ITMFA V: Carry On, Wayward Senate
January 27, 2020 8:05 AM   Subscribe

As Trump’s lawyers begin their defense in the impeachment trial and Republicans rally around the president, an unpublished draft book by John Bolton asserts Trump tied Ukraine aid to the inquiries he sought (reprint), and provides an outline of what Mr. Bolton might testify to if he is called as a witness (reprint). Depending on what comes next, a final vote on whether to remove Donald Trump from office could happen before his State of the Union address on February 4.

PSA: Lawfare offers "compelling and substantial elements" of the Senate proceedings in podcasts. "No analysis. No punditry." 1 & 2, 3, 4, 5.

Previously: ITMFA, ITMFA II, ITMFA III, ITMFA IV

Want to chat? The politics room of MeFi Chat and the Unofficial PoliticsFilter Slack are available. • Thanks to Kansas for helping create this post.
posted by katra (1473 comments total) 83 users marked this as a favorite
 
Depending on what comes next, a final vote on whether to remove Donald Trump from office could happen before his State of the Union address on February 4.

As I said in the previous thread, Senate Republicans acquitting Trump before the SOTU could mean the difference between the speech being a victory lap for Trump or a public meltdown. The latter won't help his re-election chances any, so Democrats much use whatever leverage they can -- little as it may be -- to keep the trial going.
posted by Gelatin at 8:13 AM on January 27, 2020 [15 favorites]


Senate Impeachment Trial, Day 7 (C-SPAN) The Senate impeachment trial of President Trump continues with opening arguments from the President’s defense team. Other legislative work is possible. Jan 27, 2020 | 1:00pm EST | C-SPAN 2

U.S. Senate: Impeachment Trial (Day 6) (C-SPAN YouTube) The Senate impeachment trial of President Trump continues with opening arguments by the President’s defense team. Scheduled for Jan 27, 2020
posted by katra at 8:15 AM on January 27, 2020 [1 favorite]


Calendar update, since I messed it up a couple of threads ago.
February 2: Super Bowl LIV
February 3: Iowa caucuses
February 4: State of the Union address
posted by Huffy Puffy at 8:15 AM on January 27, 2020 [10 favorites]


(3 cheers for katra!)
posted by fingers_of_fire at 8:16 AM on January 27, 2020 [57 favorites]


I'd hope that Romney and Collins finally grow spines and work with Dems to call Bolton to testify. Either Bolton testifies, or Trump uses "national security" as a pretense to keep him from testifying — either way, that makes him look guiltier, perhaps to a point that even cowardly Republicans can no longer ignore.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 8:25 AM on January 27, 2020 [8 favorites]


I'd hope that Romney and Collins finally grow spines and work with Dems to call Bolton to testify.

They would do so only so long as 1) McConnell knows he has the votes to block Bolton's testimony anyway and b) McConnell perceives more value in protecting their re-election campaigns than in displaying yet another raised middle finger of Republican lockstep voting.
posted by Gelatin at 8:27 AM on January 27, 2020 [15 favorites]


perhaps to a point that even cowardly Republicans can no longer ignore

Maybe this time she won't jerk the ball away.
posted by flabdablet at 8:28 AM on January 27, 2020 [103 favorites]


That said, the trick is going to be using public pressure and the increasing perception that Republicans are aiding Trump in his cover-up to at least drag the debate past the SOTU. McConnell wants Senate Republicans to acquit Trump without looking like the partisan exercise we all know it to be. That's why Republicans deploy people like Collins to make phony more-in-sorrow-than-in-anger comments like "I was going to vote for witnesses, but then Schiff was mean in mentioning Trump's head-on-a-pike threat."

Republicans are desperate for a fig leaf that will make their inevitable vote to acquit Trump look legitimate. The question is, do the so-called "liberal media" cooperate and do loyal Americans see thru the ruse?
posted by Gelatin at 8:31 AM on January 27, 2020 [6 favorites]


It could also be a play to get more campaign financing or other concessions from the GOP. But maybe Roberts himself could sidestep that and call Bolton as a witness. By doing what he can to keep Trump from becoming a king, he might even save his own job, in the process.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 8:31 AM on January 27, 2020 [1 favorite]


But maybe Roberts himself could sidestep that and call Bolton as a witness.

Why would Roberts do anything that leads to more evidence of Trump's guilt? Why would Roberts care if Trump, who basically shares his agenda, is king? (He'd care if a Democrat was, of course, but Trump being king reduces the likelihood that the majority of the American people get to pick the president, thus bolstering Republican rule.)

In short, what evidence is there that Roberts approaches his role with any more good faith than any other Republican? All Roberts cares about, like McConnell, is preserving the perception that he isn't totally in the tank for Trump, and he doesn't have to call witnesses to do that.
posted by Gelatin at 8:44 AM on January 27, 2020 [27 favorites]


John Bolton’s bombshell gives the GOP a glimpse of its nightmare scenario (Aaron Blake, WaPo) (reprint)
The nightmare scenario for the GOP is that they give Trump the quick and witness-free acquittal that he apparently desires, but then information like Bolton’s keeps coming out. Bolton now suggests Trump was indeed telling people privately that the withheld military aid was part of a quid pro quo — a quid pro quo that Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland testified that he communicated to the Ukrainians. This is something Trump’s team has strenuously denied, including at the impeachment trial. What if Bolton isn’t the only person Trump told this to who might suddenly contradict them? However closely this has already been tied to Trump, it can always be tied more closely. Bolton’s upcoming book — slated for March 17 — is a great example of how the hastily assembled walls the Trump team have built around its defense can quickly crumble and, in some cases, already have. [...]

Imagine if Republicans vote against entertaining Parnas’s evidence or putting Bolton on the stand, and then the information comes out anyway. If it proves damning, it will look like they engaged in the coverup that Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) accused them of last week.

And at the least, if Trump is saying Bolton is lying, what better way to hold him accountable than to make him say all of this under oath? He’s indicated he’s willing. Now it’s in the Senate GOP’s hands, and you can bet it’s a tougher call now.
posted by katra at 8:45 AM on January 27, 2020 [27 favorites]


Yeah, that book is never coming out. WH will supress it on national security grounds and Trump already leaked that strategy by saying "Bolton knows what I'm thinking, and we can't let other leaders know that", ironic as that statement is.
posted by JoeZydeco at 8:54 AM on January 27, 2020 [3 favorites]


Speaking of nightmare scenarios, there's no doubt that Trump will be acquitted long before the 2020 presidential campaign season starts in earnest. Republicans make no secret of using the impeachment to fire up Trump's base, but I wonder how effective that tactic will be given the inevitable acquittal and Trump's equally inevitable crowing about it.

But Democrats and other loyal Americans will be incensed and fired up over this miscarriage of justice, and highly motivated to vote these crooks out of office, especially as more evidence of Trump's misdeeds is indeed bound to emerge -- in no small part because an acquitted Trump will perceive, rightly, that Congress doesn't constrain him at all.

Recall that Trump, the Republicans, and the so-called "liberal media" were all prepared to put the Mueller investigation, with all its documented wrongdoing, behind them, and then the whistleblower report emerged. Who among us believes that the Ukraine scandal was Trump's only crime? The only question is when the evidence will emerge.
posted by Gelatin at 8:54 AM on January 27, 2020 [16 favorites]


Bolton doesn't have to wait to be subpoenaed by the Senate. He could voluntarily go to the House Judiciary committee and testify today, no subpoena necessary. He refused to do so in November. He could also go onto Fox News or CNN and tell his whole story today. He could walk into the Washington Post and tell his whole story.

He isn't doing that because he doesn't give a shit about the country or anything else except his book money.
posted by JackFlash at 9:14 AM on January 27, 2020 [79 favorites]


He isn't doing that because he doesn't give a shit about the country or anything else except his book money.
I read that as blood money at first. I wonder why . . .
posted by Tabitha Someday at 9:15 AM on January 27, 2020 [10 favorites]


I may be pretty jaded and cynical about it but I just can't see any evidence at any time being enough to cause Republicans to decide to vote against Trump, even Romney. The only hope that I have is that the more evidence that comes out will be enough to convince enough of the American people to vote against him in the next election.
posted by Justin Case at 9:17 AM on January 27, 2020 [15 favorites]


Counting on Republicans to do the right thing? OMG that ship sailed before the ink on the Contract on America was dry.
posted by fifteen schnitzengruben is my limit at 9:17 AM on January 27, 2020 [38 favorites]


My only hope, and it's a slim one, is that the GOP will feel uncertain enough in their ability to tip the scales far enough in the 2020 election and decide it's time to dump Trump. If they did that now they could come out claiming to have done the right thing in putting country over party and likely retain the Senate. Public memory is short and too many people want any excuse to continue voting GOP despite all their misdeeds.

I wish that even evil SOBs like McConnell would realize that the longer Trump stays in office, the less he needs them and the more likely it is he'll eventually turn on them. Trump isn't a "share the spoils" kind of guy, and King Trump isn't a good scenario for anybody whose last name isn't Trump.
posted by jzb at 9:17 AM on January 27, 2020 [13 favorites]


Executive Privilege Cannot Block Bolton’s Testimony (Harold Hongju Koh, Rosa Hayes, Annie Himes, Dana Khabbaz, Michael Loughlin and Mark Stevens, Just Security)
President Donald Trump has said that he would take the unprecedented step of invoking executive privilege “for the sake of the office [of president],” should former National Security Advisor John Bolton or other national security officials be called to testify in his Senate impeachment trial. But for four reasons, the presiding judge, Chief Justice John Roberts, should reject any such executive privilege claim if proffered and require Bolton’s testimony.

First, judicial precedent does not condone the extension of executive privilege to former officials like Bolton in the context of a Senate impeachment trial. Second, Trump may not invoke national security privilege with respect to Bolton’s and others’ information regarding the president’s conversations with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Third, even if Trump could, any such claim of privilege has now likely been waived by the actions of the president, Bolton and others. Finally, this uncontroversial legal issue should not be litigated in courts. Chief Justice Roberts should simply cite the precedent detailed here to require the testimony as part of his judicial management of the impeachment trial. [...]

Nor, finally, is there any legal basis for appealing the Chief Justice’s evidentiary ruling to any other court. The Constitution decrees that the Senate “shall have the sole power to try all impeachments” and “[w]hen the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside.” Simply put, an evidentiary ruling by the Chief Justice is textually committed to the Senate impeachment trial process. Accordingly, any effort to challenge in court an evidentiary ruling by the Chief Justice in the ongoing impeachment trial should be summarily dismissed as a nonjusticiable political question.
posted by katra at 9:19 AM on January 27, 2020 [12 favorites]


I am working through what the next steps are when Republicans acquit him despite the evidence. IMO, it is well past time to stop hoping that there are any uncompromised Republicans, so it makes very little sense to treat the discussions around what they're likely to do in any light other than that they will all be forced into some uncomfortable position where they acquit the president and somehow manage to keep their jobs intact.

Calling witnesses should mean the end of Drumpf's presidency.
Not calling witnesses should mean the end of their tenure as Senators in 2020.

Cornered animals are unpredictable, but everyone knows they're dangerous.

None of this gets any better from here on, but I think that people who consider that to be favorable to removal or justice are going to be wondering what to do next when it all collapses around them. An entire political party is compromised, and has stronger self-preservation instincts than their opponents have determination to put them into jail.
posted by Chuffy at 9:19 AM on January 27, 2020 [13 favorites]


Bolton threatening to upend the Trump Presidency after Trump allowed US-Iran tensions to cool post-Suleimani/revenge missile strikes?

I wonder what he could possibly want in exchange from Team Trump.
posted by Slackermagee at 9:22 AM on January 27, 2020 [6 favorites]


My only hope, and it's a slim one, is that the GOP will feel uncertain enough in their ability to tip the scales far enough in the 2020 election and decide it's time to dump Trump. If they did that now they could come out claiming to have done the right thing in putting country over party and likely retain the Senate. Public memory is short and too many people want any excuse to continue voting GOP despite all their misdeeds.

That was the Republican Party's hope in pressuring Nixon to resign in favor of Ford, and at least in the short term, it didn't work. That's one reason the Republicans set up an entire alternate media structure.
posted by Gelatin at 9:23 AM on January 27, 2020 [15 favorites]


Calling witnesses means the end of Drumpf's presidency.

Respectfully, but wholeheartedly disagree.
NYT article on this subject
posted by mcstayinskool at 9:25 AM on January 27, 2020 [1 favorite]


He isn't doing that because he doesn't give a shit about the country or anything else except his book money.

I would imagine that his testimony would only boost book sales. The sales are going to be driven by public awareness. I guess there will be a few people who will think "Well, he testified and there's literally nothing else in that 400 page book worth reading", but I would imagine they would be swamped by the "What else is in there?" crowd.
posted by It's Never Lurgi at 9:29 AM on January 27, 2020 [2 favorites]


the Contract on America
ISWYDT!
posted by Don Pepino at 9:31 AM on January 27, 2020 [7 favorites]


John Roberts Can Call Witnesses to Trump’s Trial. Will He?
This isn’t a matter of Democrats needing four “moderate” Republicans to vote for subpoenas and witnesses, as the Trump lawyers have been claiming. Rather, the impeachment rules, like all trial systems, put a large thumb on the scale of issuing subpoenas and place that power within the authority of the judge, in this case the chief justice.

Most critically, it would take a two-thirds vote — not a majority — of the Senate to overrule that. This week, Democrats can and should ask the chief justice to issue subpoenas on his authority so that key witnesses of relevance like John Bolton and Mick Mulvaney appear in the Senate, and the Senate should subpoena all relevant documents as well.

The Senate rules for impeachment date back to 1868 and have been in effect since that time. They specifically provide for the subpoenas of witnesses, going so far in Rule XXIV as to outline the specific language a subpoena must use — the “form of subpoena to be issued on the application of the managers of the impeachment, or of the party impeached, or of his counsel.”
posted by kirkaracha at 9:32 AM on January 27, 2020 [16 favorites]


(I changed that after I read it again to "should mean")

Also, too, the NYT published hundreds of front page articles about emails and a certain charity during the 2016 campaign. A) I don't have any free articles left and don't want to bother getting past their paywall and B) I don't want to read any political analysis from a paper that relegated Clinton's exoneration, again, to page 16 after blasting us relentlessly about her emails daily for months. I am not interested in the NYT's opinion. I am fully willing to hear other peoples' opinions about it. From them, of course.
posted by Chuffy at 9:32 AM on January 27, 2020 [7 favorites]


Couple thoughts:

1. There need to be 4 GOP votes for witnesses. By my count, you might get Collins, Romney and Murkowski but without a 4th I don’t see them risking the wrath of the MAGA crowd. Collins might vote on her own if she gets assurance from McConnell that her vote will be meaningless. Figure out who the 4th vote is. Schumer needs to work a deal on the DL — perhaps some sort of electoral non-funding agreement for the next election, as distasteful as I find that idea.
2. Stop rejecting a Biden “deal”. Point out that the GOP already has the votes to call the Bidens if they wish. Point out the reason they don’t is because they already know it’s a bad faith diversion from Trump’s crimes. Make the GOP back up their bullshit rather than accepting equal responsibility by discussing a “deal”.
posted by Big Al 8000 at 9:33 AM on January 27, 2020 [21 favorites]


I am working through what the next steps are when Republicans acquit him despite the evidence. IMO, it is well past time to stop hoping that there are any uncompromised Republicans

Which is why Democrats need to maximize whatever opportunities they have to take power away from Republicans, just like Republicans have been doing to Democrats for years. Assuming the Democrats take both the White House and Senate in 2020, they need to change the century-old 1911 Apportionment Act, which caps the number of representatives at 435. Increasing the number of Representatives both makes continued Democratic control of the House more likely and favors Democrats in the Electoral College by adding electoral votes to high-population states. They then must expand the Supreme Court, undoing McConnell's blocking of Garland and the Republicans' decades-long project to control the Judiciary. To do those, the Senate will have to eliminate the legislative filibuster, but given that McConnell has shown no deference at all to the minority, its value seems to have been greatly reduced if not ended.

The next trick would be passing laws to codify a number of the norms that Trump has broken, and restoring the independent counsel statute, so the President is no longer subject to investigation by a Justice Department he controls. The latter two would involve a Democratic President willing to see his or her own power constrained, so it's anyone's guess if they might happen.
posted by Gelatin at 9:38 AM on January 27, 2020 [52 favorites]


I would imagine that his testimony would only boost book sales.

That's the point. That's why he has waited until now instead of November to leak this information. He didn't want to waste his publicity on a piddly House hearing months before his book release. He wants center stage, Ollie North style, in the biggest show in government, an impeachment trial in the Senate.
posted by JackFlash at 9:39 AM on January 27, 2020 [6 favorites]


Just heard an interesting conversation on the radio about NDAs that could explain why the POTUS is doubling down on ignoring subpoenas...Bolton has to get his book cleared by the White House. If he is subpoenaed, the NDA is overruled and any classified testimony can be handled behind closed doors. If he violates his NDA, then he has to go through a bunch of legal hoops and be bogged down in lawsuits.

We really need to clean house.
posted by Chuffy at 9:41 AM on January 27, 2020 [3 favorites]


Big Al 8000, I've heard a lot of commentary lately that, while the Ds need only 4 votes to force witnesses technically speaking, the reality is that no R wants to be the 4th vote, so in order to provide cover, the Ds actually need more than 4 votes. Lamar Alexander's name gets mentioned, on account of his retiring, for what it's worth.
posted by fingers_of_fire at 9:42 AM on January 27, 2020 [1 favorite]


I don't think the Senate Republicans are being held back merely by thoughts of re-election campaigns and partisanship. The only thing that explains their ride or die loyalty at this stage is complicity in something criminal. Given the nature of things, it's probably a massive financial crime related to campaign funds. In that scenario, they're not backing Trump just to keep their positions secure, they're backing Trump because if he loses there's a good chance it all blows up and people start losing entire fortunes and going to prison.
posted by Godspeed.You!Black.Emperor.Penguin at 9:43 AM on January 27, 2020 [25 favorites]


There are no Trump personal NDAs that are legally binding on government employees. That's just nonsense.

Trump had NDAs for people working for him privately before his election. But those NDAs cannot cover government employment.
posted by JackFlash at 9:45 AM on January 27, 2020 [24 favorites]


katra: President Donald Trump has said that he would take the unprecedented step of invoking executive privilege “for the sake of the office [of president],”

Fixed that, for reality.

kirkaracha: John Roberts Can Call Witnesses to Trump’s Trial. Will He?

No. He called out both sides to be more civil (transcript in prior thread from 20 year lurk) because, as JackFlash noted, Susan Collins confesses that she was the one who wrote the note to the teacher, er, Chief Justice, whining about Democrats being too mean to Republicans.

Roberts wants civility, not to hold Trump accountable.


A reminder that this is crazy fast -- Dec. 5, 2019: Speaker Pelosi asks House to draft articles of impeachment against President Trump (ABC News). January 21, 2020: Senate Democrats win 2 key changes to Trump impeachment trial rules (CNBC), but GOP shot down 11 proposed amendments (Newsweek).

In comparison, after spending more than two years and $7 million, the House Select Committee on Benghazi released a report Tuesday that found — like eight investigations before it — no evidence of wrongdoing by then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton or other members of the Obama administration. (HuffPo, June 29, 2016) [Also: Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) Admits House GOP Cut Funding For Embassy Security: ‘You Have To Prioritize Things’ (HuffPo, Oct. 11, 2012)]
posted by filthy light thief at 9:54 AM on January 27, 2020 [22 favorites]


Given the nature of things, it's probably a massive financial crime related to campaign funds.

For instance the Russian money laundered through the NRA?
posted by sjswitzer at 9:54 AM on January 27, 2020 [29 favorites]


I'm with Godspeed.You!Black.Emperor.Penguin on the ride-or-die Republicans. Kompromat, real or perceived, is what's holding them all together.
posted by jasondigitized at 9:56 AM on January 27, 2020 [7 favorites]


The NDAs are largely considered to be meaningless in legal terms, but they have been weaponized. Just another lawsuit, to be held up in court for months, if not years. So maybe not nonsense in reality, considering his abuse of power and direct threats to government employees. That is very much real.

