defense emerge from the president’s lips is a vertigo-inducing experience. The notion that an unpaid attorney holding no government job or foreign policy experience took control of American policy in a crucial region to the extent that diplomats in two countries spent months attempting to placate him — and did this all on his own — is so preposterous that merely to describe the scenario is to debunk it. Obviously, obviously, Giuliani was acting on Trump’s behalf.
posted by kirkaracha at 9:23 PM on November 26, 2019 [30 favorites]


"I hardly knew Rudy. We talked once or twice"
posted by baegucb at 9:48 PM on November 26, 2019 [21 favorites]


You know one bad thing about the timing of the impeachment stuff and the economy? You have fewer people in college because of the economy or if they are in college they have co-existing economic opportunities.

My community college has been macabrely holding its breath for the economy to tank for a couple of years now for purposes of restoring dwindling enrollment. And the students that I do have often have more than one shit job working them to death to the point their ability to focus in school is severely compromised. 70% of our students are part-time. When the economy is going, those part-timers are pulled further out of the orbit of school.

For structural reasons, for my students or people who would be my students but for the fact they have a job at the moment, impeachment is just so far down the list of priorities for them. You don't exactly hear about, say, the danger of creeping fascism if you're doing X for Chic-Fil-A and Y for Uber and Z being all of your family errands.

I don't know what we need to replicate the environment of Congress during Watergate. One terrified of an enraged populace? We need the enraged populace first.

And then I say, "Well there's 2020" and yes but that's cold comfort, because when you're dealing with something as fundamental as this, this fundamental difference in priorities, hanging your hat on one vote on one day is motherfucking terrifying
posted by angrycat at 12:53 AM on November 27, 2019 [22 favorites]


O'Reilly: Rudy Guiliani, but he's -- he's your personal lawyer. Guiliani's your personal lawyer. So you didn't direct him to go to Ukraine to do anything or put any heat on them?

Trump: No, I didn't direct him but he's a warrior. Rudy's a warrior, Rudy went, he possibly saw something. But you have to understand, Rudy, has other people that he represents.
So Renfield's getting underbussed on Bill O'Reilly's show (no link). This is where Trump goes for a sympathetic interview. Maybe he thought only dingbat true-believers would be listening because he doesn't understand the internet. Of course, MSNBC got the clip.

Living with Trump is like living in an abusive household. Now he's come home drunk with that prick that couldn't keep his hands to himself and wants to pretend he's alright. We haven't forgotten what Bill did Donald. Are you so short of friends? Yeah, I thought so.
posted by adept256 at 3:45 AM on November 27, 2019 [3 favorites]


I didn't even know that O'Reilly still had a show.
posted by octothorpe at 4:03 AM on November 27, 2019 [3 favorites]


It's a POS podcast with delusions of grandeur. It's not hard to find but don't bother.
posted by adept256 at 4:21 AM on November 27, 2019


Re: Giuliani was acting on his own-I don't buy it for a second, but it's as if Trump doesn't realize that saying that in his defense means that he's a.) Trump is dangerously unaware of what his own team is doing and b.) has chosen his team so poorly as to include people who are going to "go rogue" on international matters amounting to, oh, a paltry 400 million or so. How is "I am so spectacularly incompetent that I should be removed from office for that" a defense?
posted by Larry David Syndrome at 5:03 AM on November 27, 2019 [11 favorites]


O'Reilly also has a newish book, 'The United States of Trump,' and something called the 'Great American Wealth Project,' in which Bill O and some random investor guy tour the nation and reveal the one stock that yada yada yada please subscribe to our newsletter (why am I still listening to conservative talk radio?).
posted by box at 5:07 AM on November 27, 2019


How is "I am so spectacularly incompetent that I should be removed from office for that" a defense?

Because they know that their base is looking for an excuse to handwave it away, rather than sitting down each evening and working through the logic of the day's yappery. "Excuse, Not A Reason" is my watchword for the Trump era.
posted by Etrigan at 5:57 AM on November 27, 2019 [5 favorites]


3 takeaways from Mark Sandy’s and Philip Reeker’s testimony on Ukraine
  1. More evidence that Trump’s hold on Ukraine assistance wasn’t because of concern over general ‘corruption’
  2. Evidence the hold was spurred by media reports, not policy
  3. And more testimony backs up Sondland — except on one key part Reeker, one of the top diplomats overseeing Europe and Eurasia affairs, testified Sondland said he had a “script” for Ukraine’s president. And that Sondland said he was being directed by the president. That squares with Sondland’s explosive testimony that he told Ukraine it had to announce investigations into Democrats to get an Oval Office meeting, and that he was acting “at the express direction of the President of the United States.” But unlike Sondland, Reeker is yet another witness to testify that it was obvious to him that Giuliani wanted Trump’s potential 2020 opponent investigated
posted by kirkaracha at 6:45 AM on November 27, 2019 [9 favorites]




That doesn't look very disastrous at this writing. Not particularly exciting, but it's not like the author is getting hounded or downvoted to oblivion or whatever. Did I miss the fun?
posted by Not A Thing at 8:45 AM on November 27, 2019 [3 favorites]


Re: Giuliani was acting on his own-I don't buy it for a second, but it's as if Trump doesn't realize that saying that in his defense means that he's a.) Trump is dangerously unaware of what his own team is doing and b.) has chosen his team so poorly as to include people who are going to "go rogue" on international matters amounting to, oh, a paltry 400 million or so. How is "I am so spectacularly incompetent that I should be removed from office for that" a defense?

Also this is simply not possible. Rudy is not a cabinet member, appointed or temporary. He has no position at all in the government chain of command. Hell, he isn't even a formal white advisor!
For him to have 'gone rogue' would require Trump to admit that he has authorized a shadow government conspiracy of exactly the sort he accuses the 'deep state' of. In this case it would involve multiple appointees of Trump in what is essentially a direct chain of command from him to unconditionally and with no authorization accept orders from an external non-governmental agent.

There can be no singular fall guy for what has gone on. It's a pretty wide and deep scandal and the only defense everyone but Trump has is the standard cover up of "executive privilege" and when that blows up it will be: "I was following orders from the president". It can't be anything else because at that level of government the buck stops just one or two steps away.
posted by srboisvert at 8:48 AM on November 27, 2019 [15 favorites]


If anyone is looking for a summary in one place of the Ukraine affair, Lawfare has you covered.

(As an aside, I found Lawfare's podcast "The Report" to be a concise and engaging presentation of the material in the Mueller report. Recommended.)
posted by suelac at 8:57 AM on November 27, 2019 [9 favorites]


Giuliani was acting on his own-I don't buy it for a second

Trump's entire history of almost never saying things that are true is definitely a good enough reason to doubt his word.