Atlantic article on NDAs
posted by Chuffy at 10:05 AM on January 27, 2020 [6 favorites]


I've heard a lot of commentary lately that, while the Ds need only 4 votes to force witnesses technically speaking, the reality is that no R wants to be the 4th vote, so in order to provide cover, the Ds actually need more than 4 votes.

Thinking back to the "head on a pike" threat conveyed to Republican Senators, one suspects that Trump's narcissism won't let him tolerate any Republican dissenters. I predict that Collins, Romney, Murkowski, and the rest will bow to the threat of a tirade of Trump tweets and vote in lockstep with the rest of their rotten party, definitely for acquittal and probably against witnesses (after all, they all know, as does Trump, that inviting witnesses will only embarrass Trump and make the case for acquittal more difficult to justify).

Fine. Hang him around all their necks. We're going to have to listen to Republicans protest that they opposed Trump all along for the next decade at least, and our response has to be to reject such nonsense out of hand. The only Republicans that really oppose Trump aren't Republicans any more.

Hang their moral cowardice around their necks for all time. They deserve it.
posted by Gelatin at 10:11 AM on January 27, 2020 [16 favorites]


Romney says Bolton's testimony is important to hear.
Romney says Bolton “has relevant testimony” and it is “increasingly apparent it is important to hear” from him.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 10:14 AM on January 27, 2020 [4 favorites]


"Increasingly apparent"? So it was apparent before, just now more so? Asshole.
posted by notsnot at 10:17 AM on January 27, 2020 [22 favorites]


Romney says Bolton “has relevant testimony” and it is “increasingly apparent it is important to hear” from him.

Big deal. Let's see how Romney votes, not what he says to a gaggle of reporters. So-called "moderates" like him have played this game for years, making reasonable bipartisan noises for the cameras and then voting lockstep with the rest of their party when it matters. Feh.
posted by Gelatin at 10:18 AM on January 27, 2020 [36 favorites]


From the Atlantic article:
If Trump believes that he can enforce his nondisclosures agreements against former White House or campaign employees who speak about the improprieties they witnessed, then he is wrong. His broad NDAs are unenforceable under contract law, under whistleblowing and anti-retaliation protections, under freedom of information laws, and under constitutional law.

Bolton has absolutely nothing to fear from an NDA. Dragging it into the discussion is just a distraction.

Further, Bolton has nothing to fear from Trump's orders not to testify. The House has already heard testimony from Fiona Hill, Ambassador Yovanovich, and Colonel Vindman. All of who Trump ordered not to testify.

Absolutely nothing happened to them. Trump's threats are toothless. Bolton is just using excuses not to testify until now.
posted by JackFlash at 10:21 AM on January 27, 2020 [16 favorites]


Executive Privilege Is No Reason for the Senate to Ignore John Bolton (Jonathan Shaub, Lawfare)
There are a great deal of questions flying around regarding what would, could and should occur if the Senate subpoenaed Bolton and the president tried to prevent his testimony through executive privilege—and what role, if any, the courts should play and how fast they could settle the dispute if it arose.

The real answer is that no one knows. No president has attempted to use executive privilege to block testimony or evidence in a Senate impeachment trial. There are no Senate precedents dealing with executive privilege in impeachment. And executive privilege itself is so widely disputed and poorly understood that anyone who purports to provide the answer about its operation, particularly in these unprecedented circumstances, is either deluding herself or deceiving everyone else.

There are only analogies, constitutional theories, judicial precedents and historical examples on which to draw to try and discern potential answers or frameworks for decisions. Former executive branch officials, constitutional and congressional scholars, historians, experts on congressional oversight, and journalists approach the question from different perspectives—and many, myself included, have offered their opinion about what could or should happen and how executive privilege should operate in the Senate trial. But these are nothing more than that: opinions, educated guesses and theories, each reflecting, unavoidably, the author’s own background and views.

This is uncharted territory. And the publication of details from Bolton’s draft book pushes the controversy further afield from anything that has previously been seen in this country, even in related contexts such as congressional oversight. [...]

Senators’ refusal to request the evidence does not protect executive privilege. And attempting to withhold the information does not protect the presidency. A Senate subpoena for specific, relevant information in an ongoing impeachment trial would not inhibit any president from asserting or relying on executive privilege in the future, and it certainly would not prevent a president—including this one—from raising privilege on the basis of specific, identifiable harms that disclosure of particular information could create. Assertions by both the White House and its Republican allies that the Senate should or must refrain from seeking evidence directly relevant to an ongoing impeachment trial because of a potential claim of executive privilege do nothing other than diminish the Senate’s authority going forward. Those assertions elevate undifferentiated claims of executive branch confidentiality interests above the Senate’s solemn constitutional duty to consider whether to remove the president from office.

If the Senate does not want to hear from Bolton, that is its choice—and a valid exercise of its constitutional prerogative to try impeachments. But it should not attempt to justify that action by a need to “protect” executive privilege or the presidency.
posted by katra at 10:22 AM on January 27, 2020 [5 favorites]


Bolton’s upcoming book — slated for March 17 — is a great example of how the hastily assembled walls the Trump team have built around its defense can quickly crumble and, in some cases, already have. [...]

This would imply the Trump team has built any "walls"—i.e., a strong coherent argument—in the first place. They haven't because they don't care. At best they have erected a semi-opaque shower curtain. Everyone can see what is happening, albeit with a few details obscured. Because it doesn't matter. We keep finding more witnesses, just this weekend there has been audio tapes, video and this book leak. No Republican is budging. The team is going through the motions of defense while the Senate goes through (some of) the motions of the trial. No matter what happens, when it is over they are ready to vote and basically install Trump as dictator.

The Republicans should should just go ahead and call witnesses. Call Bolton up, let him read from his book and throw whoever he wants under the bus for whatever his motives are. Then, they'll call him a liar who wants to sell books. Let more bad stuff come up from more witnesses and discredit them with personal attacks and flood the zone with conspiracy theories. It's what they have been doing for years and it has worked.

They won't, because for every minute this goes on Trump gets angrier and harder for his handlers to control. Honestly, I think the only hope at this point is for Trump to work himself up so much that he causes himself to have some sort of major medical episode. For this reason alone, the Senators/trial team should do whatever procedural stalling is available to them to drag this out, to beyond the SOTU at minimum. If we can get witnesses called that's great because it will prolong the trial, not because it will change the outcome.

As the blogger Atrios notes, there is no "Celestial Hall Monitor" coming to save us. Not Mueller, not Roberts and certainly not Bolton.
posted by mikepop at 10:30 AM on January 27, 2020 [14 favorites]


There's a big difference between Trump invoking executive privilege (and indirectly admitting the obstruction of Congress charge) and the Senate declining to call witnesses because they expect him to invoke executive privilege.

It's a cover-up either way; the only question is will Senate Republicans participate in it (Narrator: They will).

And either way, Democrats and other loyal Americans need to keep asking the question, "What is Trump hiding?" No one refuses to allow the testimony of witnesses that will exonerate them.
posted by Gelatin at 10:30 AM on January 27, 2020 [2 favorites]


Executive privilege is also a red herring. Executive privilege can only be used to prevent the Senate from asking a witness questions. Executive privilege does not prevent Bolton from going on Fox News or CNN and voluntarily giving his testimony. There is no "Executive Privilege" law. There is no penalty for a witness who violates the president's order. None at all.

Executive privilege only works for an employee currently working for the president who is cooperating with the president. The worst that the president can do is fire them. He can't keep them from testifying if they wish to do so of their own volition.
posted by JackFlash at 10:33 AM on January 27, 2020 [11 favorites]


The more I think about it, the more it doesn't seem like anyone's going to jail, let alone getting removed from office, for any crime. Even if it's proven clear as day that Trump did a quid pro quo, that the NRA has been laundering dark money, that the entire republican legislature has essentially set the constitution alight and is dancing in the ashes, it won't matter because the ruling party can always claim, as they already are, that the ends justify the means. "We had to withhold aid to Ukraine to save them from corruption, we had to take any money we could to save American's rights to bear arms, we had to rig elections to save Real Americans. "We had to suspend elections after the reichstag fire to save this country from its enemies within and without!" I can honestly see that horrific perspective becoming a-ok with at least 40% of the Americans currently, which is more than enough to end the American experiment.
posted by Philipschall at 10:33 AM on January 27, 2020 [11 favorites]


Why does anyone thing Bolton --or any other Republican stooge--will actually tell the truth?

I'm glad impeachment is happening, just so it's on the record that someone tried, but all these bastards will walk. Just like the rich bullies always do.

We only got Social Security and the New Deal because they were afraid for their lives.
posted by Abehammerb Lincoln at 10:33 AM on January 27, 2020 [12 favorites]


As the blogger Atrios notes, there is no "Celestial Hall Monitor" coming to save us. Not Mueller, not Roberts and certainly not Bolton.

But there are the voters. If a disgusted electorate ousts four Republican senators in 2020, there goes Mitch McConnell's majority (and possibly even his Senate seat!). His task, again, is to conduct a kangaroo court exonerating Trump without making it too obvious. Our task, and the task of every loyal American, is to make it hard for him to get away with it, and make him pay a cost for doing so.
posted by Gelatin at 10:34 AM on January 27, 2020 [9 favorites]


Executive privilege can only be used to prevent the Senate from asking a witness questions.

It can't even do that; the Senate (or House) can ask all they please, and the witness can decline to answer by invoking executive privilege. Before the Senate, there would be no repercussions, and that'd be all she wrote, but again, it'll stink of a cover-up. Republicans don't want those optics to happen.
posted by Gelatin at 10:36 AM on January 27, 2020 [1 favorite]


Starr is choosing not to defend Trump, but to attack the concept of impeachment. Yes, that’s Kenneth Starr, one of the chief architects of the previous presidential impeachment, arguing that we should really not be impeaching people as a matter of course. He even cited British parliamentary committees who decided that impeachment in that country was “insufficiently fair” and therefore “obsolete”.

Apparently, defending Trump is actually a more embarrassing option then choosing to undermine the entire premise of your career.
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 10:37 AM on January 27, 2020 [65 favorites]


Given the nature of things, it's probably a massive financial crime related to campaign funds.

For instance the Russian money laundered through the NRA?


Just echoing these excellent points—this looks much more like survival and self-preservation to me, than ideology or mere greed.

The more I think about it, the more it doesn't seem like anyone's going to jail, let alone getting removed from office, for any crime

I have also come to this conclusion, and am starting to think that part of the discourse and analysis devoted to following this in real-time probably ought to be shifted to devising a realistic set of responses for when this happens.
posted by LooseFilter at 10:38 AM on January 27, 2020 [10 favorites]


Guardian: Starr criticized for warning of impeachment becoming 'normalized'
Ken Starr, one of Trump’s lawyers, warned that impeachment has become “normalized” and could soon be turned into a weapon against every administration. “Democrats will regret it when Republicans are handing out the pens,” predicted Starr, who spearheaded the investigation of Bill Clinton that led to his impeachment. Starr’s warnings were met with incredulity from Democratic commentators and strategists, including this former Clinton adviser:

Paul Begala (@PaulBegala) Ken Starr calls this period “the Age of Impeachment,” and asks, “How did we get here?” He then whips out a hand mirror and says, “Oh, right. It was me. My bad.” January 27, 2020
posted by katra at 10:39 AM on January 27, 2020 [20 favorites]


But there are the voters.

This assumes the existence of free and fair elections (or an election at all) come November, nine months after Trump & company are basically given free rein to do anything they want.

But I agree with you - voters are all we have at this point.
posted by mikepop at 10:40 AM on January 27, 2020 [9 favorites]


Dems should be pushing for witnesses because there’s no downside and there is a huge potential upside. There’s no realistic chance of the Senate convicting after closing arguments. But there is a realistic chance that a cascading series of witnesses would reveal some new Trump scandal, or a whole tree of them, which could wear down popular support for the President even further, and change the calculus.
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 10:43 AM on January 27, 2020 [8 favorites]


The Onion had this right 3 months ago: GOP Lawmakers Watch Silently As Trump Strangles Each Of Their Loved Ones In Turn

...every Republican in both the House and Senate stated that while killing off their families in cold blood might not be entirely proper, it was certainly not an impeachable offense, no matter how the media tried to spin it.

Or, in other words to steal this from someone online, Trump will win acquittal by 53-47, unless he shoots a Republican Senator. Then it will be 52-47.

The goal is to get to the non Fox News watching people who might change their vote from Trump or who didn't vote last time. No President has lost an impeachment trial and that's not about to change.
posted by Hactar at 10:47 AM on January 27, 2020 [22 favorites]


Someone needs to write a book about the pantheon of complete mediocrities who will argue whatever you pay them to that dominate this era (Starr, Turley, Dersh, etc)
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 10:52 AM on January 27, 2020 [3 favorites]


The House has already heard testimony from Fiona Hill, Ambassador Yovanovich, and Colonel Vindman. All of who Trump ordered not to testify.

Absolutely nothing happened to them. Trump's threats are toothless. Bolton is just using excuses not to testify until now.


Fiona Hill resigned her government position in 2019, testified and yes, so far, has not had anything "happen" to her. (outside of, you know, no longer working for the government)

Ambassador Yovanovich testified, and was threatened while she was testifying. It was later discovered that the president and a gang of his boys were tracking her movements. She had to leave on the next plane, and feared for her life at the time, and was being threatened by the POTUS while she was testifying. Maybe not toothless. (also no longer an Ambassador, so there's that)

Col. Vindman - maybe you aren't up to speed on current events.

Stormy Daniels was visited in a parking garage.
Adam Schiff hasn't "Paid the price, yet"

These threats may seem toothless, but you know he has plenty of teeth when it comes to Republicans. If he can issue open threats to these people who disobey his orders, imagine what leverage he has over people he has real blackmail over...Lindsey Graham clearly doesn't think he's "toothless."
posted by Chuffy at 10:52 AM on January 27, 2020 [21 favorites]


“Democrats will regret it when Republicans are handing out the pens,”

In case you missed the thing about the pens (and there's a good chance you did, because it seems like only shouty right-wingers (see also Mike Gallagher (link to his site), who replayed the Gutfeld thing the next morning) give a shit about it): Nancy Pelosi gave out souvenir pens after signing the impeachment documents.

They're not 18-karat gold, they didn't cost $2,025, or $15,000, and there were also souvenir pens at the Clinton impeachment. Not that any of these facts matter one bit to people who want to talk about anything, anything, but the facts of the case.
posted by box at 10:55 AM on January 27, 2020 [15 favorites]


The more I think about it, the more it doesn't seem like anyone's going to jail, let alone getting removed from office, for any crime

Obviously much -- indeed, all -- depends on the outcome of the 2020 elections. But as much as Obama was faulted for letting George W. Bush and crew, and the architects of the housing crisis and Great Recession, get away with various crimes, this time loyal Americans will not be in a forgiving mood at all. Of course Republican operatives like David Brooks and the more milquetoast members of the so-called "liberal media" will call for "looking forward, not backward" and not "criminalizing politics," but Trump and his crew already did the crimes, and we've already seen, from Watergate to Iran-Contra to the bogus case for the Iraq war and Bush's torture regime, the damage our nation endures from not purging the rot. If the rot is solely Republican, well, that's their choice, and if it isn't, let justice be done though the heavens fall.
posted by Gelatin at 11:01 AM on January 27, 2020 [9 favorites]


These threats may seem toothless

We're not yet a month away from Trump ordering the assassination of a high-ranking Iranian official in Baghdad via drone strike. Comparatively speaking, the people who testified to Congress have gotten off pretty un-toothed.
posted by Etrigan at 11:06 AM on January 27, 2020 [6 favorites]


Sometimes, it takes a while for the bite to take effect...
posted by Chuffy at 11:13 AM on January 27, 2020 [2 favorites]


Sekulow just showed the pen thing as an exhibit in the trial.
posted by Chuffy at 11:15 AM on January 27, 2020 [5 favorites]


Republicans seem pretty upset that the Speaker’s pen is more voluminous than theirs
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 11:25 AM on January 27, 2020


Sekulow just showed the pen thing as an exhibit in the trial.

Sekulow and Starr are playing to an audience of one. But other than Trump, and his rabid base, is anyone really being convinced by their arguments? More than will be outraged and motivated by the House managers' case -- which was designed to play to the American public at least as much as the Republican Senators who as much as declared they weren't going to honor their oaths of impartiality -- and the Republican rubber-stamping of Trump's corrupt acts?

After the Democrats regained the House, much of the political press seemed to sneer at the idea that they'd impeach Trump when his acquittal was guaranteed in the Senate. But now that the House has actually done so, everyone is forced to confront the reality that the Republicans are really going to let him get away with it. (Had they stood pat, the Democrats would instead have borne the blame and the shame.) I don't see this outcome as good for the Republicans, but between that and the "heads on pikes" threat, I don't see why the Senate Republicans are kowtowing the way they are. It takes some doing to look more feckless than Democrats, but they're doing it.
posted by Gelatin at 11:26 AM on January 27, 2020 [7 favorites]


Trump defense team: Bolton who? (Politico)
“We deal with transcript evidence. We deal with publicly available information. We do not deal with speculation, allegations that are not based on evidentiary standards at all,” Jay Sekulow, Trump’s lead personal attorney for the trial, said as he opened up the second day of his team’s opening arguments at the Senate’s trial. [...] Trump's lawyers, led by Sekulow and White House Counsel Pat Cipollone, indicated early on that instead of addressing Bolton’s reported account of his conversations with Trump, they would continue presenting a defense of Trump's conduct toward Ukraine — batting aside the House's charges that Trump pressured Ukrainian officials to launch baseless investigations of his Democratic adversaries.
'Torture,' 'excruciatingly boring': Starr blasted for opening with long discussion of history of impeachment (NBC News)
Quoting centuries-old law school deans and what he dubbed the “Rodino Rule,” and citing the minutiae of the Iran-Contra scandal and the impeachment of President Andrew Johnson, Starr, despite a 30-minute-plus discussion so far, has yet to mention Trump by name. His lecture is beginning to attract the ire of its watchers — even among Trump allies. [...]

Ken Starr litigation strategy: Torture the senate with such an excruciatingly boring presentation that they cannot take another minute of this trial. — Ann Coulter (@AnnCoulter) January 27, 2020
posted by katra at 11:27 AM on January 27, 2020 [6 favorites]


Defense team expected to address Bolton allegations (WaPo)
White House lawyers are expected to raise the Bolton allegations as part of their argument on the Senate floor Monday afternoon and are likely now to extend their arguments until Tuesday, according to White House aides.

White House aides are still pushing against the idea of testimony from Bolton and others but are beginning to prepare for the possibility, according to the aides, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations.

White House Counsel Pat Cipollone and legislative affairs director Eric Ueland, among others, are telling other aides in the building and on Capitol Hill that they had not seen Bolton’s manuscript, even though they knew that Bolton’s opinion of the president was negative and that his testimony was unlikely to help the president.

Before reports of Bolton’s allegations Sunday night, White House officials had expected to wrap up their opening arguments Monday after only two hours of arguments on Saturday.
posted by katra at 11:32 AM on January 27, 2020 [4 favorites]


For reference, in the unlikely event there are any witnesses:
Witnesses would be subpoenaed, then deposed. Unclear how long this would take. Then testify, (on video or live) if the Senate decides to. This does not necessarily happen in the chamber. Then, potentially, written questions from senators, read by the Chief Justice.

If there are no witnesses the Senate will probably be done by Friday. If there are witnesses this could extend for quite some time, though not continuously.
posted by Huffy Puffy at 11:37 AM on January 27, 2020 [2 favorites]


Guardian: "Angus King, an independent senator who caucuses with Democrats, predicted that up to 10 Republicans would eventually vote in favor of allowing new witness testimony during the impeachment trial.
Burgess Everett (@burgessev) Sen. Angus King to @npr on how many GOP Senators might call for witnesses: “I think there'll be more than four. My bold prediction will be five or 10." January 27, 2020
posted by katra at 11:37 AM on January 27, 2020 [7 favorites]


‘Time to move on’: Most GOP senators dismiss Bolton revelations (USA Today, Jan. 27, 2020) Wyoming Sen. John Barrasso, chair of the GOP conference, dismissed the “so-called blockbuster report” as “selective leaks” that don’t change the underlying facts of the case.

“There’s nothing new here that John Bolton didn’t know before the House managers rested their case and stopped calling witnesses, and they never chose to call John Bolton,” he said. Bolton had followed a White House directive not to respond to the House’s request that he voluntarily testify.

[...] Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., cast doubt on the veracity of Bolton’s account. “Well, I don’t know. Is he a firsthand witness? I’m not sure,” he told reporters as he entered Republicans’ daily lunch meeting.

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., said Bolton is “an angry disgruntled employee and I think he'll say anything.”

posted by Iris Gambol at 11:39 AM on January 27, 2020 [6 favorites]


Sekulow says no witness tied investigations and aid. Bolton revelations allege link (NBC News)
Arguing before the Senate on Monday, Sekulow listed as noteworthy one of the Trump legal team's "six facts" about the president's efforts in Ukraine.

Sekulow said that "no witness" testified to a direct link between the investigations Trump wanted Ukraine to announce and the withholding of nearly $400 million in aid to the country.

However, ex-national security adviser John Bolton reportedly would say just that if the Senate voted in favor of calling him to testify before the trial. He reportedly alleges in his upcoming book that Trump linked the two things — Ukraine aid and an investigation into Democrats, including the Bidens — in an August conversation with him, which the president has denied doing.

Several other Trump administration witnesses testified that they believed there was a link between the aid and the investigations Trump sought.
posted by katra at 11:46 AM on January 27, 2020 [3 favorites]


Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., said Bolton is “an angry disgruntled employee and I think he'll say anything.” sure to deliver damaging testimony.

We knew that, but thanks for the confirmation, jackass.
posted by Gelatin at 11:46 AM on January 27, 2020 [12 favorites]


Sekulow said that "no witness" testified to a direct link between the investigations Trump wanted Ukraine to announce and the withholding of nearly $400 million in aid to the country.

Sekulow is gloating about Trump's successful obstruction of Congress as if his doing so wasn't confirmation of the second impeachment charge. (Not that Senate Republicans care, but again, I doubt playing to Trump and his base and not the wider audience of loyal Americans is good for the Republicans in the long run -- not that I mind.)
posted by Gelatin at 11:53 AM on January 27, 2020 [8 favorites]


Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., said Bolton is “an angry disgruntled employee and I think he'll say anything.”

You have to admire the nerve it takes to defend a guy whose entire public image was founded on being a proudly cruel boss by saying "Anyone who was turned off by his management style doesn't count."
posted by Etrigan at 12:15 PM on January 27, 2020 [15 favorites]


If there are no witnesses the Senate will probably be done by Friday. If there are witnesses this could extend for quite some time, though not continuously.

We should note that while this might inconvenience senators running for the presidency, there will surely be many days without an active trial where they will be able to campaign personally.
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 12:16 PM on January 27, 2020 [1 favorite]


Ken Starr, one of Trump’s lawyers, warned that impeachment has become “normalized” and could soon be turned into a weapon against every administration. “Democrats will regret it when Republicans are handing out the pens,” predicted Starr, who spearheaded the investigation of Bill Clinton that led to his impeachment.

Absolutely. We should handle impeachment proceedings with lead-lined gloves, lest they become so commonplace that they become partisan tools that are wielded carelessly by the other side, rather than the somber measure of last resort that the Founders intended.

Also, hey, remember 2009-2016, when the GOP made something like a hundred separate calls for the impeachment of Barack Obama, for reasons ranging from "wore a tan suit on television" to "ratified a bill giving health care to poor people"?
posted by Mayor West at 12:16 PM on January 27, 2020 [40 favorites]


I find all the callers on NPR saying "I used to be a democrat but I switched because they won't support our President" to be kind of fishy.
posted by mazola at 12:18 PM on January 27, 2020 [28 favorites]


Republicans struggle to get on message after Bolton rocks trial (Politico)
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has put a premium on keeping his caucus united amid an often unpredictable political environment and a pressure campaign from Democrats demanding a “fair trial” that they say must include witnesses and documents. GOP lawmakers are likely to appear more on message after a Senate GOP caucus lunch Monday afternoon, which is certain to feature a discussion of how to handle the Bolton news.

In the meantime, though, the GOP message was scattered. A daily GOP press conference to discuss the trial, expected to feature Sens. John Barasso (R-Wyo.), Braun, Mike Lee (R-Utah), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and James Lankford (R-Okla.), was abruptly postponed Monday morning, only to be rescheduled with just Barrasso and Braun in attendance.
posted by katra at 12:20 PM on January 27, 2020 [5 favorites]


NYT headline: “Republicans in Disarray”
posted by Sublimity at 12:35 PM on January 27, 2020 [18 favorites]


Schumer: White House lawyers making case for documents and witnesses (CBS News)
Speaking to reporters during a brief recess in the impeachment trial, Schumer said Mr. Trump's lawyers "keep making the case for witnesses and documents."

Schumer said comments from Starr emphasizing that the Senate is sitting as a court bolster the argument in favor of additional testimony and documents.

"Whoever heard of a court proceeding without witness and documents? Whoever heard of a trial without witnesses and documents?" he said. "If we are a court, all the more reason we have to hear the evidence."

Schumer also refuted comments from Sekulow who said not a single witness in the House's impeachment inquiry testified they heard from the president himself. [...] "We want Bolton. We want Mulvaney. They heard from the president himself," Schumer said. "We can solve Mr. Sekulow's problem of not having witnesses who heard from the president himself by having Bolton, by having Mulvaney, by having [Robert] Blair and by having [Michael] Duffey and the documents underneath what they said."
posted by katra at 12:37 PM on January 27, 2020 [4 favorites]


I find all the callers on NPR saying "I used to be a democrat but I switched because they won't support our President" to be kind of fishy.
posted by mazola at 2:18 PM on January 27 [2 favorites +] [!]


Next you'll impugn the honor of the C-SPAN "independent" voters who immediately begin speaking in verbatim Republican talking points! These are the old person equivalent of Russian troll farms.
posted by OnTheLastCastle at 12:37 PM on January 27, 2020 [28 favorites]


I don't see why the Senate Republicans are kowtowing the way they are.

I think they have no choice at this point. If they dump Trump, then the obvious question is "Why did you wait so long?" The only difference about Bolton's reveal is that he's not some poor civil servant who can be stuffed in a closet. The information has been there all along, and now they're in a lose-lose situation.
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 12:38 PM on January 27, 2020 [3 favorites]


The GOP has weaponized, I think kind of accidentally, their base. If you do not follow along, you will lose your primary race. At this point, I'm not sure how a Republican would realistically court many Democrat votes (though moderates of both sides exist and it could happen on a local level). So Republicans could certainly stand up but then they'd lose their next election, and I think they'd lose those sweet, sweet connections they're using to make money and have power.

It's like a shield wall in an army. If the wall holds, it's very strong. An individual trying to run away would be completely defenseless, but it weakens the wall... I expect it either holds or breaks all at once. Given all the sunk-cost and shady dealings, I'm not sure it will ever "break" except by a decisive election and Republicans can ease off. You can see an example of fracturing in how many people "retired" in advance of 2018 and 2020.
posted by OnTheLastCastle at 12:47 PM on January 27, 2020 [7 favorites]


Guardian: "After offering a robust defense of Rudy Giuliani, Jane Raskin ended her presentation by describing the president’s personal lawyer as “a minor player” and “a shiny object meant to distract you.”
The defense of the former New York mayor may come as a surprise to Republican lawmakers, many of whom have expressed unease about Giuliani’s role in pushing Ukraine to investigate Democrats.
::coughs:: John Bolton Reportedly Called Rudy Giuliani a ‘Hand Grenade’ (NY Mag)
posted by katra at 12:54 PM on January 27, 2020 [2 favorites]


2018 *was* a decisive election. A decisive Democratic victory in 2020 would be another data point in a trend line that isn't favorable to Republicans at all -- and, note, was predictable and predicted by the Republicans after Romney's loss. The Republicans didn't have to double down on being the party of angry white men; they were urged by their own strategists to open up to a bigger tent that at least somewhat welcomed immigrants, and they just couldn't do it.

A decisive Democratic victory in 2020 would be yet another step on the Republican Party marching itself into irrelevance and evidence that Trump's victory was just a fluke. The question is, is Trump's fire-up-the-base strategy the genius move he thinks it is or a recipe for disaster? Judging by the impeachment trial so far (and Pompeo's infamous meltdown in his NPR interview), even Republicans don't seem confident -- just afraid.
posted by Gelatin at 1:01 PM on January 27, 2020 [19 favorites]


And that's when they are the most dangerous. They are going down fighting.
posted by sjswitzer at 1:07 PM on January 27, 2020 [5 favorites]


These threats may seem toothless, but you know he has plenty of teeth when it comes to Republicans.

Sorry for the confusion. We were discussing legal consequences that people have used as excuses for refusal to testify -- NDAs, and executive privilege, and subpoenas.

Of course it has always been true that Trump can sic his twitter mob on anyone who doesn't toe the line. But that isn't why Bolton and Mulvaney have refused to testify. They have refused because they simply don't want to and are using bogus legal excuses to justify it.
posted by JackFlash at 1:16 PM on January 27, 2020 [1 favorite]


Guardian: "Congressman Justin Amash, who left the Republican Party over his opposition to Trump, criticized the president’s lawyers for ignoring news reports as they present their opening arguments.
Justin Amash (@justinamash) The defense team’s strategy rests on pretending that news doesn’t exist. January 27, 2020
Trump lawyer: Giuliani was "minor player" in Ukraine affair (CNN)
This ignores testimony from several witnesses, who said the President directed them to coordinate with Giuliani on Ukraine policy. It also ignores the fact that Giuliani’s name came up six times during Trump’s July 25 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

Here are all the times Giuliani was mentioned in the call:

Zelensky: "I will personally tell you that one of my assistants spoke with Mr. Giuliani just recently and we are hoping very much that Mr. Giuliani will be able to travel to Ukraine and we will meet once he comes to Ukraine."
Trump: "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."
Trump: "I will have Mr. Giuliani give you a call and I am also going to have Attorney General Barr call and we will get to the bottom of it."
Trump: "Good. Well, thank you very much and I appreciate that. I will tell Rudy and Attorney General Barr to call."
posted by katra at 1:17 PM on January 27, 2020 [21 favorites]


I mean fuck Rand Paul, but I absolutely agree that Bolton will say anything, whether out of vindictiveness, fame-mongering, or self-preservation. Paul should know that better than anyone, really.

Bolton was a professional idiot before he went on the wingnut circuit that landed him in the Trump cabinet, and he continues to be an idiot now. If his testimony manages to get some airplay undermining Trump's approval among the dittoheads who empowered him, it might be worthwhile. But let's not kid ourselves that anything the man says has anything more than a passing relationship with fact, unless by accident.
posted by aspersioncast at 1:22 PM on January 27, 2020 [6 favorites]


I think they have no choice at this point. If they dump Trump, then the obvious question is "Why did you wait so long?"

Which is the scariest scenario of all, in some ways. For every loyalty test these craven cowards pass by praising the emperor's clothes, they're that much more committed to the next loyalty test. There's a whole lot that could get a whole lot worse, on multiple fronts, if they ride this rabid horse all the way to the end.

Did I say if?
posted by Rykey at 1:42 PM on January 27, 2020 [3 favorites]


Trump counsel just revealed that another member of the Burisma board was apparently a friend of John Kerry’s stepson and this is outrageous and I’m not even kidding
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 1:45 PM on January 27, 2020 [2 favorites]


Well of course there's that conflict of interest.

I mean, the appearance of conflict of interest.

I mean, the *potential* appearance of conflict of interest.
posted by mazola at 1:51 PM on January 27, 2020 [2 favorites]


I don’t know why the Republicans bothered going after John Kerry’s war record when they could have just maligned his step-children’s friends 🤷‍♂️
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 1:53 PM on January 27, 2020 [25 favorites]


Oh, I see Pam Bondi is speaking... good thing there's no conflict of interest ever clouding around her related to Trump before he was president. It would be shocking at this point if someone somehow wasn't nakedly corrupt.
posted by OnTheLastCastle at 2:01 PM on January 27, 2020 [15 favorites]


Bondi was a Florida elector for 2016, BTW
posted by ocschwar at 2:03 PM on January 27, 2020 [3 favorites]


At this point it's easier to list the people on the defense team who don't have photos with Lev Parnas. Pam Bondi + Lev Parnas
posted by ryoshu at 2:04 PM on January 27, 2020 [21 favorites]


Trump defense team focuses on the Bidens (CNN)
Pam Bondi, former Florida attorney general and a member of President Trump’s defense team, outlined the issue of Hunter Biden’s involvement on the board of Burisma, a Ukrainian natural gas company, during her 30-minute presentation. This was the first direct reference to the Bidens during the defense team’s presentations.

House managers, she said, “repeatedly referenced” Biden and Burisma more than “400 times” during their presentations last week, “but they never gave you the full picture.”

“We would prefer not to be talking about this,” she claimed, “But the House managers have placed this squarely at issue, so we must address it.”

Citing multiple news reports and testimony from State Department official George Kent and other witnesses, Bondi cast the company as corrupt and Biden’s involvement as a conflict of interest. She questioned his qualifications to serve on the board, an opportunity she called “nepotistic at best, nefarious at worst.”

There is no evidence of wrongdoing by Joe or Hunter Biden.

Bondi noted that then-Vice President Joe Biden sought to remove Ukrainian prosecutor Victor Shokin, who was investigating Burisma. However, she did not note that Shokin was widely accused of corruption and a Shokin deputy has said the Burisma probe was dormant.
Lawyers begin their assault on Joe Biden and his son Hunter. (NYT)
Democrats say the activities of the Bidens are irrelevant to the president’s actions regarding Ukraine, and insist there is no legitimate evidence that either Hunter Biden or the former vice president did anything improper. They accuse Mr. Trump of trying to smear the elder Mr. Biden because he is a leading candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination.
posted by katra at 2:23 PM on January 27, 2020 [10 favorites]


The Paper of Record would know whether there was any evidence of either Bidens' improper dealings, legitimate or otherwise. It would be nice if they'd have noted that their august institution was not aware of any.
posted by sjswitzer at 2:32 PM on January 27, 2020 [11 favorites]


Well this is heartening: "Mitch McConnell is angry at White House over John Bolton manuscript, report says." I still think McConnell will soon conclude that Trump is more a danger and a trouble to the Republican Senate majority while he is in office rather than out, and the Senate will vote to convict.
posted by PhineasGage at 2:33 PM on January 27, 2020 [4 favorites]


Senator Toomey has proposed some inane witness swap as the hillside dirt continues to saturate under heavy rains. Pennsylvania voters like me can disapprove of this chicanery at any of these telephone numbers. Takes only a minute.
posted by Chef Flamboyardee at 2:37 PM on January 27, 2020 [8 favorites]


Toomey, who is not up for reelection until 2022, is close to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). He is not close with the president or top aides in the White House.
I might just be a lowly non-Senator Pennsylvanian, but I do understand math a little bit, and 87.3% seems rather close to me.
posted by tonycpsu at 2:42 PM on January 27, 2020 [4 favorites]


FYI, 5 Calls is an excellent resource for getting hold of your Senators and Representative.

As I said above, if the GOP wants witnesses, there is nothing preventing them from calling any witness they want. They have the votes and don’t need a deal. The Democrats need to make this point clear.
posted by Big Al 8000 at 2:47 PM on January 27, 2020 [4 favorites]


They're really pushing the "souvenir pens" thing, lol. So far, it's all about process and timing. Watching Eric Hershcmann talking about everything else besides the facts of the case, which he glossed over as "impeachment over a phone call about corruption."

Everything else is whaaaaaa
posted by Chuffy at 3:00 PM on January 27, 2020 [2 favorites]


The two before Herschmann also didn't talk about anything related to the impeachment. Just a noun, a verb, and Hunter Biden.
posted by bink at 3:02 PM on January 27, 2020


Their greatest defense is still "Look out behind you! It's a tiger!" and yet... there has never been a tiger behind us and we're aware of that. In fact, the idea of a tiger was made up by Russians/conspiracy theory people.

Who fucking cares about the Bidens in an impeachment with two articles listing Trump's specific crimes? I know I'm speaking the choice, but I can't even with the level of nonsense they have.
posted by OnTheLastCastle at 3:02 PM on January 27, 2020 [7 favorites]


“We would prefer not to be talking about this” ... but that Zelenskyy announces investigation into the Bidens shaped hole in the planned campaign ads requires a ton of infill.
posted by Iris Gambol at 3:05 PM on January 27, 2020 [9 favorites]


Im sorry if this was covered but did the defense counsel really just claim that we cant prosecute Trump's abuse of power because Obama got away with it? The central thesis of that defense is that Trump did the fucking crime.
posted by Slackermagee at 3:09 PM on January 27, 2020 [12 favorites]


Yes, it appears to be the, "Of course he did it, so what?" defense, coupled with, "The House didn't get witness testimony from the people who refused to appear, so their case can't be tried."

It's a farce, and we all need to figure out how we're going to deal with it. There's an alternate reality bubble that seems to be impenetrable.
posted by Chuffy at 3:21 PM on January 27, 2020 [9 favorites]


The GOP has weaponized, I think kind of accidentally, their base. If you do not follow along, you will lose your primary race.

Filing deadlines for primary candidates have already passed in Alabama, Arkansas, Illinois, California, Texas, Ohio, North Carolina, Mississippi, Kentucky, Maryland, and West Virginia.

Class 2 senators are up for reelection this year. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-MS) don't have primary challengers. Tom Cotton (R-AR) is essentially running unopposed. Pat Roberts (R-KS), Lamar Alexander (R-TN) and Mike Enzi (R-WY) are retiring.

Class 3 senators are up for reelection in 2022 and Class 1 senators are up for reelection in 2024.
posted by kirkaracha at 3:28 PM on January 27, 2020 [6 favorites]


I may be naive, but I place a certain amount of hope in the fact that "The book that brought down a President" will sell more copies as a tagline than "The book that certainly ruffled some feathers that time."
posted by Sparx at 3:28 PM on January 27, 2020 [11 favorites]


Trump lawyer: Giuliani was "minor player" in Ukraine affair

Not up on my procedure, but does Schiff & Co. get to say "You're lying, and here's the proof." to this shit at any point?
posted by mikelieman at 4:28 PM on January 27, 2020 [3 favorites]


Trump team braces for deeper impeachment drama after Bolton surprise (Politico)
[...] White House officials and Trump lawyers are preparing for the possibility that the Senate impeachment trial will summon witnesses — dragging out the trial for days or weeks, cutting into plans for the State of the Union address and delaying Trump’s pivot to his reelection campaign.

The “only good news for Trump is this f---- up the campaign schedule for the Senate [2020] candidates for weeks to come,” said one Republican close to the White House. [...]

“This opens up a can of worms because the senators don’t get to vote on calling individual witnesses,” said a former senior administration official. “If Bolton testifies, then what does that mean for Pompeo or Mulvaney and assertions of executive privilege? It gets complicated and uncertain really fast.”

Trump lawyers are already thinking through which witnesses would be best to rebut potential testimony from Bolton and are eyeing Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. Bolton has said he will testify if the Senate subpoenas him. [...]

In an interview, Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) called the Bolton book disclosures a “bombshell with political shrapnel going in all directions toward the Republican Party to figure out how to handle this.”

The White House press office did not respond to a request for comment.
posted by katra at 4:33 PM on January 27, 2020 [6 favorites]


The “only good news for Trump is this f---- up the campaign schedule for the Senate [2020] candidates for weeks to come,” said one Republican close to the White House.