But the even stronger evidence is that Trump told Zelenskyy on the July 25th call that he'd have Rudy call him. Now, granted, it's not evidence that Trump actually followed through with it. he could have forgotten or changed his mind. But when Trump tells Zelenskyy to expect a call from Rudy and then Rudy turns up in Ukraine neck deep in the thing Trump was talking to Zelenskyy about you'd have to be an idiot to believe he was there on his own.
Mr. Giuliani is a highly respected man. He was the mayor of New York City, a great mayor, and I would like him to call you. I will ask him to call you along with the Attorney General. Rudy very much knows what's happening and he is a very capable guy. If you could speak to him that would be great.
There is so much crime-ing and so much open evidence of it that it's easy to forget that there is often ample evidence on the record to contradict whatever lies these assholes are spewing. Which, of course, is part of the point. These things aren't really meant to be believed and their supports run the range from actually believing it, through convincing themselves they believe, to not actually believing it and just repeating it to own the libs. Then we spend all this time having to go back to find the evidence that refutes their claim (a trap in which I now find myself) and arguing over instead of just telling them to shut up their lying faces. It's frustrating as hell but we should all of us feel confident that not only are the things folks from this admin saying total bullshit but it contradicts existing evidence damn near every time whether you take the time and mental energy to dig it up or not.

Edit: I should have searched beforehand because, of course, the evidence from the transcript was pointed out up-thread.
posted by VTX at 9:04 AM on November 27, 2019 [1 favorite]


To start the Thanksgiving holiday on a cheery note, here is Dahlia Lithwick in Slate summarizing the state of play: "America’s Descent Into Legal Nihilism."
posted by PhineasGage at 9:32 AM on November 27, 2019 [10 favorites]


The official hold on the Ukraine aid was made the day of the July 25 Trump call to Zelensky.

The official release on the Ukraine aid was made the day after the whistleblower report about the call was disclosed to Congress.

Does it really take Sherlock Holmes to solve this crime?
posted by JackFlash at 9:35 AM on November 27, 2019 [25 favorites]


> Also this is simply not possible. Rudy is not a cabinet member, appointed or temporary. He has no position at all in the government chain of command. Hell, he isn't even a formal white advisor!

i mean i see what you’re saying and who knows if this goes on but for now at least people of italian descent still count as white
posted by Reclusive Novelist Thomas Pynchon at 9:44 AM on November 27, 2019 [9 favorites]


Are we seriously spending time on proving/discussing that Rudy was an agent of Trump? No one believes otherwise that isn't just looking for an out. It was a flat out lie told for cover. No one actually believes it. It isn't worth even considering as truth. It should be made fun of, not discussed.
posted by Bovine Love at 9:54 AM on November 27, 2019 [9 favorites]


Does it really take Sherlock Holmes to solve this crime?
Personally, I've been reaching out to G.K. Chesterton's conspiratorially paranoid The Man Who Was Thursday as a guide.
There, crimes aren't the problem, it's the constant onion-ing confusion of authority figures with rogue actors. Except MWWTh of course then ends in bewildering Christian allegorical visions.
. . .and then ended up inspiring Irish Republican politician Michael Collins with the idea "if you didn't seem to be hiding nobody hunted you out".
posted by Harry Caul at 9:57 AM on November 27, 2019 [2 favorites]


I'm struck by the way Trump recommended Giuliani to Zelensky. Here it is again:
Mr. Giuliani is a highly respected man. He was the mayor of New York City, a great mayor, and I would like him to call you. I will ask him to call you along with the Attorney General. Rudy very much knows what's happening and he is a very capable guy. If you could speak to him that would be great.
It's like the dialogue from every Mafia movie: Rudy is a "wise guy", he's "one of ours". It's also the language of a sales scam: he doesn't say that Giuliani is speaking on behalf of Trump or in an official capacity, but that's certainly what's being implied by "I will ask him to call you along with the Attorney General". Trump is so used to criming that he automatically avoids direct speech about his criminal enterprises. It also explains why he was so invested in the exculpatory power of his "I want nothing" tirade: he didn't say he wanted anything! He didn't even say Rudy was his lieutenant or that he carried a message from him. How can that be evidence? Except, of course, talking like this actually demonstrates consciousness of guilt: any normal person would have said "this is what I want", or "this is my representative who will negotiate on my behalf."
posted by Joe in Australia at 10:10 AM on November 27, 2019 [24 favorites]


When I introduce you, I'm gonna say, "this is a friend of mine." That means you're a connected guy. Now if I said instead "this is a friend of ours," that would mean you a made guy. A capiche?
posted by kirkaracha at 10:16 AM on November 27, 2019 [7 favorites]


> Are we seriously spending time on proving/discussing that Rudy was an agent of Trump? No one believes otherwise that isn't just looking for an out. It was a flat out lie told for cover. No one actually believes it. It isn't worth even considering as truth. It should be made fun of, not discussed.

I think it's worth considering for the sake of argument, with the intent of gaming out how POTUS45 and his senior henchmen (Barr, Pence, McConnell) are going to try to ret-con it in Rudy as a lone wolf. Normally I'd dismiss nth-dimensional chess if it were just coming from Trump, but so many senior GOP players' fortunes are tied to his in ways that aren't going to be easy to untangle, so any window into their strategy is valuable. Of course we know Rudy wasn't freelancing, but we should consider what them saying that means about potential schisms within his brain (sic) trust, and how those can be exploited.
posted by tonycpsu at 10:21 AM on November 27, 2019 [7 favorites]


When someone presents you a blatant lie that is self serving and utterly unbelievable, arguing facts back is not going to win it since they have wantonly ignore the facts. To third parties Trumps own words speak for themselves, and nothing more is necessary. "OK Boomer" is a much better style of response. Or maybe "Sure, ok" for some more Canadian style :)

As far as it goes, my feeling is that the defence will be intent and state of mind. *If* Trump honestly believes that Ukraine was involved in the rigging of 2016, and Joe Biden was involved with Ukraine (this is not out of the question, him believing it that is, and he has a long history of promoting it), then his demand for an investigation was not self serving but instead was serving the needs of the nation. It's the "I didn't know it was just a cell phone in his hand when I shot him, so I felt genuinely threatened" defence. If his crime is one of intent -- it isn't the action as asking for favours for aid is, in fact, normal -- but the reason behind it (trying to obtain personal gain instead of national gain), then all you have to do is alter the perception of the reason.
posted by Bovine Love at 10:41 AM on November 27, 2019 [1 favorite]


To start the Thanksgiving holiday on a cheery note, here is Dahlia Lithwick in Slate summarizing the state of play: "America’s Descent Into Legal Nihilism."
from the article:
Don McGahn thinks someone else is responsible for taking care of all this, as, evidently, does John Bolton. Robert Mueller made the same mistake in the spring, when he decided it was Congress’ responsibility to act on what he had found. And so, to be frank, did most of the impeachment witnesses, many of whom only came forward to corroborate the whistleblower’s anonymous report, and some of whom only came forward pursuant to a subpoena. Everyone seems to assume vast quantities of courage in other people that they cannot seem to find in themselves. Yet somehow, our greatest worry in the coming days will be how to remain civil with one another over a large bird and its cute little cranberry accessories. The president believes that he is above the law and has foreclosed any attempt to prove otherwise. The president seems unable to conceive of himself losing an election. The president is counting on all of us to merely hope that something somewhere gets done about all this stuff at some point, but to never actually do anything ourselves beyond passing the stuffing around. This year, what I am most thankful for is the people who are trying to do that something themselves.
posted by ZeusHumms at 10:50 AM on November 27, 2019 [13 favorites]


Judge Puts A Brief Hold On Her Ruling In McGahn Subpoena Case (Tierney Sneed, TalkingPointsMemo)
The pause ordered by the judge is only a seven-day administrative stay, and the House of Representatives, which brought the original lawsuit to enforce its subpoena, had already signaled that it did not oppose such an order. During the seven-day stay, the judge, U.S. District Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, will consider whether to halt her ruling for a longer period of time while the Trump administration appeals it.

“This Minute Order should not be construed in any way as a ruling on the merits of the motion for stay pending appeal,” she said in her Wednesday order.
posted by ZeusHumms at 10:55 AM on November 27, 2019 [3 favorites]


The problem with the "I didn't know it was crimes!" defense is that, well, first off that *generally* doesn't work in most cases.

That's not the defence. Asking for return actions for aid is not, in itself, an actual crime. It is only a crime if it was looking for personal gain. The defence is that he wasn't asking for personal gain because he honestly believed it was in the national interest. His lack of education on the matter could go to competence, but does not make it a crime. Only if the reason for asking was personal gain would it be a crime.
posted by Bovine Love at 11:10 AM on November 27, 2019


What's worse, this is further bolstered by the fact he has consistently and publicly disagreed with the intelligence communities consensus on the source of the meddling, which strengthens the defence that he was pursing the investigation in the nations interest.
posted by Bovine Love at 11:14 AM on November 27, 2019 [1 favorite]


He's a mad king and we have to call him such.

"Stated simply the primary takeaway from the past 250 years of recorded American history is that Presidents are not kings." - U.S. District Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson 11/27/19

Someone in authority has said as such in their ruling. It'll be appealed all the way to scotus, but it is being said.
posted by adept256 at 11:18 AM on November 27, 2019 [6 favorites]


I know Slate is clickbaity but my impression of Dahlia Lithwick is that she's been on solid footing, so this article by her about how WE ARE FUCKED has me a bit rattled.
posted by angrycat at 11:45 AM on November 27, 2019 [6 favorites]


little bit of fire from judge ketanji brown jackson's nov. 25 opinion:
[W]e are at a point in history in which the Executive branch appears to be categorically rejecting once-accepted and standard applications of Legislative and Judicial branch authority; therefore, federal courts are being called upon to evaluate novel exercises of Executive power that allegedly threaten the prerogatives of the other branches of government in unique ways. ... This reality plainly limits the lessons that can properly be drawn from history. It also renders unpersuasive DOJ's assertion that, based on the branches' lengthy track record of negotiated resolutions, today's Judiciary Committee should be deemed to lack standing to protect its vital interests in the courts. In this Court's view, the fact that federal courts throughout history have not had occasion to address the kinds of perceived threats to constitutional and procedural norms that are being brought to federal courts' attention regularly in the present day actually says more about the unprecedented nature of the challenged actions and legal positions of the Executive branch than it does about the nature of the Judiciary's Committee's claim or harm.
(pp. 87-88, citations omitted) and
The Court also observes that the lack of other cases on these issues is at least in part attributable to DOJ's prior rational decisions to enter into negotiations over the scope of testimony and records when past Executive branch officials received a legislative subpoena, rather than proceed to court to litigated the purported scope of those officials' purported immunity.
(p.96).
posted by 20 year lurk at 12:05 PM on November 27, 2019 [16 favorites]


It's a crime.
No, it is not. It is normal everyday diplomacy. It is part of the reason you give aid, to get stuff in return. It is only a crime if the "ask" is for some kind of personal or personal political gain.
posted by Bovine Love at 12:11 PM on November 27, 2019


I can't tell if you just got it accidentally backwards or not. It doesn't strengthen his defense at all. It weakens it. When the ENTIRE GOVERNMENT says it was Russia, we definitively know the National Interest as it relates to these matters.

He's not being impeached for being incompetent, or failing to do a good job in representing the nation, he is being accused of asking for something for his own political gain. It is all about intent and abuse of power, not outcome. You guys are all too focused on facts and doing things 'right', but what is accused of is doing it for the wrong reasons. The impeachment isn't that "he sucks". Once it comes down to "reasons", belief enters the game. That will be their defense. Not that he made the wrong decision, but that he made the decision because he cared about the country, regardless of whether it was a good decision or not.
posted by Bovine Love at 12:17 PM on November 27, 2019


The impeachment isn't that "he sucks". Once it comes down to "reasons", belief enters the game. That will be their defense.
Well, actually it being an impeachment it comes down to votes in the Senate. Their defense will be enough Republican Senators voting Trump-loyally. (and possibly one or more Dem Senators).
posted by Harry Caul at 12:37 PM on November 27, 2019


True, but the "FU" will want at least a veneer of political cover so that the people who want to believe can do so. So they do want some sort of defence, just strong enough. They don't need to convince the Democrat base after all.
posted by Bovine Love at 12:40 PM on November 27, 2019


There is no veneer of cover. There is only, fuck you, that's why. And lies. I mean?
/cries
posted by angrycat at 12:50 PM on November 27, 2019 [6 favorites]


as recounted above, my friend who entertained the notion that, so long as the president can articulate a legitimate interest in investigations of corruption in ukraine, the fact that such investigations may incidentally have a detrimental effect on a political rival does not render the president's interest criminal, was moved to reject this position upon the first day's televised testimony from ambassadors kent and taylor, who attested to the aid flowing unrestricted, unconditioned in the prior year(s) of this malministration. the president's very apologists on that committee routinely referred to the javelins previously provided by this malministration with no election-interfering strings attached as proving both the president's commitment to ukrainian aid and his greater toughness than obama, while undermining the asserted interest in corruption.
later that friend reported also having found compelling dr. hill's testimony that many other aid-receiving countries enjoying similar prevalence/risk of corruption did not also have their behavior coerced by the president's (agents') threat of withholding aid.
posted by 20 year lurk at 1:00 PM on November 27, 2019 [10 favorites]


Well, I definitely wouldn't say it is a good defence, but there is no good defence, because it is indefensible. It is only for those who want to believe, but are having a bit of a stretch for it; he is doing so poorly at this point that he needs to get some republicans back on board. There is a fair percentage of republicans that are polling that he did wrong (and even a few for impeachment). First step is to get them back. Second step is to distract everyone before november so he can get enough independents to vote for him and also strongly motivate the base while, hopefully (for him), not strongly motivating the opposition. That latter bit he tends to be not very good at.
posted by Bovine Love at 1:09 PM on November 27, 2019


Pulitzer winner David Cay Johnston: Will Trump's America end in "firing squads"? (Chauncey DeVega, Salon)
Investigative reporter on why he feels sorry for Trump, despite the latter's long career of crime and corruption
Good general interview that covers many issues discussed before. I wanted to highlight the sections relevant to the impeachment:
What stood out to you about the impeachment hearings?