Not for "Sleepy Joe" Biden tho.
posted by kirkaracha at 4:36 PM on January 27, 2020 [1 favorite]


Guardian: "Lawyer Eric Herschmann has accused Barack Obama of soliciting interference in the 2012 election by asking Russia to give him “space” on missile defense. Herschmann characterized a 2012 communication between Obama and former Russian prime minister Dmitry Medvedev as “unquestionable quid pro quo”.

Guardian: Fact Check: What Trump’s defense mischaracterized about Barack Obama’s conversation with Moscow
Trump’s legal team tried to turn the tables, characterizing a conversation between Barack Obama and Russian leader Dmitry Medvedev as “unquestionable quid pro quo”.

The conversation they were referring to was caught on a “hot” microphone during what the two leaders believed was a private moment during a 2012 nuclear summit in South Korea. Obama asked Medvedev to tell incoming Russian president Vladimir Putin to give him time to negotiate contentious issues like missile defense: “This is my last election. After my election, I have more flexibility,” Obama said.

The former president wasn’t offering or withholding anything; at the time, Republicans criticized what they saw as a lack of resolve to keep Putin in check. But Obama never offered or withheld anything from the Russians in exchange for a personal favor, as Trump’s legal team tried to claim.
posted by katra at 4:37 PM on January 27, 2020 [16 favorites]


I hope they do documents and witnesses. And I'm waiting on Lev Parnas's lawyer to suffer a second rate burglary. Parnas's phone(s) is probably the most wanted item in the US. Photos, audio, video of Trump, by the guy who Trump doesn't know.
posted by baegucb at 4:38 PM on January 27, 2020 [1 favorite]


After his embarrassing performance on NPR, it would be surprising if the WH would choose to put Pompeo on the stand.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 4:38 PM on January 27, 2020 [3 favorites]


DTMFA
posted by KleenexMakesaVeryGoodHat at 4:42 PM on January 27, 2020 [4 favorites]


Schiff: Trump and allies want to suppress Bolton testimony because they are "deathly afraid" (CNN)
Asked about GOP Rep. Mark Meadows’s suggestion that the New York Times story on John Bolton was a coordinated leak from Democrats and if he was in any way involved in the leak, House impeachment manager Rep. Adam Schiff said he was not.

“Of course not,” Schiff said, “It came as quite a surprise to all the House managers when the New York Times story came out, but I guess that’s the best Representative Meadows has right now. Look I can understand the reasons why — and I think we knew these already — why the President and his allies have wanted to suppress John Bolton’s testimony. They evidentially had this manuscript, they understood what John Bolton had to say and they were deathly afraid the American people would find out."

Schiff continued: "There seems to be a real shift in where the Republican senators are and I think it’s very hard for them to maintain that they wanted a fair trial, wanted to know all the facts when there’s a witness who said I’m ready, I’ve got something to say, we have an outline of what he has to say, it’s really hard to say we’re not going to hear that.”
posted by katra at 4:45 PM on January 27, 2020 [13 favorites]


Is there a list anywhere of witnesses and documentation that have been presented -- especially under oath in the House or Senate up to this point, but not necessarily limited in that way -- in support of impeachment articles?

I'm seeing a lot of "Adam Schiff is lying" and "But Hunter Biden on a BOARD." Some people are saying this because they don't have anything else to bring to politics. But some people are saying these things either have absolutely no idea who Vindaman or Hill or Yovanovitch or even Bolton are or what the hell is going on and *might* pause for some reflection if someone they trust delivers a summary.

I talked through the basic impeachment issues as I see / understand them with a relative recently even though I didn't have this summary at hand. This person didn't know who their Senators are, or how many votes it would take to compel testimony or removal, or what the impeachment brouhaha was about. They regularly vote, though. There is such an incredible disconnect. Part of it is on them, but then again *I* only know where to look for things like daily reports and running commentary, not for overarching summaries, and I am not sure I'm as much a part of the solution as I'd like to be.
posted by wildblueyonder at 5:03 PM on January 27, 2020 [5 favorites]




Dershowitz appears to be making the case for why we should ITMFA in his attempt to explain why we shouldn't be ITMFA. It's ludicrous.
posted by Chuffy at 5:14 PM on January 27, 2020 [2 favorites]


Is there a list anywhere of witnesses and documentation that have been presented -- especially under oath in the House or Senate up to this point, but not necessarily limited in that way -- in support of impeachment articles?

https://intelligence.house.gov/defendourdemocracy/
Pursuant to House Resolution 660, we are now releasing transcripts of these witness interviews so every American can see the facts and decide for themselves: is this conduct acceptable?

Jump to: Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch | Ambassador Michael McKinley | Ambassadors Kurt Volker & Gordon Sondland | Ambassador Bill Taylor| George Kent | Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman & Dr. Fiona Hill | Laura Cooper, Catherine Croft & Christopher Anderson | Timothy Morrison & Jennifer Williams | David Holmes and David Hale | Mark Sandy & Ambassador Philip Reeker
https://intelligence.house.gov/report/
This report reflects the evidence gathered thus far by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, in coordination with the Committee on Oversight and Reform and the Committee on Foreign Affairs, as part of the House of Representatives’ impeachment inquiry into Donald J. Trump, the 45th President of the United States.
posted by katra at 5:15 PM on January 27, 2020 [11 favorites]


Introducing ‘The Report, Season 2: The Impeachment’
Arguments in the impeachment trial of Donald J. Trump began on Jan. 21, 2020. As was the case in the Mueller report, covered in the first season of “The Report” podcast, the central factual questions at issue in the trial are: Did Donald Trump solicit foreign interference in the upcoming presidential election? And did he obstruct investigations into his conduct?
...
For six days a week until the trial concludes, the parties will make their arguments on the floor of the U.S. Senate and answer senators’ questions. During this trial there will be dozens of hours of speeches, testimony and procedure. Impeachment is one of the most consequential actions taken by our government. And while the proceedings of the impeachment trial should be carefully heard by each and every American, the reality is that most do not have the luxury of sitting through the daily grind of lengthy testimony.

Which is why Lawfare and Goat Rodeo are releasing a daily cut of the impeachment trial distilled to a manageable and accessible podcast. This abridged version will contain the compelling and substantial elements of the presentation throughout the day. No analysis. No punditry. Simply the unfolding events in the Senate. And you can already listen to the first two episodes.
posted by kirkaracha at 5:17 PM on January 27, 2020 [6 favorites]


Impeachment trial brief

Impeachment Inquiry Report PDF warning
posted by Chuffy at 5:19 PM on January 27, 2020 [3 favorites]


just security's public document clearinghouse: ukraine impeachment trial is also a good resource (though i haven't checked it since the house judiciary proceedings).
posted by 20 year lurk at 5:20 PM on January 27, 2020 [3 favorites]


The Republicans are doing their best to smear Schiff because he has made a brilliant and devastating case against the president. It's like everything in the right wing bubble - watch Schiff for 10 minutes and you simply cannot come to the conclusion that he is unhinged, loony and hysterical - especially when being accused of such things by Drumpf, Hannity or Jeanine Pirro. It's like Rush Limbaugh saying that Bill Moyers is a shock jock.
posted by Chuffy at 5:24 PM on January 27, 2020 [18 favorites]


As usual, they're not saying what's true, they're saying what would have to be true to justify the conclusion they want.
posted by mrgoat at 5:38 PM on January 27, 2020 [37 favorites]


Guardian: "In his constitutional argument against impeachment, Alan Dershowitz is arguing that nothing short of a “serious crime” is ground for impeachment.
The House’s articles of impeachment against Donald Trump — abuse of power and obstruction of Congress,— are “outside the scope of impeachment”, he said. It’s only, for example, “if a President committed extortion”, Dershowitz said, he could be impeached for it. It’s with [noting] here that Congress’ abuse of power article lays out what could be described as an extortion scheme.

Dershowitz’s argument here contradicts the consensus of most legal scholars and lawmakers. Both the Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton impeachment arguments hinged on “abuse of power” charges.
posted by katra at 5:38 PM on January 27, 2020 [7 favorites]


Since we're going all the way back to the Constitution, I found some interesting stuff in Madison's log of the Federal Convention debating the powers of the executive:

FRANKLIN: ... He had had some experience of this check in the Executive on the Legislature, under the proprietary Government of Pena. The negative of the Governor was constantly made use of to extort money. No good law whatever could be passed without a private bargain with him.

MASON: ... Will not the same door be opened here. The Executive may refuse its assent to necessary measures till new appointments shall be referred to him; and having by degrees engrossed all these into his own hands, the American Executive, like the British, will by bribery & influence, save himself the trouble & odium of exerting his negative afterwards.

I didn't go to Harvard, but it sounds like they would have impached this guy.
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 5:56 PM on January 27, 2020 [14 favorites]


The latter two would involve a Democratic President willing to see his or her own power constrained, so it's anyone's guess if they might happen.

Based on the backstory of past nominees for President, the next Democratic President is likely a Democratic Senator at this moment and was probably in the the previous congress as well. Anyone who drummed their fingers waiting to talk to Merrick Garland probably already has experienced having their power constrained.
posted by ricochet biscuit at 6:02 PM on January 27, 2020 [3 favorites]


watch Schiff for 10 minutes and you simply cannot come to the conclusion that he is unhinged

don't want to amplify the juvenile criticism, but there is a characteristic of rep. schiff's appearance that suffices, for a particular regular interlocutor of mine (and, i assume, their cohort in the population at large), to permit them to derail by making fun of how he looks any time the content of his statements or behavior are commended to their attention. and "crazy" is a touchstone of their evaluation of that characteristic of his appearance. certain other democratic public figures are dismissed in a similar fashion. i think it is common. i think these are conditioned responses, not the results of reasoning, but i imagine they think it is fair to disregard liberals partisanly, as i (who read as a democrat to conservatives) am routinely evaluating certain republican and conservative persons, not to mention 4/5 of each scandalous headline they share, as stupid or mendacious, or, like pompeo, both. that said, i'm not certain that interlocutor could get through 10 mins with that programming in effect. (usually, though not w/ pompeo, i am not judging them based on their appearance or some feature thereof).

can't stand hearing dersh. but especially can't stand to hear him use "criteria" as a singular noun.

hey: has anybody seen copies of the house managers' slides in the public domain? i don't care about all the media clips, but would like to see the bold outlines of the case that appear, consistently across the presentations, framed within graphical elements depicting i think architectural columns and (lack vocab for neoclassical roof/floor; graphically, these are thick maybe double lines).

wait: i think dersh just asserted that he invented the "shoe test" wherein one considers what it would be like if the shoe were on the other foot, an idiom i suppose he also coined. but wait! cippolone just invented something he calls "the golden rule" which sounds a lot like be nice to nazis or they'll nazi harder in context.
posted by 20 year lurk at 6:03 PM on January 27, 2020 [14 favorites]


Guardian: "Alan Dershowitz broached a topic that members of Trump’s defense team have largely avoided: John Bolton. [...]
“Nothing in the Bolton revelations, even if true, would rise to the level of an abuse of power or an impeachable offense,” Derschowitz said, referring to reports that Bolton, a former national security adviser, had written a book in which he recounts that Trump told him in an August 2019 meeting that he did not want to send aid to Ukraine until that country delivered material relating to Joe Biden and to supporters of Hillary Clinton.
Guardian: Senate trial adjourns amidst new Bolton revelations
Advocating that the “golden rule of impeachment” should be that Democrats “do unto Republicans” as they want done unto them, White House counsel Pat Cipollone concluded today’s oral arguments.

But even as Donald Trump’s defense team wrapped up for the night, the New York Times revealed more excerpts from John Bolton’s unpublished book. The former national security advisor reportedly told Attorney General William Barr last year that he was concerned the president was granting personal favors to Turkey and China. From the Times:

Mr. Barr responded by pointing to a pair of Justice Department investigations of companies in those countries and said he was worried that Mr. Trump had created the appearance that he had undue influence over what would typically be independent inquiries, according to the manuscript. Backing up his point, Mr. Barr mentioned conversations Mr. Trump had with the leaders, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey and President Xi Jinping of China.

Mr. Bolton’s account underscores the fact that the unease about Mr. Trump’s seeming embrace of authoritarian leaders, long expressed by experts and his opponents, also existed among some of the senior cabinet officers entrusted by the president to carry out his foreign policy and national security agendas.
posted by katra at 7:26 PM on January 27, 2020 [8 favorites]


foxnews.com
<ctrl-f>witn
Sen. John Kennedy says Senate impeachment trial could last 'through April or May' if new witnesses are called

Biden pushes for witnesses in impeachment trial but says of his Ukraine role, 'What is there to defend?'

Sen. John Cornyn says adding witnesses will ensure the Senate impeachment goes on 'forever and ever and ever'

<dermatophagia intensifies>
posted by Rat Spatula at 7:33 PM on January 27, 2020 [3 favorites]


White House works to contain damage from allegations in forthcoming Bolton book (WaPo)
Officially, the administration continued to push its previous message that Trump did nothing wrong in his July 25 phone call with Zelensky — a call at the heart of the whistleblower complaint that ultimately launched the impeachment inquiry — and the disclosures in Bolton’s book do not change those basic facts.

[Senior adviser Tony] Sayegh[, who was brought back into the administration to help with impeachment messaging,] traveled Monday morning to Capitol Hill to address a meeting of Republican Senate communications aides, where he reiterated that pitch.

Some Republican senators, however, remained frustrated, privately pushing the White House to find out just when the president’s legal team learned of the allegations in Bolton’s manuscript — and whether there are other bombshells that might emerge. [...]

Two Justice Department officials familiar with Bolton and Barr’s conversation, speaking on the condition of anonymity because of the matter’s political sensitivity, conceded that Bolton had called Barr in late July or early August but claimed the two talked only about Giuliani’s Ukraine-related efforts.

[...] The revelation in Bolton’s book caught at least some top level Justice Department officials by surprise. Their immediate concern, though, seemed not to be the revelation that Bolton had connected Trump to withholding military aid to pressure Ukraine’s leader to launch political investigations, but that Bolton was undercutting a previous assertion of the attorney general. Officials clamored Sunday night and Monday to make sure that Barr’s side of the story was out, attempting to keep a separation between him and the scandal.
posted by katra at 8:45 PM on January 27, 2020 [6 favorites]


Republicans seem to be disturbed to find out that Bill Barr is a lying sack of shit.
posted by JackFlash at 8:55 PM on January 27, 2020 [17 favorites]


Republicans seem to be disturbed to find out that Bill Barr is a lying sack of shit.

I wonder if they're just disturbed to find that he's just as happy to lie to them as he is to lie to the American public.
posted by bardophile at 9:03 PM on January 27, 2020 [21 favorites]


Don’t Be Confused by Trump’s Defense. What He Is Accused of Are Crimes. (Nikolas Bowie, NYT Opinion)
Watching CNN last week, I learned that I’m partly responsible for President Trump’s legal defense.

On the screen was one of the president’s lawyers, Alan Dershowitz, explaining his new position that impeachment requires “criminal-like behavior.” When the legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin interjected that “every single law professor” disagreed with him, Mr. Dershowitz rejoined that one professor — me! — was “completely” on his side.

Mr. Dershowitz encouraged Mr. Toobin to read a law review article I wrote on the impeachment of President Andrew Johnson, in which a former Supreme Court justice, Benjamin Curtis, successfully argued that no one should ever be punished for doing something that wasn’t a crime. Mr. Dershowitz apparently thought my article supported his view that even if Mr. Trump did everything the House has accused him of doing, the president shouldn’t be convicted because he hasn’t been accused of criminal behavior.

As an academic, my first reaction was to be grateful that someone had actually read one of my articles.

But as a legal academic, my second reaction was confusion. Even if you think impeachment requires a crime, as I do, that belief hardly supports the president’s defense or Mr. Dershowitz’s position. President Trump has been accused of a crime. Two in fact: “abuse of power” and “obstruction of Congress.” [...] American legal treatises and judicial opinions have long recognized the criminal offense of “abuse of power,” sometimes called “misconduct in office.” In 1846, the first edition of the pre-eminent treatise on American criminal law defined this common-law offense as when “a public officer, entrusted with definite powers to be exercised for the benefit of the community, wickedly abuses or fraudulently exceeds them.” The treatise noted that such an officer “is punishable by indictment, though no injurious effects result to any individual from his misconduct.” [...]

As for “obstruction of Congress,” that’s not only a common-law crime. Versions of the crime have also been listed in the federal criminal code since the 19th century. [...] Abuse of power may be “unwritten” in any code, and obstruction of Congress may be “implied” by statutes, but these crimes are now as well established, well defined and destructive of the public trust as bribery or treason. If the president did what the House accuses him of doing, he can and should be punished.
posted by katra at 9:28 PM on January 27, 2020 [39 favorites]


I mean, it all depends on what you understand as a crime, I guess? When the constitution was ratified there was little or no federal criminal law. To the extent that there was, it was an informal holdover from English common law. Yet the constitution must have meant something by "high crimes and misdemeanors." In fact what it means is well documented and it clearly has nothing to do with federal criminal statutes. It means abrogating the duties of the office.
posted by sjswitzer at 9:42 PM on January 27, 2020 [11 favorites]


Some Republican senators, however, remained frustrated, privately pushing the White House to find out just when the president’s legal team learned of the allegations in Bolton’s manuscript — and whether there are other bombshells that might emerge.

Some Republicans just realized that Trump doesn't care about their party. If remaining president means none of them get re-elected, fine.
posted by xammerboy at 9:59 PM on January 27, 2020 [17 favorites]


Yeah, the more this impeachment has played out, the more I'm convinced that impeachment charges shouldn't be compared to crimes so much as to fireable offenses, or grounds for firing, since that's more or less the nature of the process. The only "punishment" is the loss of the job that was given to them.

Maybe the fireable offenses should be more explicitly defined (good luck with that), but always talking in terms of crimes and punishments just adds more confusion to an already somewhat opaque process.
posted by p3t3 at 10:03 PM on January 27, 2020 [9 favorites]


“Nothing in the Bolton revelations, even if true, would rise to the level of an abuse of power or an impeachable offense,” Derschowitz said

10 INPUT "TYPE OF CRIME? "; CRIME$
20 PRINT "CLEARLY "; CRIME$ ;" DOES NOT RISE TO THE LEVEL OF AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE"
30 GOTO 10
40 END

Did I get that right? It's been a while. K-POWER REPRESENT
posted by Rykey at 12:11 AM on January 28, 2020 [23 favorites]


Former President Gerald Ford, when he was Speaker of the House, had a mad on against Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas and tried unsuccessfully on multiple occasions to get the House to vote to impeach him basically on the grounds that Ford hated him. At one point a reporter asked what, exactly, Douglas had done that was impeachable. Here's the official answer from a former Republican President on what counts for impeachment:
An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history; conviction results from whatever offense or offenses two-thirds of the other body considers to be sufficiently serious to require removal of the accused from office
That's what the Republicans think an impeachable offense is when they want to impeach someone. They have no grounds at all to object to abuse of power as the basis for the Democrat's impeachment of Trump.
posted by sotonohito at 4:24 AM on January 28, 2020 [25 favorites]


Did I get that right? It’s been a while

Runs code through an online JavaScript basic interpreter. Yip you’ve created a realistic Derschowitz AI.
posted by inflatablekiwi at 6:12 AM on January 28, 2020 [6 favorites]


Gerald Ford was Minority Leader, not Speaker.

Also, a lot of Ford's impeachment talk was purely, cynically, and obviously performative: Douglas was a keystone of the Supreme Court's defense against much of Nixon and the GOP's agenda. The "bipartisan" coalition against him was an illustration of the Southern Strategy, with Dixiecrats lining up to express "concern" about Douglas because he was firmly in favor of civil rights.