[…] If Donald Trump has not done anything wrong — as he keeps telling us in his tweets — then produce the documents that are being asked for. If they exonerate him, why won’t Trump produce them? The IRS comes to audit you and says, "You took a deduction for this gift to a charity," are you going to say to them, "Well, I'm not going to show you the canceled check." This makes no sense. The reason Trump is not coming forward is he knows perfectly well that the evidence doesn't help him.

What I worry about is this: Will the Democrats limit these public and future hearings to the Ukrainian matters? Is that really going to be their strategy, because I think it's possible that millions of Americans will say, "I don't care about Ukraine." Ukraine is terribly important to the national security of the United States and Europe and to containing Putin. Is that enough? Mitch McConnell is going to do everything he can to protect Donald Trump unless it becomes so untenable that all 100 U.S. senators to vote to remove him.

Should the Democrats go big or go small in the articles of impeachment against Donald Trump? What do you think the articles of impeachment should be?

I think the articles of Impeachment should include the whole bribery extortion matter. Withholding of all this information is also obstruction of Congress. There's the emoluments clause issues about the Trump Hotel in Washington, and other Trump properties. There are a host of other charges. One of the ways that prosecutors think — and I'm sure this is what Adam Schiff is thinking — is that you do not bring the kitchen-sink case, you bring the case you can win. I don't believe that Nancy Pelosi, who is a five-star general of strategy, would have approved beginning the impeachment process if she did not know, given her cautious demeanor, that there was not more coming out about Trump.

One of the challenges with all this is going to be, of course, that the Trump people thumb their nose at the records laws. Trump has held meetings with Putin with no one in the room but Russians. He tears up notes. He yells at people if they take notes in meetings. Except in this case, it's so sprawling with Ukraine that there are lots of other people and lots of records involved. As soon as some of those people realize that they are probably going to be indicted and go to prison, then they're going to talk.
posted by ZeusHumms at 1:12 PM on November 27, 2019 [9 favorites]


Larry David Syndrome but it's as if Trump doesn't realize that saying that in his defense means that he's a.) Trump is dangerously unaware of what his own team is doing [...] How is "I am so spectacularly incompetent that I should be removed from office for that" a defense?

It is exactly the defense that Reagan used in Iran/Contra and it worked pretty well for him.

You wouldn't think that Republicans would be fine with the idea of their President as a completely incompetent boob, but I suspect they rationalize it by thinking of Reagan and now Trump as being very clever, pulling one over on the Democrats by pretending to be oblivious and incompetent. Ha libs, you can't **PROVE** the President isn't so disconnected and unaware that they didn't know crimes were happening so you can't impeach them! They'll see it as 11 dimensional chess and a super awesome way to both do what was necessary to protect America while at the same time making the Democrats look like twits.

Basically as long as they win they're fine with anything and they see absolutely any tactic the Republicans use, no matter how seemingly humiliating as a great idea.

Remember the CPUSA people who thought that dressing up in diapers and playing with baby toys would somehow make liberals look bad? It's that sort of total lack of self awareness that will let the Republicans think Trump is just pretending to be incompetent to pw0n the left and get some sweet liburl teerz to drink.
posted by sotonohito at 1:24 PM on November 27, 2019 [4 favorites]


With Thanksgiving tomorrow, some people are going to find themselves talking with family members who are uninformed, or underinformed, or misinformed, about what's actually going on with the impeachment proceedings. Maybe it's not worth trying to reach the true believers in Trumpism, but for those who have parents or other family whose minds are being clouded by Fox News but may be reachable, I think it's worth sharing that the YouTube channel LegalEagle, run by an actual practicing attorney, has posted several videos on a lawyer's perspective on the impeachment proceedings. I think they're clear, fairly engaging, and nonpartisan without falling into both-sides-ism.
  • Ukraine whistleblower, transcript, complaint & impeachment: a first deep dive on the whistleblower report, the call transcript, and more, from two months ago
  • Is the whistleblower complaint HEARSAY?: a discussion on the nature and use of hearsay evidence, explaining that hearsay evidence is used all the time in courtrooms and can be considered high-quality evidence, subject only to greater concerns about issues like chain of custody
  • Quid pro quo? Taylor and Vindman testify: exploring what the nature of the quid pro quo allegations are and what evidence Taylor and Vindman provided (as of three weeks ago)
  • Lawyer examines impeachment defenses: goes through all of the major excuses defenses offered by the administration and its supporters, attempting to state the strongest possible version of each ("steelmanning" as opposed to "strawmanning"), and systematically revealing how empty each of them are
Maybe for someone out there this might be a useful resource for having a more productive conversation with family about impeachment, perhaps by watching the videos together and discussing them.
posted by biogeo at 1:30 PM on November 27, 2019 [15 favorites]


They don't need to convince the Democrat base after all.

Democratic base, please. Using "Democrat" that way is an epithet. Sorry, this is a zero-tolerance issue for me.
posted by kirkaracha at 1:38 PM on November 27, 2019 [24 favorites]


so i’m big on basically doing purely material analysis of tactics rather than thinking in terms of abstract things like "meaning" or whatever. what i mean (or, i guess, "mean") here is that rather of thinking in terms of what arguments will most resonate with the american people or what arguments have the most solid legal grounding, the appropriate strategy is to think in terms of what actions will result in eating up the most time and extracting the most attention, regardless of the reason that people are paying attention. if people are watching, even if they’re just watching because they hate you, or even if they’re just watching because they simply cannot avoid you, eventually they will start to think your views are normal and will start to against themselves agree with you because of an unconscious desire to fit in, to be themselves normal. the republicans and neonazis (but i repeat myself) are so good at this sort of thing and i am sick with jealousy about that. think about how they sucked all of the oxygen out of the room with their incessant useless repetitive benghazi hearings. they discussed essentially nothing in them, over and over, a relentless flood of nothing that became impossible to ignore despite (or maybe because) its vacuity.

thankfully there are a few democrats who are good at forcing people to pay attention to them and thereby sucking all the oxygen out of the room. aoc is one of them; nancy pelosi is another.
posted by Reclusive Novelist Thomas Pynchon at 1:39 PM on November 27, 2019 [4 favorites]


Democratic base, please.

Nothing grinds me like hearing these fatuous golems spew "democrat" this and "democrat" that. They damn sure use it as an epithet.
posted by pee tape at 1:58 PM on November 27, 2019 [3 favorites]


transcripts of testimony of deputy associate director for national security programs (and former acting director) of the office of management and budget, mark sandy, and acting assistant secretary of european and eurasian affairs, ambassador philip reeker.
posted by 20 year lurk at 2:08 PM on November 27, 2019 [3 favorites]


as recounted above, my friend who entertained the notion that, so long as the president can articulate a legitimate interest in investigations of corruption in ukraine, the fact that such investigations may incidentally have a detrimental effect on a political rival does not render the president's interest criminal

I find the question, "Can you name 3 other people, besides Hunter and Joe Biden, who Trump said should be investigated for corruption?"
posted by mikelieman at 2:42 PM on November 27, 2019 [10 favorites]


The answer is yes. Do you mean today? Or just this week.

ffs he sent the AG on a world tour to prod at people who must think he's out of his gourd.
posted by adept256 at 2:47 PM on November 27, 2019 [2 favorites]


I know Slate is clickbaity but my impression of Dahlia Lithwick is that she's been on solid footing, so this article by her about how WE ARE FUCKED has me a bit rattled.

I think Dahlia Lithwick is feeling more rattled. See her post-Kavanaugh article, etc.
posted by jenfullmoon at 2:52 PM on November 27, 2019 [6 favorites]


[Ignorance and ineptitude] is exactly the defense that Reagan used in Iran/Contra and it worked pretty well for him.

To be sure, the admissions he had to make about his ignorance and ineptitude dimmed his reputation considerably, taking his approval rating down 20% during the hearings, and making him more of a talisman for the right than any beacon of the US.
posted by rhizome at 3:00 PM on November 27, 2019


so i’m big on basically doing purely material analysis of tactics rather than thinking in terms of abstract things like "meaning" or whatever.

You and like 95% of the news media.
posted by biogeo at 3:19 PM on November 27, 2019 [5 favorites]


Well, great. And fairly fast, too: Giuliani was in talks to be paid by Ukraine’s top prosecutor as they together sought damaging information on Democrats (Washington Post, Nov. 27, 2019)
President Trump’s personal attorney, Rudolph W. Giuliani, negotiated this year to represent Ukraine’s top prosecutor for at least $200,000 during the same months that Giuliani was working with the prosecutor to dig up dirt on former vice president Joe Biden, according to people familiar with the discussions. The people said that Giuliani began negotiations with Ukraine’s top prosecutor, Yuri Lutsenko, about a possible agreement in February. In the agreement, Giuliani’s company would receive payment to represent Lutsenko as the Ukrainian sought to recover assets he believed had been stolen from the government in Kyiv, those familiar with the discussions said. [...]

A person familiar with the negotiations described contracts drafted this year in which Giuliani would have worked for Lutsenko or separately, the Ukrainian Ministry of Justice. [...]

Some versions of the agreements envisioned Washington husband-and-wife lawyers Victoria Toensing and Joe diGenova also playing a role and receiving payment, people familiar with the matter said.

A February draft retainer agreement with Lutsenko called for the trio to help recover money allegedly stolen from Ukraine. The draft called for Lutsenko to retain Giuliani Partners as well as diGenova and Toensing, and pay a $200,000 retainer to Giuliani Partners.

The people said that another retainer agreement, drafted in March, called for Giuliani Partners to receive $300,000 from the Ministry of Justice for help locating the supposedly stolen assets. That draft agreement also stated that Toensing and diGenova would be working on the matter. That agreement called for payments to be made to Giuliani Partners.

Giuliani wrote on Twitter Wednesday evening that he “did NOT pursue a business opportunity in Ukraine,” noting the deal was never ultimately consummated.

“I could have helped them recover $7B in stolen money, but I didn’t. Was paid ZERO,” Giuliani wrote.
Furthermore: Lutsenko, who served as Ukraine’s top prosecutor until August, could not be immediately reached for comment. But in an interview with the publication Ukrainian Truth this month, Lutsenko described how he was eager for Giuliani to help him get a meeting with the U.S. attorney general to discuss evidence he had uncovered that Ukrainian assets had been routed through U.S. bank accounts. Speaking in Ukrainian, Lutsenko said that Giuliani at first agreed he could help make the connection but that he never did.

“For me, this is an absolute mystery. A few months later, a new United States attorney general was selected. I called back several times with assistants or advisers to Giuliani with the question: ‘Will there be or will not be a meeting?’ ” Lutsenko said.

Lutsenko said Giuliani told him he would have to hire a lobbyist to get the meeting. “They even offered me such a company,” Lutsenko said. “I said that I am the prosecutor general of Ukraine and will not pay a dime.”

He said that he was told it would be “impossible” for him to get the meeting without paying and that he continued to refuse. “I will not pay money for any meeting,” he said
.
posted by Iris Gambol at 4:59 PM on November 27, 2019 [17 favorites]


WaPo Op-Ed, two whole months ago: In Ukraine, Trump’s allies are corrupt oligarchs and Russian stooges (September 23, 2019) ... Mr. Lutsenko fed Mr. Giuliani another false story: that Mr. Leshchenko, who exposed the illegal payments made by Mr. Yanukovych’s political party to Mr. Trump’s 2016 campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, had done so at the instigation of the U.S. Embassy and financier George Soros, among others. He also claimed that the U.S. ambassador, Ms. Yovanovitch, had given him a list of people not to prosecute — a claim dismissed by the State Department as “an outright fabrication.”

Though Mr. Lutsenko produced no evidence, Mr. Giuliani and Mr. Trump have since flogged the claim that the leak about Mr. Manafort was a Democratic plot to undermine Mr. Trump’s campaign. Mr. Giuliani meanwhile embarked on a campaign against the reform camp. He forced newly elected president Volody­myr Zelensky to break his ties with Mr. Leshchenko, and he engineered the early recall of Ms. Yovanovitch.

Lutsenko is unnamed Ukrainian who led plot to oust Yovanovitch, says official (NBC, October 11, 2019) Lutsenko is the Ukrainian official who prosecutors say urged 2 Giuliani associates to push for the ouster of Marie Yovanovitch, the former U.S. ambassador.
posted by Iris Gambol at 5:00 PM on November 27, 2019 [5 favorites]


Preview of upcoming impeachment hearing.

On the witness stand, John Bolton's mustache.

JBM: I have a book deal.

Nunes: I'd like to call Vladmir Putin to the stand as a rebuttal witness.

Rhubarb, rhubarb, rhubarb.