Republicans have always believed in angrily demanding impeachment as a nakedly political tool. What they can't wrap their minds around is using it to actually punish high crimes and misdemeanors.
posted by Etrigan at 6:41 AM on January 28, 2020 [33 favorites]


I've now thought a great deal about Bolton. He is a vain, resentful man who is also deeply conservative and hawkish. But we've have several conservative, hawkish men being humiliated by Trump and either kissing the dust under his shoes or speaking out, and nothing changed. Now, there is a palpable sense of unease in the White House and among Republicans.
I'm thinking that perhaps they are looking at this huge old rat leaving the sinking ship and thinking that maybe he knows something they don't. The Barr thing is already as big as the Ukraine drug deal thing (not in the media but in reality). That book could be shock-full of exposures of cabinet members and other top Republicans, and it is different when Bolton says it because you just know he is real in the sense that he really believes the shit he says. A liar calling someone a liar doesn't have a lot of effect. Bolton believes so much in killing brown people, he has lost several jobs for his convictions. *
posted by mumimor at 7:09 AM on January 28, 2020 [7 favorites]


Poppycock, pettifogging, and foul calumny: Trump's team tries it all in Senate trial (Mark Sumner, Daily Kos Staff)
(Definitions: Poppycock, pettifogging, and calumny).
Overall, the day was an embarrassment top to bottom. Much of it, particularly Dershowitz, wasn’t even the fun kind of embarrassment. It didn’t rise to the ranks of so-bad-it-was-good. It was just bad. It was so bad that—other than the GOP- and Trump-pleasing section of Biden-smearing—it’s difficult to recall a single salient point, just hours after they stopped talking.

In any case, the real case on Monday wasn’t happening in front of Mitch McConnell’s carefully aimed camera. It was happening offscreen, where Republicans were trying desperately to calculate whether giving Trump the quick acquittal that he wants—a move that had seemed like a sure thing on Friday, despite a crackerjack case from the House managers—was still such a slam dunk. Republicans always knew that going along with Trump was going to make them part of the conspiracy. They just didn’t know it was going to be this damn obvious.
posted by ZeusHumms at 7:18 AM on January 28, 2020 [16 favorites]


This whole thing is pettifogging crazy.
h/t Stephen Colbert
posted by kirkaracha at 7:22 AM on January 28, 2020 [5 favorites]


Every president has has to recite the oath of office: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Setting aside the particulars of Trump and just imagining hypothetical bad presidents, surely it's possible for someone to violate that oath without breaking a single law? The example I've seen before is a president who refused to do anything whatsoever, just watched TV all the time (yes, that sounds like Trump, except he also does crimes now and again). There's no law broken, yet it doesn't sound like "faithfully executing" much of anything.

So if a president fails to follow those words, then does any real remedy exist? Or is it precisely equivalent to a political promise, something the voters alone can punish (as with Bush Sr losing in 1992 partly thanks to his broken "read my lips" pledge)?
posted by InTheYear2017 at 7:35 AM on January 28, 2020 [8 favorites]


It was just bad. It was so bad that—other than the GOP- and Trump-pleasing section of Biden-smearing—it’s difficult to recall a single salient point, just hours after they stopped talking.

As Rykey pointed out, Trump's defense basically consisted of denials that Trump's conduct was an impeachable offense -- which, by the way, is a tacit admission that Trump did everything he's alleged to have done.

It was also a display of calculated bad faith -- complaints of an impeachment fishing expedition by master fisherman Kenneth Starr, allegations of Democratic corruption by the corrupt Pam Bondi, appeals to enduring Constitutional norms by the malleable Alan Dershowitz, and denunciations of partisanship by the partisan Jay Sekulow.
posted by Gelatin at 7:42 AM on January 28, 2020 [33 favorites]


Guardian: Schumer compares 'drip, drip, drip' of information to Watergate
Speaking to reporters on Capitol Hill, Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer described the ongoing revelations from the manuscript of John Bolton’s book as a “drip, drip, drip” of information.

“In that sense, this is reminiscent of Watergate,” Schumer said, referring to the scandal that led to Richard Nixon’s resignation.

The New York Democrat pointed to Bolton’s willingness to testify as evidence of his higher level of credibility over Trump, who has tried to block officials from testifying.
Guardian: "Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer described Republicans’ demands to have Hunter Biden as a “diversion” meant to deflect attention away from the allegations against Trump.
“What can Hunter Biden tell us about the president’s conduct with Ukraine?” Schumer asked. “What can Hunter Biden tell us about the president’s obstruction of Congress? Nothing obviously.”

Schumer argued Republicans’ insistence that Biden testify proved “they have no one to defend the president on the merits.”
posted by katra at 8:24 AM on January 28, 2020 [6 favorites]


So if a president fails to follow those words, then does any real remedy exist?

Yes, impeachment, conviction, and removal from office. Be warned, however, that no matter what this hypothetical Republican president has or has not done, you will be deluged with bad-faith arguments that their action or inaction is not impeachable by the hypothetical members of this hypothetical president's hypothetical political party, hypothetically.

There is a pretty good chance that after the Senate fails to convict Trump and he remains in office, yet more crimes will be uncovered and they'll be even more brazen than this Ukraine scandal. It won't matter if the evidence is obvious and the details of the crimes were described in the current proceedings by Trump's defense team as an example of a crime that IS impeachable. They will go through the whole narcissist progression all over again. At first they'll claim he didn't do it, then they'll claim the evidence shows something else, then they'll tacitly admit he did it but it doesn't matter because "it's not a crime and it's not an impeachable offense even if it was."
posted by VTX at 8:30 AM on January 28, 2020 [6 favorites]


Democrats should play by Mitch’s rule book and promise to call Biden to testify after their witnesses are called. And then just not call him.
posted by mrzarquon at 8:32 AM on January 28, 2020 [38 favorites]


Speaking to reporters on Capitol Hill, Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer described the ongoing revelations from the manuscript of John Bolton’s book as a “drip, drip, drip” of information.

“In that sense, this is reminiscent of Watergate,” Schumer said, referring to the scandal that led to Richard Nixon’s resignation.


Nicely played by Schumer, speaking to Republican fears that more damaging revelations will crop up just after they've fully committed to Trump's cover-up conspiracy.

Remember, Republicans want to acquit Trump, but they don't want to pay any political price for doing so. By invoking their well-founded fears that evidence of Trump's abundant guilt will continue to emerge -- like it has his entire presidency -- Schumer isn't persuading any Republicans to convict him, but it's probably giving them some rotten nights, and they may decide that at least agreeing to witnesses will make them look less culpable (Narrator: It won't).
posted by Gelatin at 8:38 AM on January 28, 2020 [10 favorites]


Guardian: Schumer mocks proposal to read Bolton's manuscript in 'classified setting'
ABC News (@ABC) Sen. Chuck Schumer: Reports about Bolton manuscript "should be a warning sign to any Republican in the Senate: If you vote with the White House to suppress and cover up evidence, the odds are strong that the truth—the truth!—will eventually come out." https://t.co/qO2aC5p4ID pic.twitter.com/zTMLQvi3Kg January 28, 2020

The Democratic leader also mocked the “absurd proposal” from Republican senator Lindsey Graham that John Bolton’s manuscript be made available to the Senate in a classified setting.

“It’s a book,” Schumer said. “There’s no need for it to be read in the SCIF unless you want to hide something,” he added, referring to the secure area in the Capitol where classified information is shared.
posted by katra at 8:47 AM on January 28, 2020 [22 favorites]


Senate Impeachment Trial, Day 8 (C-SPAN) The Senate impeachment trial of President Trump continues with opening arguments from the President’s defense team. Other legislative business is also possible. Watch LIVE On January 28 | 1pm ET | C-SPAN2

U.S. Senate: Impeachment Trial (Day 8) (C-SPAN YouTube) The Senate impeachment trial of President Trump continues with opening arguments by the President’s defense team. Scheduled for Jan 28, 2020

The Report: Impeachment, Day Six (Lawfare) "Arguments by the President’s lawyers unfolded over eight hours on Monday afternoon and evening. And while this trial is important for each and every American to hear, most do not have the luxury of fully engaging with the entire proceeding. So Lawfare and Goat Rodeo bring you the sixth day of President Donald Trump’s impeachment trial boiled down to the most essential one hour and 29 minutes."
posted by katra at 9:22 AM on January 28, 2020 [4 favorites]


As far as Republicans saying they want to hear from Hunter Biden: since they have the majority, can't they vote to make that happen? No witnesses other than him? They could call him something other than a witness, if they want. Yeah, it'll look awful to sensible people, but they don't care.
posted by The corpse in the library at 9:56 AM on January 28, 2020 [5 favorites]


As far as Republicans saying they want to hear from Hunter Biden: since they have the majority, can't they vote to make that happen? No witnesses other than him?

yep, precisely. They have all the power, to make anything happen or not. Any other argument is bluffing on their part, for whatever McConnellish reason.
posted by Harry Caul at 10:02 AM on January 28, 2020 [4 favorites]


There is a pretty good chance that after the Senate fails to convict Trump and he remains in office, yet more crimes will be uncovered and they'll be even more brazen than this Ukraine scandal.

Nothing prevents the House from impeaching again for other reasons. (AFAIK, nothing prevents them from impeaching again for the same reasons, potentially on the grounds there's new evidence this time, but I can't see that being their choice.)
posted by ErisLordFreedom at 10:06 AM on January 28, 2020 [1 favorite]


As far as Republicans saying they want to hear from Hunter Biden: since they have the majority, can't they vote to make that happen? No witnesses other than him?

McConnell Impeachment Rules Modify Clinton Precedent (NYT, Jan. 20, 2020)
As expected, the draft resolution does not incorporate Democratic demands that the trial guarantee witness testimony or requests for new documents. This was also the case in the Clinton trial, but Mr. McConnell’s proposal still differs slightly.

It says that after senators conclude their questioning, they will not immediately entertain motions to call individual witnesses or documents. Instead, they will decide first whether they want to consider new evidence at all. Only if a majority of senators agree to do so will the managers and prosecutors be allowed to propose and argue for specific witnesses or documents, each of which would then be subject to an additional vote.
White House planning for Friday vote on witnesses and documents, official says (CBS)
If this scenario plays out as currently imagined, the senior official said, the key vote on whether to seek additional documents or depositions of additional witnesses would occur Friday. It is worth noting that vote is a debatable question and under the organizing resolution there would be four hours of debate, equally divided. On that question, House managers would advocate in favor, White House lawyers would oppose and House managers would be allowed to close — similar to the process on amendments offered to the organizing resolution.
'You can't predict him': Lamar Alexander key in vote for witnesses at Senate trial (NBC News)
Now, all eyes are on Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., as he could be a pivotal vote on whether there are witnesses in President Donald Trump's Senate impeachment trial. Alexander hasn't tipped his hand and no one is totally sure of which way he'll go. 'You can't predict him," Tom Ingram, Alexander's former chief of staff, told NBC News. "He will hold his counsel, make his own decision and you won’t be sure of it until he makes it known in due course."
posted by katra at 10:15 AM on January 28, 2020 [3 favorites]


Here's hoping Alexander makes a John McCain-esque, last-second thumb gesture in whatever the correct direction is...
posted by PhineasGage at 10:21 AM on January 28, 2020 [5 favorites]


I know Lamar personally and what I would say is don't count on it.
posted by all about eevee at 10:25 AM on January 28, 2020 [18 favorites]


Agreed, Alexander is quite fond of the Kool Aid.
posted by Harry Caul at 10:27 AM on January 28, 2020 [1 favorite]


Well, as a constituent, I've been calling and emailing Lamar since impeachment started. Marsha Blackburn is the devil, but he might be getable.
posted by vibrotronica at 10:38 AM on January 28, 2020 [2 favorites]


The Senate Trial Will Likely Be The Least Important Part Of Impeachment Today (Perry Bacon Jr., FiveThirtyEight)
posted by ZeusHumms at 10:42 AM on January 28, 2020 [2 favorites]


> all eyes are on Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., as he could be a pivotal vote on whether there are witnesses in President Donald Trump's Senate impeachment trial.

To reiterate: there are 53 Republican senators, and while it only takes 4 of them to join the 47 Democrats and call witnesses, there's no reason to let the remaining 49 off the hook. This is a shocking dereliction of duty, a betrayal of their oath, and the shame should follow them to their graves.

"Hi, I'm (Joni Ernst | John Thune | John Barasso | John Boozman | John Cornyn | John Hoeven | Johnny Isakson | John Kennedy), and I voted to deliberately not be informed of the evidence in the most consequential case of my entire senate career."

Shame on all of them.
posted by RedOrGreen at 11:06 AM on January 28, 2020 [45 favorites]


It says that after senators conclude their questioning, they will not immediately entertain motions to call individual witnesses or documents. Instead, they will decide first whether they want to consider new evidence at all.

I mean... good? If Rs were going to just vote down everything item by item anyhow—or even worse, only vote to call witnesses they wanted to hear from, I'd rather see them go on record as refusing to hear testimony or see documents at all, just on principle. 'Cause that's one fucked up principle, and most Americans don't like it, and such a refusal is easy to grasp for most people.
posted by Rykey at 11:06 AM on January 28, 2020 [6 favorites]


Jay Sekulow sure is odious.


Just think about that.
posted by mazola at 11:07 AM on January 28, 2020


Hey, maybe Lamar will surprise me and emulate Howard Baker. We will see. But I think this sort of move is hard for him. He fears Trump's reprisal.
posted by all about eevee at 11:09 AM on January 28, 2020


Not to mention many of his constituents.
posted by all about eevee at 11:13 AM on January 28, 2020




Doesn't matter whether he's retiring or not. Corker and Flake got death threats.
posted by all about eevee at 11:17 AM on January 28, 2020 [4 favorites]


More than just politics, trump threatens actual violence against people who act against him. Lamar might be retiring, but it's totally possible he wants to live out the rest of his life... alive. Assuming trump leaves office through one or another means, he's still going to be a literal terrorist controlling much of the republican party through twitter. Investigating his veiled threats is going to have to be a priority for the next Democratic justice department.
posted by mrgoat at 11:22 AM on January 28, 2020 [5 favorites]


In addition to Alexander, 16 Republican senators are either retiring, running unopposed, or are running in states whose filing deadlines have passed. So that's 17, plus Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, and Mitt Romney equals 20 Republican senators who could defy Trump with minimal electoral consequences. They could vote with the Democrats and Independents and remove Trump from office.

Isn't it pretty to think so?
posted by kirkaracha at 11:24 AM on January 28, 2020 [33 favorites]


Plus, Trump is likely not as rich as he pretends to be, but many of his backers are. They control lucrative lobbying and media gigs -- the so-called "wingnut welfare" circuit. If Alexander (or any other Republican) stands up to Trump's authoritarianism, he doesn't have to fear electoral defeat, but he does stand to forego a lot of money.
posted by Gelatin at 11:26 AM on January 28, 2020 [3 favorites]


I sometimes wonder if all the public discussion about not needing witnesses, blah blah blah, is to give them cover from the President, not an actual indicator of what they will do.

I also sometimes wonder if I can talk my local chicken into being my chicken ninja. I think that has a better chance of coming true for me.
posted by thebotanyofsouls at 11:27 AM on January 28, 2020 [1 favorite]


Also, he has to hold his head up in East Tennessee after his time in the Senate, and most people in East Tennessee are rabidly pro-Trump.
posted by all about eevee at 11:28 AM on January 28, 2020


WTF do these GOP senators think that their loyalty to Trump is going to buy them in real life? What? Is he blackmailing all of them?

I get that some of the Tea Party and/or explicitly Trumpist newer elected Republicans don't give a shit about anything except populist rabble-rousing and metaphorically bulldozing any sort of governance structure.

But what about the ones who have built their entire professional careers in elected office, that spent years actually knowledgeably participating in the United States government -- albeit working toward a more conservative vision than I would ever, ever desire. What on earth are they doing just abdicating their actual jobs? WHY?
posted by desuetude at 11:32 AM on January 28, 2020 [16 favorites]


Guardian: Schiff: Trump's team 'further made the case for calling John Bolton'
During his presentation, Jay Sekulow repeatedly dismissed the manuscript of John Bolton’s book as “inadmissible” and “unsourced,” while questions continue over whether the former national security adviser will be called to testify in the impeachment trial.

But lead impeachment manager Adam Schiff said the argument from Trump’s lawyers actually underscored the need to call Bolton as a witness so that questions about his allegations can be addressed.

“Once again, the president’s team - in a way that only they could - have further made the case for calling John Bolton,” Schiff said.
posted by katra at 11:35 AM on January 28, 2020 [3 favorites]


ANALYSIS: Philbin acknowledges limits on Trump’s power (NBC News)
Philbin noted that the laws passed by Congress limit the president’s power and he sets policies “within those constraints.” One of the laws passed by Congress was a spending measure directing the president to provide aid to Ukraine on a specific timetable. Administration officials urged him to act consistent with that law, which he signed, rather than outside its constraints. The Government Accountability Office has found that the administration violated the law in withholding the funds.
posted by katra at 11:37 AM on January 28, 2020 [5 favorites]


I wonder if Senate Democrats could make some kind of public statement to Republicans: "We know you want to do the right thing for America, but you're afraid of Trump sending his goons after you like the mob boss he is. We understand that, and we recognize you're in a difficult position. But we promise, once Trump is removed from office and a responsible government replaces his regime, we will ensure that you are protected and kept safe, even if that means creating new identities for you and your families."
posted by Faint of Butt at 11:37 AM on January 28, 2020 [36 favorites]


1:25 P.M. House Dems flag Ken Starr remarks in Mueller case (Politico)
A two-page letter to the U.S. Court of Appeals from the House counsel sent Tuesday urges a three-judge panel to weigh what Starr, a personal attorney for Trump, had argued Monday in the Senate: That senators don’t sit as jurors — rather the Senate in the context of an impeachment trial was indeed a “court.”

That position stands in contrast to what the Justice Department has argued when describing the Senate as a “legislative chamber” rather than a court in its fight against Democrats’ attempts to immediately be allowed access to the blacked-out redactions in Mueller’s final report. The former special counsel was tasked with investigating Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.

Arguing the Senate impeachment trial is a judicial proceeding could strengthen Democrats hand in seeking Mueller’s material. “Because DOJ’s position in this case cannot be reconciled with President’s position in the impeachment, DOJ may wish to withdraw its argument that a Senate impeachment trial does not qualify as a judicial proceeding,” House counsel Doug Letter wrote to the D.C. Circuit, which is expected to rule any day in the Mueller case.

House Democrats made only a glancing reference to the Mueller probe when bringing articles of impeachment against Trump over his attempts to pressure Ukraine into launching investigations into his political rivals. Even so, Letter has argued in court that the Mueller grand jury case could still yield new information to back up the Democrats in the Senate impeachment trial or in drafting additional articles of impeachment against Trump.
posted by katra at 11:41 AM on January 28, 2020 [9 favorites]


Recall that Susan "Reasonable Moderate" Collins complained to John Roberts that Adam Schiff was a big meanie for referring to the "head on a pike" threat by Trump's surrogate. Explicitly calling out Trump for his mobster intimidation tactics would cause Republicans to pretend that the Democrats' "incivility" just forced -- forced! -- them, more in sorrow than in anger, of course, to vote against witnesses.
posted by Gelatin at 11:43 AM on January 28, 2020 [5 favorites]


Arguing the Senate impeachment trial is a judicial proceeding could strengthen Democrats hand in seeking Mueller’s material. “Because DOJ’s position in this case cannot be reconciled with President’s position in the impeachment, DOJ may wish to withdraw its argument that a Senate impeachment trial does not qualify as a judicial proceeding,” House counsel Doug Letter wrote to the D.C. Circuit, which is expected to rule any day in the Mueller case.

Oh, snap! Despite playing a weak hand, the Democrats have consistently shown themselves to be smarter than the Republicans -- small wonder, really, given their leader.

As hilarious as it is when the good guys pants the Republicans (see also: NPR giving Pompeo an opportunity to embarrass himself in public), though, it's also infuriating, because they could be doing so much good if not for having to contend with the neo-Confederates' stupidity and malevolence.
posted by Gelatin at 11:54 AM on January 28, 2020 [4 favorites]


point of order:

roberts admonishes: wee hours of the morning 1/22
collins confesses she wrote the note 1/23
stark head on pike story breaks morning 1/24
schiff's closing argument reference evening 1/24

moreover, while collins' note may be among precipitating factors, i was listening, 1/21 into 1/22, and, shortly before roberts' admonition, there were a fair amount of reciprocal "how dare you call me a liar sir" dudgeon and umbrage expressed between house managers and defense counsel, with notable pique all around. nothing unfamiliar to viewers of newsmagazine panel discussions on tv, nothing unusual from defense counsel, but notable to this viewer too on the senate floor.
posted by 20 year lurk at 12:09 PM on January 28, 2020 [5 favorites]


What on earth are they doing just abdicating their actual jobs? WHY?