Miller: In place of Putin, Stalin's mustache will be testifying.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 5:34 PM on November 27, 2019 [10 favorites]


I think it's possible that millions of Americans will say, "I don't care about Ukraine."

It's not just possible but likely, and this is largely because of a messaging failure on Democrats' part. This is not a story about Ukraine in 2019, it's a story about the US in 2020. The one-line mesage should be that Trump tried to cheat *you*, the voter, going into the elections by manufacturing fake news about Joe Biden. The fact that he was using Ukraine to do it is incidental.

Of course it's hard to push that message without saying the words "Joe Biden" and "corruption" in the same sentence a lot, which is obviously not a great idea as long as he could potentially be the nominee. I'm not sure how you get around that problem, but as long as this is seen as the "Ukraine scandal", you lose focus on the really important point.
posted by zeri at 6:15 PM on November 27, 2019 [14 favorites]


Thomas Bowers, a former Deutsche Bank executive and head of the American wealth-management division, killed himself in Malibu, California, on Tuesday, November 19th, according to the Los Angeles county coroner’s initial report.

[...]

Bowers was the boss of Donald Trump’s banker Rosemary Vrablic, according to a New York Times article in early 2019. Vrablic approved over $300 million dollars in high risk loans for Trump starting in 2010. Bowers personally signed off on the Deutsche Bank loan for Trump’s Doral resort, according to the New York Times report. Vrablic’s other clients have included Jared Kushner and Stephen M. Ross.

Vrablic reportedly attended the Trump inauguration in the VIP section, and expects to be called before Congress regarding Trump’s relationship with the bank.


You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.
posted by Devonian at 3:33 AM on November 28, 2019 [24 favorites]


Sounds like Thomas Bowers may have caught that pesky Epstein-Barr 2.0 virus. Weird.
posted by Harry Caul at 5:12 AM on November 28, 2019 [6 favorites]


And Bowers isn't the first DB-Trump loan related suicide. William S. Broeksmit, 2014.
posted by Harry Caul at 5:30 AM on November 28, 2019 [4 favorites]


I think it's possible that millions of Americans will say, "I don't care about Ukraine."

I keep hearing this from people interviewed in media. "Why are we giving Ukraine money?", "Who cares about Ukraine?", etc.

I get this perspective from rural areas that remain economically devastated in the sense that they feel left behind, forgotten, feel like they were told to hang in there, and now want to be first in line. But it still blows my mind. This is a fledgling democratic nation trying to assert its independence from a corrupt tyrant. There's nothing more "American" than supporting them. It makes me feel unmoored. It's the same feeling of unease I had when I first learned Trump was president.

When Tucker Carlson said he was seriously rooting for Russia... I mean is that where we're at? There are a sizeable number of Americans that want us to team up with Russia and bully the rest of the world into submission for our own gain? We root for dictatorship?
posted by xammerboy at 5:37 AM on November 28, 2019 [19 favorites]


xhammerboy Well, yes. That's been the actuality of US foreign policy since forever. The USA only claims to support democracy, in actual practice it opposes democracy at every turn, helps corrupt and vile people overthrow democratically elected leaders to install dictators who will submit to US demands, and in general bullying the world into submission for our own gain. Trump's voters love that he's taking off the mask and telling the truth instead of disguising our imperialism as freedom. They want the boot on the neck to be obvious.

The USA operates a training camp for tyrants, they call it the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation, formerly it was called the School of the Americas. It teaches foreign soldiers and leaders how best to use torture, genocide, assassination, engineered famine, and so on to overthrow democratic governments and cow civilian populations into submission to right wing dictators.

Never forget that the right is not in favor of democracy in the slightest and, at best, sees it as a means to an end. They fundamentally do not believe in equality and rule of law but rather aristocracy and privilege. To those "forgotten man" type from rural areas bullying the rest of the world is exactly what America should be doing. They believe strength exists to extort the weak and that if we aren't doing the extorting then clearly we must be weak and being extorted by others.

All Trump's nonsense about America being taken advantage of and how everyone needs to pay us? That resonantes very well with the average right wing Republican voter. To them there's only the oppressed and the oppressor, there are no other categories. They love dictators. That's why Tucker Carlson says he's rooting for Putin, that's why they like it when Trump praises Kim Jong Un, that's why they thought it was awesome and good when MBS had Khashoggi tortured to death. To them, kneeling to a rightful and strong king is better than standing as an equal citizen in a democracy.
posted by sotonohito at 5:55 AM on November 28, 2019 [38 favorites]


From what I've seen from lurking in Trumpist spaces, they don't actually care at all what happens to the rest of the world. They don't want the US to be "the world's police" and their solution is that it's not our circus and not our monkeys. As long as the US remains strong enough to repel Russia from our actual physical borders, they're cool with it expanding right up to that point. Since Russia doesn't represent a competing ideology anymore (to Trumpists, fascism is not a competing ideology, obvs), becoming it's ally and ceding global power to it so we can retreat back to within our own borders seems like a great idea

For once it's the same set of facts that I have (we suck at being the world's police) but very different conclusion (be better at it/power share more carefully vs. just give up).
posted by soren_lorensen at 7:09 AM on November 28, 2019 [8 favorites]


There are a sizeable number of Americans that want us to team up with Russia and bully the rest of the world into submission for our own gain? We root for dictatorship?

No, that's just the collateral damage inherent in a worldview that doesn't really have much grasp of the world. Or as I heard being discussed last night, the problem is that very very many Americans just don't think much about all this geo-political stuff. They've got jobs. They've got families. What spare time they do have is likely spent on some hobby or whatever. Yeah, they don't care about the Ukraine, they also don't care about Canada, Britain, France, Albania, Madagascar ... even Oklahoma if they happen to be in Ohio.
posted by philip-random at 8:11 AM on November 28, 2019 [10 favorites]


They don't want the US to be "the world's police" and their solution is that it's not our circus and not our monkeys. As long as the US remains strong enough to repel Russia from our actual physical borders, they're cool with it expanding right up to that point.

But that’s the thing. The economic dominance of the US extends from its hegemony. You lose that, the rest of the world starts to transition to a new world order where the US is economically ignored. People don’t realize how good they have it being able to send green pieces of paper to China and get back material goods. Just because they need our green pieces of paper to play the world economic game.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 11:44 AM on November 28, 2019 [19 favorites]


It’s the whole making gut decisions ethos. Oversimplify very complicated systems and fuck it all up. Then belittle the people who do try to fix it using knowledge.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 12:45 PM on November 28, 2019 [8 favorites]


Sotonohito just summarized everything the 20ish college student me felt was true, but didn't have the mileage or reading to *really* be certain. Anyway, he's right, Gabriel Garcia Marquez is right, Rigoberto Menchu is right, Isabel Allende is right, and The Clash was always right: American Imperialism.