Their actual job, the way they see it, is to keep the party in power. At the moment the party leadership sees less harm in raising than in folding. They may even be proven right.
posted by hat_eater at 12:16 PM on January 28, 2020 [9 favorites]


Mod note: One comment deleted; let's stick to actual impeachment stuff please and put other stuff into its own thread if needed. Thanks.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 12:21 PM on January 28, 2020


(I believe the Collins complaint and Chief Justice Roberts' admonition were in response to Nadler's assertion that GOP senators who vote against hearing evidence were "complicit in the cover-up", or something to that effect. The Schiff "head on a pike" thing came later, as 20 year lurk points out. It may well be possible that Collins DID later complain about that, too, at least to the media, but as far as I've seen from reporting the only time we know she passed a complaint to Roberts was for the Nadler thing.)
posted by kprincehouse at 12:26 PM on January 28, 2020 [9 favorites]


I stand corrected on the "head on a pike" comment. When none of the Republican statements or actions are made in good faith, it's hard to keep track.

Collins did complain that Shiff pointed out that Senate Republicans were planning to participate in Trump's cover-up. Now it's just going to be more costly for them to do so. Good.
posted by Gelatin at 12:37 PM on January 28, 2020 [4 favorites]


More than just politics, trump threatens actual violence against people who act against him. Lamar might be retiring, but it's totally possible he wants to live out the rest of his life... alive.

I can't tell if this is intended to be a joke or an exaggeration, because taken at face value this statement would seem to signal the end of American democracy is already here.
posted by chrominance at 1:09 PM on January 28, 2020


Whatever fight over having an actual trial is ever going to happen, is happening right now in GOP backrooms. We won't know the outcome til Friday's vote. So much for democracy.
posted by Harry Caul at 1:13 PM on January 28, 2020 [2 favorites]


would seem to signal the end of American democracy is already here.

I have bad news...
posted by Rykey at 1:41 PM on January 28, 2020 [3 favorites]


I'm sorry, my statement was neither joke nor exaggeration. Elected representatives have already gotten actual death threats for opposing trump. Also, death threats and murder and attempted murder have been part of the american political process for a long time - just ask doctors who perform abortions, ask POC fighting for civil rights, ask Native American people fighting oil pipelines, ask most women involved in political anything, this is probably the least exhaustive list I could make up, but you get the idea.

If threats of domestic terrorism signal the end of American democracy, we've been living in the end of American democracy from the very beginning. But trump's been bringing it to the fore and directing it. ("knock the crap out of them", "she is going to go through some things", "take her out", "head on a pike" etc.) It would not be surprising for anyone to take into account the very real possibility of being personally attacked by someone who thinks this president is telling them to do it. Yes, he legitimately threatens the American democratic order. He also didn't invent the idea, we've been dealing with it for a long time.
posted by mrgoat at 1:44 PM on January 28, 2020 [35 favorites]


For big, specific examples, consider the Pittsburgh synagogue massacre or the El Paso WalMart one. Those were instigated by Trumpian rhetoric. Being a visible target of hatred from that whole echo chamber is absolutely, physically dangerous.
posted by bcd at 1:58 PM on January 28, 2020 [7 favorites]


I don't think Trump himself could ever have uttered "head on a pike." That would require erudition that he does not possess. More menacingly, it would have come from one of his enthusiastic acolytes to colorfully express the sentiment. More menacingly, because these things get amplified as they propagate outward. "Going to go through some stuff" -> "heads on pikes" -> "actual violence." That's how stochastic violence works.
posted by sjswitzer at 2:03 PM on January 28, 2020 [4 favorites]


Guardian: "Lead impeachment manager Adam Schiff stressed that senators needed to hear from John Bolton, whose book about his time in the Trump administration will be published in March.
“Are we really going to require the country to wait until his book comes out to find out information the senators could use?” Schiff asked.

The lead impeachment manager was also asked about the possibility that he could be called to testify if the Senate approves calling new witnesses.

“I can tell you what my testimony is,” Schiff replied. “He’s guilty, and he should be impeached.”
Guardian: "Angus King, an ind[e]pendent senator who caucuses with the Democrats, has downgraded his prediction for how many Republican senators will support calling new witnesses to testify in the impeachment trial.
King said yesterday that he thought Democrats would win over more than four Republicans, which is the minimum needed to get the proposal approved. “I think there’ll be more than four,” King told NPR. “My bold prediction is there’ll be five or 10.”

But speaking to CNN just now, King adjusted that estimate, calling it “naive.” “I think it’s going to be really close,” King said of the vote on witnesses.
Guardian: "Three-quarters of registered voters support calling witnesses to testify in the impeachment trial, according to a newly released poll.
The Quinnipiac survey found that 75% of voters are in favor of calling witnesses in the Senate trial, a figure that includes 49% of Republicans and 75% of independents.
posted by katra at 2:08 PM on January 28, 2020 [8 favorites]


NBC rumors of an afternoon whip count by McConnell being at 50-50. I'm guessing he's letting 3 candidates vote for witnesses, and has Manchin ready to vote against.
posted by Harry Caul at 2:11 PM on January 28, 2020 [4 favorites]


Naive is one way to put it, Angus. If you don't know by now that the most likely outcome is a bare majority with free passes issued for "concerned" (read: electorally vulnerable) Republicans to vote their "conscience" (read: continued employment), then maybe this Senate thing isn't for you.

Can't wait to watch up-to-his-eyeballs-in-the-scandal-that-he's-voting-on Mike Pence cast the tie-breaking vote to acquit.
posted by tonycpsu at 2:13 PM on January 28, 2020 [1 favorite]


I am not sure that Mike Pence—the VP—has the tie-breaking vote in an impeachment.
posted by bz at 2:14 PM on January 28, 2020 [2 favorites]


OK then, I'm an idiot.
posted by tonycpsu at 2:16 PM on January 28, 2020


Actually, I may be the idiot.
posted by bz at 2:17 PM on January 28, 2020 [3 favorites]


Senate Republicans calm down after Bolton panic (Politico)
Senate Republicans have regained their footing and are once again pushing for a quick end to President Donald Trump’s impeachment trial, newly confident they can squash the question of whether to hear new evidence.

The GOP conference emerged cautiously optimistic from a critical meeting on whether to defeat the call witnesses. The meeting marked the caucus' first gathering since Trump's defense finished its opening arguments on the Senate floor.

“The consensus is: That we’ve heard enough. And it’s time to go to a final judgment vote,” said Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), the No. 3 leader. “We’ve all heard enough and the articles don’t rise to the level of impeachable offenses.” [...]

Still, Republicans privately cautioned that they expect more revelations to follow the New York Times report on former national security adviser John Bolton that seemed to rattle Republicans. The vote on witnesses is expected on Friday after two days of question and answer.

“We’ll make our decision on Friday. We’ve got questions to go through yet,” said Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.).
posted by katra at 2:21 PM on January 28, 2020 [2 favorites]




Welp, thanks Diane!
posted by flamk at 2:28 PM on January 28, 2020 [1 favorite]


For everyone else shitting themselves over the Feinstein stories - myself included - the headline is just not supported by the quotes:

“Nine months left to go, the people should judge. We are a republic, we are based on the will of the people — the people should judge,” Feinstein said Tuesday, after the president’s team finished a three-day presentation in his defense. “That was my view and it still is my view.”

Still, she indicated that arguments in the trial about Trump’s character and fitness for office had left her undecided. “What changed my opinion as this went on,” she said, is a realization that “impeachment isn’t about one offense. It’s really about the character and ability and physical and mental fitness of the individual to serve the people, not themselves.”

Asked whether she would ultimately vote to acquit, she demurred, saying, “We’re not finished.”


It also says her office is tracking pro-removal letters coming in at a 4:1 rate to anti-removal ones.

I guess what I am saying is that if she really did vote to acquit him, id be without any remaining shred of hope in our country or what i know about the fucking world.
posted by Exceptional_Hubris at 2:28 PM on January 28, 2020 [5 favorites]


So, rather than wallow I decided to call Senator Feinstein and... good news maybe? I got a busy signal. Guess folks aren't too happy with her right about now.
posted by flamk at 2:32 PM on January 28, 2020 [4 favorites]




Sen. Feinstein says L.A. Times got it wrong.
posted by PhineasGage at 2:47 PM on January 28, 2020 [9 favorites]


Sen. Feinstein is backtracking. Her comments as quoted in the article are indefensible on their own merits.
posted by Gadarene at 2:55 PM on January 28, 2020 [3 favorites]


WSJ: McConnell Says GOP Doesn’t Have Votes to Block Impeachment Witnesses
Senate majority leader makes remarks in private Republican meeting
posted by Devonian at 2:58 PM on January 28, 2020 [12 favorites]


Meanwhile, Politico and CNN say the same meeting produced a consensus against new witnesses. Excellent reporting this afternoon, everyone!
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 3:04 PM on January 28, 2020 [8 favorites]


Okay, now AP seems to have given us the needed nuance by saying that McConnell doesn't have the votes yet to block witnesses.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 3:17 PM on January 28, 2020 [1 favorite]




flamk, in my experience Feinstein‘s number is always busy. Call her Fresno Office number. Because a real human being will pick up and will listen to you. And if it’s the same person I have spoken to quite a bit, she is normally gracious and polite. Open until 5 PM Pacific; apologies, I am on my phone and it’s just too damn hard to copy and paste.
posted by Bella Donna at 3:22 PM on January 28, 2020 [7 favorites]


Wow, I couldn’t get through to Diane Feinstein’s Fresno number either. Guess it is time to fax.
posted by Bella Donna at 3:25 PM on January 28, 2020 [6 favorites]


American Oversight is expecting a release of Dept of Energy docs tonight.

Oh, good. Rick Perry up next. He was with Pompeo when they met with Giuliani in Warsaw just before their side meeting with Zelensky. Expect more backpedaling on previous denials.
posted by JackFlash at 3:25 PM on January 28, 2020 [4 favorites]


NBC rumors of an afternoon whip count by McConnell being at 50-50. I'm guessing he's letting 3 candidates vote for witnesses, and has Manchin ready to vote against.

History shows Chief Justice John Roberts could cast tie-breaking votes at Trump's impeachment trial
...Democrats could reach the simple majority threshold with just three Republican members if the presiding officer breaks the resulting 50-50 tie. In normal Senate business, that job would fall to Vice President Mike Pence, the president of the Senate. But the rare instance of an impeachment trial is presided over by the chief justice...
posted by kirkaracha at 3:31 PM on January 28, 2020


Nine months left to go, the people should judge.

The people already had their fucking say in the 2018 elections. They elected representatives and senators to do their jobs, one of which is for senators to judge impeachment trials. The Constitution literally says this is her job.
posted by kirkaracha at 3:35 PM on January 28, 2020 [24 favorites]


I'll believe McConnell doesn't have the votes to block witnesses when the final roll call tally comes out with 51 votes in favor of witnesses. Not a second earlier.
posted by azpenguin at 3:35 PM on January 28, 2020 [33 favorites]


Sen. Feinstein is backtracking. Her comments as quoted in the article are indefensible on their own merits.

FWIW, Axios reporter Alayna Treene posted up a transcript of her audio recording of that Feinstein exchange in this tweet. Unfortunately, it's in the form of a jpg screenshot of a wall of text.
posted by mhum at 3:59 PM on January 28, 2020 [3 favorites]


Well I did get through to the Fresno Office and left a message with the person who answered explaining that I wanted the senator to vote to impeach the President of the United States for his high crimes. She took my ZIP Code and promised to pass along my message. Honestly, I am so fucking outraged that how to vote would even ever have been a question in her mind.

I did not vote for her last time and I will never vote for her again and please please please let there be a strong person to replace her as Senator because this is rank bullshit that is not representative of California voters. Apologies. Rant over.
posted by Bella Donna at 4:10 PM on January 28, 2020 [18 favorites]


Politico: Trio of Dem senators considering vote to acquit Trump
Democratic Sens. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona and Doug Jones of Alabama are all undecided on whether to vote to remove the president from office and agonizing over where to land. It’s a decision that could have major ramifications for each senator’s legacy and political prospects — as well shape the broader political dynamic surrounding impeachment heading into the 2020 election.
With Dems like these...
posted by Rust Moranis at 4:53 PM on January 28, 2020 [20 favorites]


Where we are now is that the polity is divided between those who trust in democracy and those who would prefer a modern feudalism (there is another f-word for that). The Republicans have made their stance clear. The Democrats, for the most part, have too but it is disappointing that there are cowards (Manchin, Sinema, Jones) and idiots (Feinstein) among the ranks.
posted by sjswitzer at 5:03 PM on January 28, 2020 [7 favorites]


I ran the Feinstein transcript image through an OCR:
Me: “Have you had any conversations, Senator, with any of your Republican colleagues about...”

Senator Feinstein: “No, no. We really haven't had big conversations on it. And maybe that's a good thing,
because you're able just to — this is probably, in many respects, the biggest vote we cast. Now it's not war
or peace for this country, but for all of us who have run elections and served in public life for periods of
time, it's a real assault on it. And so — just the act of impeachment itself throwing — that’s why it's been
used so rarely, because we all have political concerns about our opponents, and we mix it up. But to go to
the level of impeachment, it has to be something pretty substantial. And I think, | think there's one point
that we haven't discussed that I'd like to mention. That it’s not just one thing. And it's not just one, it’s not
the law. It's the character, it's the judgment, it’s the ability, it's — and the problem with this is, because |
was gonna to vote against it — but the problem with this is...”

Me: “You were going to vote against what?”

Senator Feinstein: “Impeachment. Before this. But, the problem with it is, it is such a window that opens
you to the thinking of the man in charge. That is rather profound, that he could do this, and pick up the
phone and calf the head of another country, in a war, and we supported that other country with almost
$400 million, and the other country’s Russia, and this country is Ukraine, and they're an ally, and what
does that say? So it's more than just the act. It's what does it say about the man?”

Me: “Just to clarify, when you said you were going to vote, before this, against impeachment — what do
you mean, before the trial?”

Senator Feinstein: “Well, nine months left to go. The people should judge. We are a republic. We are
based on the will of the people, the people should judge. That's my view, and it still is my view. And so this
is—"

Me: “What made — what changed your opinion?”

Senator Feinstein: “Well, what changed my opinion was — as this went alo — and | don't want to go into
any more of it, but really thinking about it, as this unfolded, and what it meant. Because, you know,
impeachment isn't about one offense. It's really about the character, and ability and physical and mental
fitness of the individual to serve the people, not themselves.”

Another reporter: “Senator as it stands now, do you still plan to vote against impeachment?”

Senator Feinstein: “You'll see when we vote. ... Well look, we're not finished. So let me finish before | say
anything, OK?”

Another reporter: “But you certainly haven't made up your mind that you would vote for impeachment?”

Senator Feinstein: “I’m in the process of so doing. That's why I'm going through this mental exercise.”
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 5:21 PM on January 28, 2020 [6 favorites]


Sounds like impromptu comments from an actual adult thinking deeply about the issues involved.
posted by PhineasGage at 5:26 PM on January 28, 2020 [4 favorites]


Sounds like impromptu comments from an actual adult thinking deeply about the issues involved.

Really? Nobody should need to think at this point. He's staggeringly and obviously unfit by a million measures to spend another day in the Oval Office.
posted by Gadarene at 5:32 PM on January 28, 2020 [35 favorites]


Perhaps the issue is serious enough that a more appropriate time for deep thought about issues is before an ad-hoc conversation with journalists.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 5:36 PM on January 28, 2020 [20 favorites]


She is unambiguous that until recently she “was going to vote” to acquit Trump. I say “recently" because her stated rational was, “Well, nine months left to go. The people should judge.” (Note: The election is still more than nine months away. When the impeachment inquiry began, it was more than a year away.)

So, while knowing all the facts that came out during the House investigation, she still thought that Trump should remain in the White House.
posted by mbrubeck at 5:37 PM on January 28, 2020 [9 favorites]


I want to push back on this idea that Democrats should convict Trump. The other side of that coin is that Republicans should exonerate him. If facts matter, every Senator should convict him.

Yes, it's easier for Democrats to do the right thing and much much harder for Republicans. But this isn't a matter of partisan loyalty. It's just a matter of doing the right thing.

But, yeah, if you're a Democrat and you're having a hard time deciding to convict, you need to examine your issues.
posted by sjswitzer at 6:14 PM on January 28, 2020 [8 favorites]


Energy Department Releases Ukraine Documents to American Oversight (American Oversight)
On Tuesday evening, the Department of Energy released 139 pages of records in response to American Oversight’s Freedom of Information Act lawsuit seeking documents regarding the Trump administration’s Ukraine pressure campaign. These are the first impeachment-related documents publicly released by the Department of Energy. You can view and download the documents here.

The records include schedules, talking points, and background materials prepared for former Energy Secretary Rick Perry’s briefing book for the May 2019 delegation he led to the inauguration of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. Perry, along with Ambassador to the EU Gordon Sondland and former Special Envoy to Ukraine Kurt Volker, was one of the “three amigos” tasked by the White House to run the irregular foreign-policy channel in Ukraine centered on getting the country to announce an investigation of Joe Biden.

The talking points for Perry’s meeting with Zelensky reference energy sector reforms, including the statement “[Y]ou must be committed to make the hard choices on corruption and good governance reforms.” But serious discussion of the White House’s purported concern about Burisma and the Bidens seems to have been absent from the official briefing materials — a reminder of the parallel, “irregular” diplomatic efforts being made in the shadows, including by Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani.

Also absent from the documents is the list of recommended energy advisers that Perry reportedly passed to Zelensky during one of their meetings, as well as any email communications regarding the White House meeting that Perry attended with the rest of the “three amigos” immediately upon his return to Washington.

One document lists attendees at a May 20 meeting in Kyiv whose participation in the delegation had not previously been reported: Assistant Secretary Ted Garrish, public affairs officer Dirk Vande Beek, and Deputy Press Secretary Jessica Szymanski. Former Trump campaign staffer Sam Buchan, a Perry senior adviser, was also present at many of the meetings. Other notable names in the documents are those of Sens. Ron Johnson and Rob Portman — two lawmakers who could have relevant information and have not committed to calling key witnesses in the ongoing Senate impeachment trial.
posted by katra at 6:21 PM on January 28, 2020 [15 favorites]


Why Trump Might Not Dare Claim Executive Privilege Over John Bolton’s Ukraine Testimony (Ryan Goodman and Andrew Weissmann, Slate)
[...] What both sides ignore is a reason that the White House might never truly want to litigate the executive privilege question. That’s because it could cause a federal court (or the chief justice) in short order to make the determination that the president committed a crime. Those advising the president would be wise to think hard before taking the actual step of asserting executive privilege to block the testimony of John Bolton or others.

As a threshold question, the judge will most probably look to whether an exception to executive privilege applies. The court could find that the privilege does not apply, for example, in those instances where the privilege has been waived by the president or his agents having spoken about the contents of the conversation. But there is another threshold issue: if the proposed testimony involves evidence of criminal activity (more commonly understood as the “crime-fraud” exception in the context of attorney-client privilege). As former State Department Legal Adviser Harold Koh and his co-authors explained in a thorough analysis of executive privilege and its exceptions, “government officials cannot use constitutional privileges to hide evidence of crimes” (citing United States v. Nixon, United States v. Myers, Comm. on Judiciary, In Re Sealed Case).
On the other hand, this is Trump we're talking about here.
posted by ZeusHumms at 6:48 PM on January 28, 2020 [10 favorites]


McConnell Says GOP Doesn’t Have Votes to Block Impeachment Witnesses

Don't do that. Don't give me hope.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 6:52 PM on January 28, 2020 [19 favorites]


Trump's legal team closed out his 'defense' by showing that it had no defense (Mark Sumner, Daily Kos Staff)

One thing led to another, which led to this comment:
Thanks Mark… now I’m singing this to the tune of “We Didn’t Start the Fire”

James Comey, Nellie Ohr, FISA warrant, Senate floor
Foreign agent, Robert Mueller, Crossfire Hurricane
Peter Strzok, phone text, Crowdstrike, what’s next?
Whistleblower, Lisa Page, they don’t know in Ukraine
Adam Schiff, Hamilton, “Danger” is back again,
John Bolton, Manuscript, Inadmissible
Trump’s shoes, FBI, investigate the sad guy
Dossier, filed away, what else there left to say?

[chorus: Sekulow, Dershowitz, Starr]

Trump is a dumpster fire
He was always burning
We find it unconcerning
Trump is a dumpster fire
No we didn't light it
But we sure won’t fight it


angry marmot January 28 · 03:35:24 PM
posted by ZeusHumms at 9:15 PM on January 28, 2020 [17 favorites]


Metafilter: I ran the Feinstein transcript image through an OCR
posted by kingless at 2:02 AM on January 29, 2020 [11 favorites]


oh man it just occurred to me that "Pierre Delecto" has perfect klunky internal rhythms to be an ideal We Didn't Start The Fire lyriclet.

am proud to have thought of this but am now desperately trying to unimagine it
posted by Sauce Trough at 2:12 AM on January 29, 2020 [2 favorites]


NBC interview this morning w Manchin had his refusal to answer on whether he will split his votes to remove/aquit on the articles.
posted by Harry Caul at 5:45 AM on January 29, 2020 [1 favorite]


y'know, a stopped megalomaniac asshole is right occasionally.....

Twittler this morning re:bolton

".....gets fired because frankly, if I listened to him, we would be in World War Six by now"
posted by lalochezia at 6:33 AM on January 29, 2020 [20 favorites]


Trump's defense: If he did it that's okay, the other guy had it coming, and also you can't prove it (Mark Sumner, Daily Kos Staff)
If a legal defense team in a murder trial came into a courtroom to argue, Murder is not a crime, the victim deserved it, there were good reasons for the death, and hey, those knife wounds could have come from anywhere … that wouldn’t be regarded as a particularly acceptable defense.

Especially if the wrap-up was, “And your honor, that’s why we can’t allow in any firsthand witnesses.”
posted by ZeusHumms at 6:55 AM on January 29, 2020 [15 favorites]


Twittler this morning re:bolton

".....gets fired because frankly, if I listened to him, we would be in World War Six by now"


I will never cease to be amazed at his arguing that he is the only thing that can save us from the idiots that other people keep making him hire.
posted by Etrigan at 7:35 AM on January 29, 2020 [18 favorites]


This Twitter thread from Ezra Klein gutted me.
posted by PhineasGage at 7:44 AM on January 29, 2020 [7 favorites]


That Ezra Klein thread parallels the thinking of a lot of people anymore. It boils down to this. If the GOPers in the Senate are going to acquit regardless of the facts, then that is a very dangerous step for the future of America. They are the ones that can hold the president accountable for lawbreaking. They KNOW he broke the law, and not in a minor way, or in a way that came from not understanding a certain obscure law. They KNOW he is corrupt. Allowing him to continue is a dangerous step on the way to full-blown fascism, because he knows no one will stop him from doing anything he wants.

Also, with the way tRump is attacking Bolton on Twitter this morning, that just makes me believe that there is a "there" there with the Bolton manuscript. He's basically saying the stuff is true, writing "All classified national intelligence" right after saying the book is "untrue." If you're claiming it's classified, then you're pretty much saying it's true.
posted by azpenguin at 7:51 AM on January 29, 2020 [16 favorites]


From that thread (threadreader):
McConnell's move in all this has been to create such certainty around acquittal that it's tiring for people to pay attention because it's so clear how the story ends.


That certainty McConnell created is the tiger the Republicans have by the tail, because the more obvious Trump's guilt, the more corrupt the Republicans look. And the ongoing revelations of new evidence of Trump's guilt counteract the boredom McConnell hoped to create in the press -- to the contrary, the series of new revelations and new questions have given reporters something to do, not just whine about the dull process like some fools did for the House hearings.

Democrats seem confident in their case and confident that Republicans will betray their oaths (both accurate, and adding to the pressure on Republicans). Republicans are the ones who seem to be scared about this process now.

See you in November, Republicans.
posted by Gelatin at 7:52 AM on January 29, 2020 [19 favorites]


Just a reminder to folks. Trump has already been impeached. Even Senators get this wrong. The current trial is for conviction and removal from office.
posted by baegucb at 8:05 AM on January 29, 2020 [24 favorites]


Pelosi shares editorial supportive of calling Bolton as a witness (WaPo)
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) widely shared a USA Today editorial that argues for hearing from Bolton and other witnesses.

“[T]he senators sitting in judgment of the president have an obligation to do more than close their eyes and cover their ears to new evidence,” says the editorial, which Pelosi’s office sent to reporters in an email. “Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell was well on his way to engineering a ‘trial’ that races to acquittal without so much as a single witness being called. While expedient for Trump, that would be laughable to most Americans who know what a trial should look like.”
posted by katra at 8:14 AM on January 29, 2020 [8 favorites]


At this point I'll settle for pushing the end of the trial past the Feb 4 State of the Union.

At this point.
posted by Rykey at 8:31 AM on January 29, 2020 [15 favorites]


NBC interview this morning w Manchin had his refusal to answer on whether he will split his votes to remove/aquit on the articles.

I had forgotten that senators vote on each article of impeachment separately. This allows the wobbly Democrats to claim that they voted both for impeachment and against impeachment. It's a win-win.
posted by JackFlash at 8:39 AM on January 29, 2020 [2 favorites]


At this point I'll settle for pushing the end of the trial past the Feb 4 State of the Union.

If Trump is still on trial in the Senate during the SOTU -- with witnesses describing his wrongdoing on a daily basis, no less! -- his anticipated victory lap will probably devolve more than once into a self-pitying, angry rant. I doubt loyal Americans will like what they see.

If Trump loses the November election (TTTCS), he will spend the rest of his life tweeting about how he was cheated out of the presidency by the mean Democrats and their phony impeachment. That's a deal I'll happily accept.
posted by Gelatin at 8:51 AM on January 29, 2020 [11 favorites]


White House at "DEFCON 2" over witness testimony (CBS News)
Should any vote end in a 50-50 tie, Roberts would be called on to cast the deciding vote. The White House is confident Roberts would not break the tie in favor of hearing witness testimony, but would prefer the vote fail outright, the official said.
McConnell explains process for senators to ask questions (CBS News)
The next phase will last two days beginning Wednesday, when the Senate will reconvene at 1 p.m. Senators will have up to eight hours during that session to submit written questions to each side. Questions will alternate between the Republicans and Democrats, McConnell said. [...] Questions must be in writing and submitted to the chief justice. McConnell urged his colleagues to be "thoughtful and brief," as they were during the impeachment trial for President Bill Clinton in 1999, and encouraged the House managers and president's counsel to be "succinct" with their answers.
The cards senators will use to pose questions (CBS News)
McConnell wasn't kidding when he asked senators to be "thoughtful and brief" with their questions. Senators who wish to ask questions of the House managers or president's defense team will have a spare six lines to write questions for Roberts to read aloud during the 16-hour Q&A period.
Trump falsely claims Republicans weren't allowed witnesses in House inquiry (CBS News)
Mr. Trump tweeted, inaccurately, that no Republican witnesses were allowed to testify during the House proceedings. That simply isn't true.

"Remember Republicans, the Democrats already had 17 witnesses, we were given NONE! Witnesses are up to the House, not up to the Senate. Don't let the Dems play you!" the president wrote Wednesday morning.

But Republicans called several witnesses during the House proceedings — lawyer Jonathan Turley, former National Security Council official Tim Morrison, State Department official David Hale and former diplomat Kurt Volker were all called to testify at the request of Republicans.
posted by katra at 8:53 AM on January 29, 2020 [15 favorites]


...he will spend the rest of his life tweeting about how he was cheated out of the presidency by the mean Democrats and their phony impeachment. That's a deal I'll happily accept.

do they allow inmates to use twitter in NY state prisons these days?
posted by logicpunk at 8:53 AM on January 29, 2020 [6 favorites]


I've been wondering if, in retrospect, the best strategy for Republicans would have been argument in the alternative set to maximum strength: The president has total authority over foreign policy, if he wants to withhold Congressionally-approved funds he may do so for essentially any reason, including behavior that may affect elections but is not otherwise either illegal or to his personal benefit. As it is, they've been drawing lines they should have known perfectly well would eventually be crossed, e.g by saying that if a quid pro quo happened, sure, that would be impeachable.
posted by InTheYear2017 at 9:03 AM on January 29, 2020 [2 favorites]


Yeah, they're republicans though so no matter what was said yesterday they're expected to forget all that the very second something said today contradicts it.
posted by VTX at 9:08 AM on January 29, 2020 [9 favorites]


Madison, Hamilton, Dershowitz: One of these men is not like the others, but for the GOP he’s a better quote (Fred Barbash, WaPo Analysis)
On Monday, Dershowitz, the Harvard Law professor emeritus who is part of Trump’s legal team, delivered what quickly became the most favored speech for quoting among GOP senators. It provided them cover, should they need it, for refusing to allow witnesses in the trial of Trump, for voting to acquit him and, in the event damaging evidence emerges after the trial, for slamming it as irrelevant. [...]

“Let’s say it’s true, okay?” Sen. Mike Braun (R-Ind.) told reporters Tuesday, referring to the Ukraine quid pro quo. “Dershowitz last night explained that if you’re looking at it from a constitutional point of view,” it is “not something that is impeachable.”
Guardian: Graham says witness testimony is 'unnecessary'
[...] echoing the president’s team, Graham said Trump’s actions would not be impeachable even if he did directly tie Ukraine’s military assistance to investigations of Democrats, as Bolton has reportedly alleged. “For the sake of argument, one could assume everything attributable to John Bolton is accurate and still the House case would fall well below the standards to remove a president from office,” Graham said.
Political Self-Interest and the Impeachable Offense: A Reply to Professor Bobbitt (Bob Bauer, Just Security)
Professor Phillip Bobbitt harbors no doubt that President Donald Trump committed an impeachable “high crime of the highest constitutional importance” when, to induce Ukraine to help him injure “the reputation of a political adversary,” he withheld aid that Congress had appropriated for that country. But Bobbitt also calls for stating with care the case for this “abuse of power.” [...] On Bobbitt’s view, what’s damning in Trump’s case is that, as the Government Accounting Office found, Trump violated the law in refusing to release the aid. Bobbitt writes that the violation GAO identified is a “game changer of sorts” in understanding the precise grounds for impeachment: Trump’s disregard of the law undermined the “constitutional law of congressional appropriations.” [...] Would the case be less persuasive if, as some argue, only so much weight can be placed on the GAO finding, which is not a binding or final say on the legal question?

No, I don’t believe so. It is possible, in fact imperative, to identify egregious cases of political self-interestedness that constitute “abuse of power” warranting impeachment and removal—even in the absence of a violation of law. [...] Those who fear the runaway expansion of impeachment as a political weapon worry that the approach involved in a case-by-case factual inquiry cannot work, because any incendiary political conflict will quickly move to calls for impeachment. They would like to lay down hard and fast doctrinal lines. Alan Dershowitz is taking this idea to extremes by arguing on behalf of the president that only a crime, and then only certain kinds of crimes, may justify impeachment and conviction. [...]

Setting aside any statutory violation such as the Impoundment Act, a strong and sufficient case for impeachment would certainly rest on any showing that a president put personal and political self- interest front and center in the decision making of matters of vital importance to the conduct of his office and the national welfare. The factors described previously—context and subject matter, questions of degree and kind, and the compromising of institutional processes—help guide and discipline the analysis. The case for an abuse of power may be clinched by the finding of a serious violation of law. It does not depend on it.
posted by katra at 9:17 AM on January 29, 2020 [4 favorites]


Republican Senators are getting sheet cakes asking them to let Bolton testify.

No, really.
posted by RakDaddy at 9:21 AM on January 29, 2020 [14 favorites]


VTX: Yeah, they're republicans though so no matter what was said yesterday they're expected to forget all that the very second something said today contradicts it.

I don't dispute the existence and relevance of such factors as the cultishness and bad faith of the party, and the news media constantly making room for that bad faith by not always calling it out. I'm just saying that that my mental model of the few up-for-grabs voters is one of sufficient ignorance about matters of state that they could probably have bought the "Democrats aren't alleging a single actually-bad thing, period" argument from the get-go.

Whereas I can't figure out what kind of voter is persuaded -- as in, had their mid changed -- to support Republicans now, or at least to not vote for Democrats, after this mess. Like, last November, which Republicans would have balked at a collective agreement that "Even quid pro quo is okay, yes we are going to say those exact words to the voters" was the party line? Which voters do they lose by doing so?

So in a way, the contradictions give hope -- for whatever reason, they went for that instead of an un-contradictory "He can do what he wants here" argument.
posted by InTheYear2017 at 9:23 AM on January 29, 2020


Even now the Republicans are getting bogged down in "it's okay because it was for a good reason" when (a) people paying enough attention know that's a lie, and (b) people who are just paying cursory attention are seeing this pitted against the Democrats' arguments on why it's a bad reason instead of getting a "fuck you, it's good no matter what" argument that would preemptively shut down future revelations.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 9:25 AM on January 29, 2020 [1 favorite]


Senate Impeachment Trial, Day 9 (C-SPAN) The Senate impeachment trial of President Trump continues as Senators ask House impeachment managers and the President’s defense team questions. Watch LIVE On January 29 | 1pm ET | C-SPAN2

U.S. Senate: Impeachment Trial (Day 9) (C-SPAN YouTube) The Senate impeachment trial of President Trump continues as Senators ask House impeachment managers and the President’s defense team questions. Scheduled for Jan 29, 2020

The Report: Impeachment, Day Seven (Lawfare)
On the seventh day of the impeachment trial of President Donald J. Trump, the president's team of lawyers wrapped up their arguments in his defense. The defense, led by White House counsel Pat Cipollone, continued their case for Trump’s acquittal focusing on arguments related to constitutional interpretation, the facts of the case and what the defense asserts is at stake with the impeachment of this president. [...] Lawfare and Goat Rodeo bring you the seventh day of President Donald Trump’s impeachment trial boiled down to the most essential 48 minutes.
posted by katra at 9:27 AM on January 29, 2020 [2 favorites]


Republican Senators are getting sheet cakes asking them to let Bolton testify.

I can think of no more fitting image to serve as the epitaph for #Resistance than this.
posted by Atom Eyes at 9:28 AM on January 29, 2020 [12 favorites]


Whereas I can't figure out what kind of voter is persuaded -- as in, had their mid changed -- to support Republicans now, or at least to not vote for Democrats, after this mess.

The problem for Republicans is, while they're banking on firing up the MAGA-hat crowd about the mean Democrats' impeachment witch hunt, their base is not enough. They need to persuade other voters, and the impeachment process isn't exactly covering Trump or the Republicans with glory. It looks like McConnell's goal of acquitting Trump without looking like an accessory after the fact is getting harder by the day.
posted by Gelatin at 9:29 AM on January 29, 2020 [6 favorites]


Guardian: White House reportedly threatens Bolton not to publish book
According to CNN, the White House has threatened John Bolton not to publish his book, which reportedly includes an allegation that Trump directly tied Ukraine’s military assistance to investigations of Democrats.

Trump has been tweeting about the former national security adviser’s book today, confusingly arguing that the unpublished memoir includes both false and classified information.
White House has issued formal threat to Bolton to keep him from publishing book (CNN)
The letter comes in the midst of President Donald Trump attacking Bolton on Twitter, and Bolton's lawyer accusing the White House of corrupting the vetting process for Bolton's book by sharing the contents of the book with those outside the National Security Council's Records Management Division.

Trump's tweets attacking Bolton Wednesday morning suggested he knew the contents of the manuscript.
posted by katra at 9:33 AM on January 29, 2020 [6 favorites]


Exactly as an innocent person does, dontcha know.
posted by Rykey at 9:41 AM on January 29, 2020 [19 favorites]


That will absolutely not backfire because no portions of the manuscript have already leaked and there is no reason to expect that more will come out if formal publication is blocked. After all, the retail publishing world is completely secure and there's absolutely no way for a copy of a book to hit the market or the Internet before its street date.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 9:50 AM on January 29, 2020 [22 favorites]


I have to think that pissing off Bolton even more, and challenging him to give out more info is not the right approach for his personality type.
posted by Bovine Love at 9:54 AM on January 29, 2020 [11 favorites]


Republican Senators are getting sheet cakes asking them to let Bolton testify.

I can think of no more fitting image to serve as the epitaph for #Resistance than this.

Grimmest of all is the Hamilton quote.

If you want a vision of the future of liberalism, imagine Mike Pence being told "we truly hope that this show has inspired you to uphold our American values and to work on behalf of all of us" - forever.
posted by Rust Moranis at 10:02 AM on January 29, 2020 [10 favorites]


January 28, 2020 - Letters From An American (Heather Cox Richardson)
There were a lot of stories, but two of the key ones seemed to have a subtext that we don’t know, so the meaning of the stories is not clear.

After Trump’s lawyers finished [on Tuesday], Republican senators conferenced about what to do about Bolton and other witnesses, and tonight the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post reported that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell told the senators that he did not have the votes to prevent testimony.

[…] I am very skeptical of anything McConnell says or does; he is one of the slyest politicians in our history. I am sitting here wondering what or who he is trying to signal by letting this information leak. If McConnell really were on the losing end of a vote, he would never let that information be public. So what’s he up to?
posted by ZeusHumms at 10:02 AM on January 29, 2020 [14 favorites]


confusingly arguing that the unpublished memoir includes both false and classified information

To be fair, false, classified information is standard practice. Ask anybody who paid attention during the leadup to any of the US's recent imperial adventures.
posted by flabdablet at 10:03 AM on January 29, 2020 [1 favorite]


Eliot Engel just now revealing that Bolton asked him and his office to look into the removal of Amb, Yovanovitch, on Sep 23rd. Whistleblower plus.
posted by Harry Caul at 10:03 AM on January 29, 2020 [8 favorites]


Guardian: Senior House Democrat says Bolton raised concerns about Yovanovitch ouster
Eliot Engel, the chairman of the House foreign relations committee, has just put out a statement contradicting Trump’s claim that John Bolton did not raise concerns about Ukraine when he left the administration in September.

President Trump is wrong that John Bolton didn’t say anything about the Trump-Ukraine Scandal at the time the President fired him,” Engel said in the statement. “He said something to me.

“On September 19, shortly after Ambassador Bolton’s departure as national security advisor, my staff reached out to him at my request. ...

“He and I spoke by telephone on September 23. On that call, Ambassador Bolton suggested to me—unprompted—that the committee look into the recall of Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch. He strongly implied that something improper had occurred around her removal as our top diplomat in Kyiv.”

[...] “It’s telling that, of all people, John Bolton is now the target of right-wing ire,” Engel concluded. “It underscores just how important it is that the Senate subpoena Ambassador Bolton as a witness.”
posted by katra at 10:04 AM on January 29, 2020 [28 favorites]


“He and I spoke by telephone on September 23. On that call, Ambassador Bolton suggested to me—unprompted—that the committee look into the recall of Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch. He strongly implied that something improper had occurred around her removal as our top diplomat in Kyiv.”

[...] “It’s telling that, of all people, John Bolton is now the target of right-wing ire,” Engel concluded.