Will we add a verse for Ukraine? Kurdistan?
posted by j_curiouser at 12:49 PM on November 28, 2019 [3 favorites]


As I desperately try to communicate to my managers, "Just because it's easier-to-explain-to-YOU, does not make it a better solution." Yeah gut v knowledge is definitely on the card.
posted by j_curiouser at 1:02 PM on November 28, 2019 [4 favorites]


This is the imperialism that doesn’t end.
And it goes on and on my friend.
The US started overthrowing leftist governments knowing what that was...
And they’ll keep sponsoring coups forever just because...
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 1:03 PM on November 28, 2019 [5 favorites]


Devonian: You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.

Yesterday, watching the Nightly News for the first time in a long time, it seemed like every other ad was one of two Trump campaign ads, pushing people to call Rep. Xochitl Torres Small (D-NM) and tell her to stop the impeachment. It felt like a really desperate plea, but I wonder how many calls her office has received to "stop the impeachment," as if she alone has the power, or how many people are saying "please don't stop!"

This is coming after Republicans in the state rallied at her office (KOB News, Oct. 9, 2019):
“This whole thing has become a sham," said Republican Party of New Mexico chairman Steve Pearce during a rally outside the Belen office of Rep. Xochitl Torres Small, D-NM, on Wednesday.

“She talks like she's against the impeachment,” said Pearce. “When she's in Washington she's actually talking about the impeachment and is saying she's only sorry it's an impeachment inquiry.”
Until Oct. 10, Torres Small was one of a small group of Democratic holdouts in the House who did not support a formal inquiry. That changed after she penned an op-ed in the Las Cruces Sun-News saying the White House’s refusal to cooperate with the investigation posed a “threat to national security” and that she had no choice but to support the inquiry. (Las Cruces Sun-News, Oct. 31, 2019)

And now there's some riff between two candidates bidding for NM-2, which Torres Small won by a thin margin (Santa Fe New Mexican, Nov. 24, 2019).

Now I see that Udall isn't running again in 2020 (Reuters, March 25, 2019), following which, 538 said New Mexico is blue, but it could prove competitive in 2020? ITMFA.
posted by filthy light thief at 8:53 PM on November 28, 2019 [4 favorites]


I mean, we don't know how it's going to really shake out until after November 2020 but:

One thing I didn't anticipate coming was an absolutely devastating impeachment inquiry, where it seemed like every possible thing broke in favor of uncovering an absolutely damning truth, one that gave the perpetrators no cover but for lies. It didn't have an inexplicably somewhat distant Mueller leading the fray: my God, I challenge people to not listen to Schiff's closing statements and not shiver at the restrained and very carefully enunciated outrage there.

We knew going into this that Trump was likely not going be removed, that he'd have his base regardless of impeachment, but for this to be the result after such a thoroughly good demonstration of impeachable, criminal, explicitly unconstitutional, incredibly dangerous conduct--

Well, it's pretty fucking demoralizing.
posted by angrycat at 1:36 AM on November 29, 2019 [16 favorites]


How Rudy Lost his Mind and (Probably) His Freedom:
After he left the mayoralty at the end of 2001 Giuliani made tens of millions of dollars on his reputation as “America’s Mayor” and a 9/11-based terrorism and security expert under the shingle Giuliani Partners. In the nature of things that rep was more valuable abroad than at home. He cashed in big time. That went on for about 15 years with a brief timeout for his failed 2008 presidential bid....
posted by growabrain at 6:46 AM on November 29, 2019 [4 favorites]


Not to be all "I like people who didn't get captured" here, but was Giuliani really any kind of "expert" on terrorism and security?
posted by Rykey at 6:58 AM on November 29, 2019 [7 favorites]


He talked tough and his name was attached to the “broken windows” theory of policing, therefore making him a pillar of Conservative Moral Authority, like Oliver North, Alan Dershowitz, Bill Bennett and such.
posted by acb at 7:11 AM on November 29, 2019 [2 favorites]


We knew going into this that Trump was likely not going be removed, that he'd have his base regardless of impeachment, but for this to be the result after such a thoroughly good demonstration of impeachable, criminal, explicitly unconstitutional, incredibly dangerous conduct--

I really thought there was a good chance that once the evidence was presented and the public had a chance to digest it there would be a popular outcry for Trump's removal.

The last 3 years have been an ongoing lesson in humiliation. Republicans really don't care, do they? Melania even wore it on a dress. I even kept thinking I got it. I never got it.

This country... is actually engaged in some kind of civil war after all. Everything is at stake.
posted by xammerboy at 7:20 AM on November 29, 2019 [17 favorites]


Not to be all "I like people who didn't get captured" here, but was Giuliani really any kind of "expert" on terrorism and security?

IIRC, one of the reasons Rudy located NYC's emergency response department in WTC7 was for the convenience of using the suite there to cheat on his wife, despite the obvious risk of the 1993 attack. So the record points to "no expertise"
posted by mikelieman at 8:24 AM on November 29, 2019 [14 favorites]


A certain expertise maybe.
posted by mazola at 8:57 AM on November 29, 2019 [1 favorite]


xammerboy For a while now I've maintained that "disillusioned" should be seen as a good thing, not a bad thing. After all, who wants to be illusioned? That means being lied to, being deceived, so being disillusioned should be good. Uncomfortable maybe, but good.

The disillusionment from Trump's election is that those of us who tried to think the Republicans couldn't really be that bad, that we were just assigning them bad motives when in fact we just disagreed about some things but they weren't advocating bad things and promoting an ideology based on aristocracy and rule of men not rule of law was us deluding ourselves.

They really are that bad.

All those things we thought fleetingly in moments of anger about Republicans? They were right. When we gave them the benefit of the doubt we were wrong, they didn't deserve it and their motives and goals are exactly as bad as we'd feared in our darker moments.

Embrace the disllusionment. We were deceiving ourselves, and we need to stop.

And yes, we're basically defending against a cold civil war waged by the Republicans. This article from way back in 2012 was 100% right and spot on.

The whole thing is worth reading, but here's the money quote:
The essence of the Confederate worldview is that the democratic process cannot legitimately change the established social order, and so all forms of legal and illegal resistance are justified when it tries.

That worldview is alive and well. During last fall’s government shutdown and threatened debt-ceiling crisis, historian Garry Wills wrote about our present-day Tea Partiers: “The presiding spirit of this neo-secessionism is a resistance to majority rule.”

The Confederate sees a divinely ordained way things are supposed to be, and defends it at all costs. No process, no matter how orderly or democratic, can justify fundamental change.