It's telling that of all people, John Bolton raised concerns about Yovanovitch's ouster while her own boss, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, lost his temper publicly in part because he was challenged to back up his claims that he'd gone to bat for her.
posted by Gelatin at 10:09 AM on January 29, 2020 [12 favorites]


GOP strains to contain Bolton fallout in impeachment trial (AP)
White House officials privately acknowledge that they are essentially powerless to block the book’s publication but could sue after the fact if they believe it violated the confidentiality agreement Bolton signed.
posted by katra at 10:18 AM on January 29, 2020


21 Hours With Alan Dershowitz
Over the course of one week, Tom Chiarella watched Donald Trump’s TV-loving lawyer prepare for his biggest argument to date. He still can’t make sense of it.
posted by kirkaracha at 10:20 AM on January 29, 2020 [5 favorites]


So John Bolton is a whistleblower?
posted by ZeusHumms at 10:20 AM on January 29, 2020 [1 favorite]


How a judge's ruling foreshadowed the White House's Bolton threat (CNN)
The now-well-known "presidents are not kings" ruling from federal Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson forcing former White House counsel Don McGahn to testify to Congress almost seemed to foreshadow the White House threat to former national security adviser John Bolton today to keep him from publishing his memoir.

Jackson wrote about how presidents cannot control the free speech of their underlings, especially "for the remainder of their natural life."

"As citizens of the United States, current and former senior-level presidential aides have constitutional rights, including the right to free speech, and they retain these rights even after they have transitioned back to private life," Jackson wrote in November.

The judge, sitting in Washington, DC, acknowledges that sometimes presidential aides have confidential, classified or privileged information they cannot share. "But, in this Court's view, the withholding of such information from the public square in the national interest and at the behest of the President is a duty that the aide herself possesses."
posted by katra at 10:27 AM on January 29, 2020 [6 favorites]


Ugh, that Esquire article is the worst. (But thank you for posting it!)
posted by Gadarene at 10:29 AM on January 29, 2020


> Questions will alternate between the Republicans and Democrats, McConnell said

So what happens if only one Republican asks a question?
posted by lazugod at 10:31 AM on January 29, 2020 [2 favorites]


White House has issued formal threat to Bolton to keep him from publishing book

That's going to make an excellent book jacket blurb.
posted by mikepop at 10:32 AM on January 29, 2020 [24 favorites]


I'm guessing Serious Patriot® Bolton took umbrage at being treated like a third-rate pitboss at a failing* Trump casino; ignored, humiliated, dismissed.

*Reminder: almost all Trump properties fail.
posted by valkane at 10:37 AM on January 29, 2020 [1 favorite]


BREAKING: Gardner says he doesn't want to hear from more impeachment witnesses

Earlier reporting wasn't very clear on who the noes and maybes were, but the fact that an electorally-vulnerable Republican is coming out with this suggests Moscow Mitch will probably get the votes he needs.
posted by tonycpsu at 10:54 AM on January 29, 2020 [2 favorites]


I wouldn't want to hear from more witnesses, either, were I a Republican. That doesn't mean it isn't going to happen, though.
posted by wierdo at 10:58 AM on January 29, 2020 [5 favorites]


So John Bolton is a whistleblower?

26 Sept 2019: I'm actually expecting it to be Bolton

Bolton, an ideological war-monger, has no compatibility with the current administration. He was brought in on the tail end of the exodus of Bolton-like forces (Kelly, Mattis, etc.), and then witnessed the malignant narcissist go directly against his (Bolton's) ideology. Since it was done so in a brazenly criminal fashion, I don't think anyone should be surprised he was covertly working against it. He's a completely different flavor of evil than the sycophants.

By all means call him as a witness. But JFC do not trust him, or worse commend him.
posted by mcstayinskool at 11:16 AM on January 29, 2020 [10 favorites]


> I wouldn't want to hear from more witnesses, either, were I a Republican. That doesn't mean it isn't going to happen, though.

Er, is it not obvious from the linked article that he's not just saying he doesn't want to hear from witnesses, but will vote against hearing from them? There would be no other reason for him to put out a statement now unless it were an indication of how he intends to vote. He's not a bystander here.
posted by tonycpsu at 11:17 AM on January 29, 2020 [1 favorite]


Well, now we can label him Coverup Cory.

Seriously, how do you campaign on this if you're in a swing state? There's no way to come across as anything but a participant in a coverup.
posted by azpenguin at 11:28 AM on January 29, 2020 [3 favorites]


Seriously, how do you campaign on this if you're in a swing state?

Maybe he figures staying in good with team R will lead to lucrative lobbying gigs particularly if he thinks his seat is strongly in danger of being lost anyway.
posted by willnot at 11:32 AM on January 29, 2020 [2 favorites]


I doubt this is a surprise to anyone but I think the way you campaign on voting to acquit if you're in a swing state is by simply claiming this whole process exonerated Trump and that since he has been acquitted he is therefore totally innocent. Obviously, this is the plan, aided by the mass manufacture of whatever follow-on scandals are possible. Expect further investigations into the Bidens to follow closely on the heels of acquittal in order to perpetuate the totally-innocent storyline.
posted by feloniousmonk at 11:33 AM on January 29, 2020 [5 favorites]


The Republicans are reduced to arguing that listening to witnesses just takes too long. Sadly, “impeachment is a bad use of Congress’s time” is a message that is convincing to a lot of people (51% in a recent Ipsos poll).
posted by mbrubeck at 11:36 AM on January 29, 2020 [2 favorites]


Expect further investigations into the Bidens to follow closely on the heels of acquittal in order to perpetuate the totally-innocent storyline.

Two can play at that game. There is nothing stopping the House from opening more investigations.
posted by azpenguin at 11:48 AM on January 29, 2020 [4 favorites]


Guardian: Dershowitz stretches definition of 'public interest'
Asked whether a quid pro quo matters in deciding to remove a president from office, Dershowitz argued Trump was acting in the public interest by pushing for investigations of Democrats because an officeholder’s reelection can be in the public interest. [...]

Many commentators warned that this sweepingly broad definition of the public interest could justify almost any action of a sitting president.

Brian Klaas (@brianklaas) This is absurd. Dershowitz is arguing that as long as you believe that you winning an election will be a good thing for the country, you can do pretty much whatever you want — including using public money for personal gain — to help you win. That’s not how democracy works. https://t.co/agfT01l9uy January 29, 2020

Chris Hayes (@chrislhayes) The president lawyers are arguing that if the president ordered his election opponent arrested that would be fine because he’s pursuing the national interest in order to get re-elected. January 29, 2020
posted by katra at 11:51 AM on January 29, 2020 [11 favorites]


Republicans fear Bolton domino effect: ‘More Witnesses = Hindenburg.’
With the critical vote looming on Friday on whether to call new witnesses in President Trump’s impeachment trial, Senate Republicans are coalescing around the idea that it is better to risk looking like they ignored relevant evidence than to plunge the Senate into an open-ended inquiry and anger President Trump.
posted by kirkaracha at 11:52 AM on January 29, 2020 [2 favorites]


According to CNN, the White House has threatened John Bolton not to publish his book, which reportedly includes an allegation that Trump directly tied Ukraine’s military assistance to investigations of Democrats.

They don't really expect to stop him. They're just going to delay the book until after the election.
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 11:53 AM on January 29, 2020 [1 favorite]


Guardian: "Responding to the question about whether a quid pro quo matters, lead impeachment manager Adam Schiff criticized Alan Dershowitz argument that Trump acted out of “mixed motives.”
Schiff asked the senators to imagine a scenario in which Barack Obama asked a foreign country to investigate Mitt Romney, the former president’s 2012 election opponent who is now sitting in the Senate chamber.

“Does any of us have a question that Barack Obama would be impeached?” Schiff asked.

The House intelligence committee chairman concluded by saying that not all quid pro quos are the same. “Some are legitimate; some are corrupt,” Schiff said. “And you don’t need to be a mindreader to figure out which is which.”
posted by katra at 11:54 AM on January 29, 2020 [3 favorites]


Sadly, “impeachment is a bad use of Congress’s time” is a message that is convincing to a lot of people (51% in a recent Ipsos poll).

This is a bad survey question. Impeachment can be a bad use of Congress's time and also utterly necessary.
posted by Ben Trismegistus at 11:54 AM on January 29, 2020 [19 favorites]


Republicans fear Bolton domino effect: ‘More Witnesses = Hindenburg.’
Except the best strategy in a potential Hindenburg situation is not to cozy up as close as possible to the explosive gasbag.
posted by Nerd of the North at 11:55 AM on January 29, 2020 [25 favorites]


It's called a trial balloon. Politicians often say shit for the express purpose of testing the waters to see if they can get away with something.

Do I have confidence that witnesses will eventually be called? Nope. However, I don't think Cory Gardner's statement is a meaningful indication of anything except his desire to find some way to avoid pissing off enough people in either direction to lose his seat. It's entirely possible the statement is meant as a sop to the base allowing him to claim that he was forced into voting to call Bolton to testify.

The point being that meaningless mouth noises are meaningless. We often place far more importance on them than they deserve. What matters more is that the media isn't letting go of this particular bone. I still have little confidence that there will be witnesses, much less a conviction, but the more it looks like there will be widespread electoral consequences in the Senate the less likely it is that they will have the stones to hold fast.
posted by wierdo at 11:57 AM on January 29, 2020 [6 favorites]


Even Nixon didn't have the gall to argue that his activities were actually legal -- "not illegal" was as gar as he would go, and that years after he resigned knowing his impeachment was inevitable.

With the critical vote looming on Friday on whether to call new witnesses in President Trump’s impeachment trial, Senate Republicans are coalescing around the idea that it is better to risk looking like they ignored relevant evidence than to plunge the Senate into an open-ended inquiry and anger President Trump.

In other words, Republican Senators are accepting a certain risk to their own careers in order to protect Trump. It's baffling, but again, it hints at an "event horizon" of a scandal or series of scandals so massive Republicans will do anything to conceal it.

Democrats, of course, should take the Republicans up on their offer to [look] like they ignored relevant evidence [rather] than to plunge the Senate into an open-ended inquiry and anger President Trump, and help bolster that (correct) perception whenever they can.
posted by Gelatin at 11:58 AM on January 29, 2020 [6 favorites]


This is a bad survey question. Impeachment can be a bad use of Congress's time and also utterly necessary.

It isn't as if the Senate has been spending its time passing bills that benefit the American people -- the ones the so-called "do nothing" Democrats in the House have been passing. All they've been doing is appointing Republican judges, so keeping them from that task for a month is a Good Thing.
posted by Gelatin at 12:01 PM on January 29, 2020 [29 favorites]


I don't know if it's correct to assume that the fear of witnesses is a fear of threads being pulled that reveal even worse stuff. It could be almost totally a hedge that voters have short memories; if having witnesses meant 1 more week of a trial but not having them somehow meant 2 more months of it, then they'd prefer to have witnesses. Relatedly, there's a desire give Trump his chance to crow in the State of the Union address. (Plus the business of confirming judges, a Gelatin points out.)
posted by InTheYear2017 at 12:04 PM on January 29, 2020 [2 favorites]


Dem. senator asks if Roberts has authority to rule on witnesses, executive privilege (NBC News)
A recent question from Sen. Tom Carper, D-Del., aimed at the House managers, touched on the Chief Justice Robert's ability to help resolve issues regarding witnesses in an impeachment trial in the Senate.

"Some have claimed that subpoenaing witnesses or documents would unnecessarily prolong this trial. Isn't it true that depositions of the three witnesses in the Clinton trial were completed in only one day each? And isn't it true that the Chief Justice as presiding officer in this trial has the authority to resolve any claims of privilege or other witness issues without any delay?" Carper asked in a question read by Roberts.

"Mr. Chief Justice, the answer is yes," Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y.

Roberts, as the chief justice, could in theory break a tie among senators on the issue of calling witnesses, legal experts have said. Some experts have also said that Roberts has the authority to make rulings that pertain to executive privilege.
posted by katra at 12:11 PM on January 29, 2020 [6 favorites]


Somehow I'd hoped that, after days of disconnected arguments, the Q&A period would offer a chance to confront the Trump lawyers with uncomfortable questions (and for the House managers to directly parry weak attacks). But it's looking like every question so far is on the form of "R senator asks Trump team" or "D senator asks House managers." World's greatest deliberative body, folks.
posted by Rhaomi at 12:11 PM on January 29, 2020 [6 favorites]


As for Cory Gardner, the Republican primary in Colorado is set for June 30th, and the filing date for that primary is March 17th. Maybe he's avoiding being primaried.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 12:14 PM on January 29, 2020 [2 favorites]


I still have little confidence that there will be witnesses, much less a conviction

Me too, but for now let me indulge in the fantasy that there's currently a non-zero possibility that Trump could be removed from office. (Sure, excruciatingly close to zero, but still technically not exactly zero.)
posted by kirkaracha at 12:14 PM on January 29, 2020 [2 favorites]


But it's looking like every question so far is on the form of "R senator asks Trump team" or "D senator asks House managers." World's greatest deliberative body, folks. Same as it ever was, re: Clinton impeachment.
posted by Harry Caul at 12:15 PM on January 29, 2020 [2 favorites]




As for Cory Gardner, the Republican primary in Colorado is set for June 30th, and the filing date for that primary is March 17th. Maybe he's avoiding being primaried.

We said that about the Republicans who were prostrating themselves in front of Trump in 2018, that it had to be primary calculus and they'd try to moderate ahead of the general-election backlash, and they just kept bowing and scraping. This. Is. Who. They. Are.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 12:16 PM on January 29, 2020 [15 favorites]


Has anyone seen a diagram or a list of the all the men working to defend Trump - beyond Ken Starr and Alan Dershowitz - who had connections with Jeffrey Epstein?
posted by PhineasGage at 12:27 PM on January 29, 2020 [10 favorites]


House manager argues there's no evidence proving Trump was acting in America's interest (CNN)
House manager Rep. Jason Crow argued today on the Senate floor that there is currently no evidence proving that President Trump was acting in the interest of national security as it relates to Ukraine.

"There are well-established processes, mechanisms and agencies in place to pursue valid and legitimate national security interests of the United States. Like the National Security Council, like the national security adviser as in ambassador John Bolton, and many other folks within the State Department and the Department of Defense. And as we have well established over the last week, none of those folks, none of those agencies that would have been involved in having that deliberation, reviewing that evidence, having that discussion, or incorporated into any type of interagency review process during the vast majority of the time that we are talking about here," Crow said.

Crow went on to add: "From the time of the President's call on July 25 to the time the hold was lifted, those individuals, those agencies were in the dark. They didn't know what was happening. And more so, not only were they in the dark, but the President violated the law by violating the Impoundment Control Act to execute his scheme. None of that suggests a valid, legitimate policy objective."
posted by katra at 12:29 PM on January 29, 2020 [17 favorites]


Trump’s impeachment team offers the Trumpiest possible argument in his defense (Philip Bump, WaPo)
Over the course of two responses to those questions [submitted by Senators], Trump’s legal team made a remarkable claim. First, that if an action includes any element of public interest, it can’t be impeachable under the terms set by the House. And, second, if Trump thinks that his own reelection is in the public interest — which he certainly does — that’s a valid claim.
posted by ZeusHumms at 12:31 PM on January 29, 2020 [10 favorites]


First, that if an action includes any element of public interest, it can’t be impeachable under the terms set by the House. And, second, if Trump thinks that his own reelection is in the public interest — which he certainly does — that’s a valid claim.

If that were true, then the president couldn't be bound to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed," as required by Article 2 of the Constitution. He could ignore anything Congress passed and spend money on anything he pleased, regardless of how Congress appropriated it.

Trump's lawyers insist the president is a King. Not so.
posted by Gelatin at 12:36 PM on January 29, 2020 [8 favorites]


Dershowitz seems to be trying to out-Giuliani Giuliani. It's hard to suppress the suspicion that they're slyly trying to tank Trump from the inside. But no: everything that Trump touches dies.
posted by sjswitzer at 12:36 PM on January 29, 2020 [4 favorites]


By the way, once again, "what he did isn't impeachable" is a tacit concession that Trump did the things the House Managers' case said he did.

It's a foolish defense -- practically a surrender -- unless you're playing to an audience of one malignant narcissist who can't accept that any of his actions weren't perfect.
posted by Gelatin at 12:56 PM on January 29, 2020 [18 favorites]


Dershowitz seems to be trying to out-Giuliani Giuliani. It's hard to suppress the suspicion that they're slyly trying to tank Trump from the inside. But no: everything that Trump touches dies.

My working assumption is that the Dershbag is desperate to get a pardon ready.
posted by NoxAeternum at 12:59 PM on January 29, 2020 [6 favorites]


The President could shoot all but one American Citizen on 5th Avenue and then point the gun at the Final Citizen and order them to vote for him and it would be in the National Interest
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 1:05 PM on January 29, 2020 [6 favorites]


My working assumption is that the Dershbag is desperate to get a pardon ready.

I don't think it likely that he'll be in the crosshairs of an Epstein investigation.

He could have been hanging out in Martha's Vineyard or the Cote d'Azur or whatever makes him happy to the end of his days. But it turns out that what makes him happy is to be a provocateur and to bask in the media spotlight. It's a foreign feeling to me, but it must be very addictive to be the center of attention.
posted by sjswitzer at 1:13 PM on January 29, 2020 [10 favorites]


My working assumption is that the Dershbag is desperate to get a pardon ready.

For himself or his boss?
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 1:16 PM on January 29, 2020


I don’t get the line of thinking that Trump somehow has dirt on the entire GOP and they’re desperate to keep it hidden and are therefore stonewalling for a man they actually hate.

They are doing this because regardless of how they feel about Trump personally, he has given them almost everything they want. They don’t want to give that up — that’s why they’re fighting so hard.

To dump Trump is to jeopardize their ability to overturn Row v Wade, redistribute wealth to the top 1% via low taxes and pro-business labor policy, openly shit on minorities, send other people’s children to die to protect their wealth, and make the nation in general conform to their religious bigotries.

Trump showed them that to win, they had to stop playing nice. They had to read the Constitution like they read the Bible (selectively, if at all). They had to drown in their insecurities and rule from the fear it generates. Once you do that, it’s near impossible to come back to reality.
posted by Big Al 8000 at 1:19 PM on January 29, 2020 [63 favorites]


So now we are going to tiptoe toward outing the whistleblower. Cool.
posted by all about eevee at 1:28 PM on January 29, 2020


East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94: "The President could shoot all but one American Citizen on 5th Avenue and then point the gun at the Final Citizen and order them to vote for him and it would be in the National Interest"

That's.... not even an uncharitable interpretation of their argument.
posted by schmod at 1:29 PM on January 29, 2020 [20 favorites]


I've said it upthread, but I think it bears repeating: the idea that impeachment requires a statutory crime is sheer nonsense.

When the constitution was written, there was little to no federal criminal law. Criminal law was understood to be a competency of the states. It took ages before the commerce clause was used to justify a body of federal criminal law. Impeachment cannot have required a violation of (federal) criminal law because it basically did not exist. The meaning of "high crimes and misdemeanors" was clear at that time and is well documented.
posted by sjswitzer at 1:30 PM on January 29, 2020 [27 favorites]


Has anyone seen a diagram or a list of the all the men working to defend Trump - beyond Ken Starr and Alan Dershowitz - who had connections with Jeffrey Epstein?

Nope, but don't forget that Bill Barr's dad Donald hired college-dropout Epstein to teach at the Dalton School back in the day.

It's hard to suppress the suspicion that they're slyly trying to tank Trump from the inside

I had a similar thought, when he added Jane Raskin to his legal team, in 2018, during the Russia investigation (her familiarity with Mueller was a point in her favor: "She prosecuted Mafia underbosses for a federal Organized Crime Strike Force in Boston when Mueller held supervisory positions in the U.S. attorney’s office there") -- once upon a time, Raskin was so principled that she resigned from the DOJ over Ed Meese's shenanigans. (WaPo, April 25, 2018)
posted by Iris Gambol at 1:33 PM on January 29, 2020 [8 favorites]


Today would be an excellent day to plan something to help with your self care for post-Monday. Keep yourselves safe and healthy for the future fights.
posted by Harry Caul at 1:37 PM on January 29, 2020 [11 favorites]


House manager argues there's no evidence proving Trump was acting in America's interest (CNN)

This is a fantastic rhetorical argument against Trump. Pound the lack