When in the majority, Confederates protect the established order through democracy. If they are not in the majority, but have power, they protect it through the authority of law. If the law is against them, but they have social standing, they create shams of law, which are kept in place through the power of social disapproval. If disapproval is not enough, they keep the wrong people from claiming their legal rights by the threat of ostracism and economic retribution. If that is not intimidating enough, there are physical threats, then beatings and fires, and, if that fails, murder.
And that's why there won't be any Republican votes to impeach Trump in the House, and why the Republicans in the Senate will vote to acquit. Because, at heart, fundamentally, they do not believe in rule of law and they do not believe that any democratic process, any majority, can legitimately change society in ways they disapprove of.

All those "Liberal Hunting License" bumper stickers? They mean it.

All those rants about "Real America" and the implication that anyone who disagrees with them isn't actually American? They mean it.

All that part about Trump being a god emperor, all that chatter about ignoring elections if they go against Trump? They mean it.
posted by sotonohito at 8:58 AM on November 29, 2019 [69 favorites]


but for this to be the result

I’m all in favor of being fully disillusioned (one of the most common mistakes that decent people make, when dealing with dangerous people, is to project one’s own decency outward), but there is no “result” from the Congressional impeachment hearings yet. Judiciary is just starting its hearings next week, so this is all still mid-stream.

I agree that, right now, it looks like there will be no Republican votes to either impeach or convict & remove, but that may change. And if it doesn’t, that means that it’s left to we the people to put things right next November. None of this is optimism-inducing to me, but if I’m going to try and regard things clearly and with no disillusionment, I must also guard against my own outrage and helplessness. This is far from over.
posted by LooseFilter at 9:44 AM on November 29, 2019 [6 favorites]


The complicated web of Ukraine-focused relationships that has Giuliani at its center (Philip Bump, WaPo)
At some point about a year ago, two groups found each other. One was made up of then-current or former Ukrainian officials looking for job security or redemption. The other was a collection of American lawyers and their associates, looking for political and financial benefit. At the forefront of that latter group was former New York mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani, who by 2018 was duly employed as a personal lawyer to President Trump.

In recent weeks, the remarkable scope of the interplay of these two groups has become more apparent, thanks to news reports about their interactions and a willingness of one Giuliani associate to begin hinting about what he knows. That associate, Lev Parnas, has good reason to make clear how much he knows: Facing federal campaign-finance charges, he’s eager to give prosecutors justification for cutting a deal.

The upshot, though, is that we now have a much better sense of what Giuliani and his associates were alleged to be doing during a period in which the former mayor was also helping effect Trump's pressure campaign on the Ukrainian government. We've compiled recent reports to give a sense of how Giuliani and his allies were quietly working with those Ukrainian officials.
Crime in Progress review – the secret history of the Trump-Russia investigation (Luke Harding, Guardian)
The special counsel’s investigation into collusion was sincere but flawed, the book says. Mueller confirmed Steele’s reporting: that the Russians sweepingly and systematically interfered in the 2016 vote. But Mueller, Simpson and Fritsch argue, didn’t follow the money and was overcautious. In the end he failed to find sufficient evidence to prove a criminal conspiracy, in part because of obstruction by the president and his allies.
posted by katra at 10:41 AM on November 29, 2019 [4 favorites]


The last 3 years have been an ongoing lesson in humiliation. Republicans really don't care, do they? Melania even wore it on a dress. I even kept thinking I got it. I never got it.

When Trump won despite contradicting every supposed conservative tenet except racism and sexism, I got it. To bring the country back to the wishes of the majority we need to:

- Defeat every Republican who has gone Trumpist (all of them)
- Primary the shit out of every believe-nothing DINO and get reps who look like their electorate rather than attendees at the Neoliberal Old White Guys Convention (it doesn't take that much money, this is the easy part!)
- When we do eventually win, start full on debrainwashing efforts on the police, FBI, and military. I have no idea what form this would take but it sure as shit needs to be done.
- Make it an intent based federal crime to deprive people of their vote, and punish state electoral officers with jail time if they use their office to do so
- When we are reasonably sure the military and police are not majority white supremacists, reclassify white supremacy as terrorism and treat its recruitment just like we treat ISIS recruitment
- Make everything Manafort/Guliani did explicitly illegal and jail the rest of the foreign influence peddlers. These people are way more dangerous to democracy than immigrants.
- Figure out how to to clean out the Trumpist/Federalist society judges

It's a long ass list and will likely take the next 40 years to do. If you want to live in the US and aren't ok with living in an ethnofascist state everybody needs to get on board.
posted by benzenedream at 12:12 PM on November 29, 2019 [28 favorites]


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

New impeachment FPP:

ITMFA III: The Search for Articles of Impeachment

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
posted by katra at 12:38 PM on November 29, 2019 [14 favorites]


well my shrink also thought this trussed-turkey cover of the New Yorker was riffing on Trump and came to this conclusion independently, could not be talked out of it when I said I looked up New Yorker's explanation for the cover, what do you think, friends
posted by angrycat at 12:40 PM on November 29, 2019 [5 favorites]


well my shrink also thought this trussed-turkey cover of the New Yorker was riffing on Trump and came to this conclusion independently, could not be talked out of it when I said I looked up New Yorker's explanation for the cover, what do you think, friends

The last three years have been really hard on everybody
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 1:20 PM on November 29, 2019 [12 favorites]


As a coda to the interview with David Cay Johnson (linked above), he had this to say about Giuliani:
Is Rudy Giuliani a true believer or is he just working for Trump in the shadows because it is a way to make money?

I believe that Rudy Giuliani is one of the great frauds of all time. Giuliani's father was a bandit who served time in Sing Sing prison. Giuliani surrounded himself with mobbed up people like Bernard Kerik, who he made first corrections commissioner, and then Police Commissioner. Of note: Giuliani did not try any of the mob cases [during his time as U.S. attorney in New York.] He just took credit for them. The convictions were won by career prosecutors who did an excellent job.

When he worked for the Reagan administration, Giuliani made it clear that he is a horrible racist as shown during the Haitian refugee crisis. Giuliani is an opportunist. He's certainly looking out for his own pocket and his own welfare. Giuliani now has this lucrative gig with Donald Trump. And Giuliani has made this claim that he's not being paid by Donald Trump. In fact, lawyers know lots of ways to get paid. It will not surprise to me one bit if Giuliani’s alleged associates in the Ukraine scandal, Igor Fruman and Lev Parnas, eventually reveal that Giuliani had some side extortion scheme to make money.
posted by ZeusHumms at 9:03 PM on November 29, 2019 [10 favorites]


This explains why my eyebrow raises to the top of my forehead when I watch Giuliani speak on television. I always assumed he prosecuted those mob bosses personally, yet he doesn't sound like he could argue his way out of a traffic ticket on his best day.

I also admired Rudy's gravitas on 9/11... He was probably just too exhausted to be himself.
posted by xammerboy at 2:23 PM on November 30, 2019 [4 favorites]


« Older It’s the End of California as We Know It   |   Ivar's and the Serial Killer Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments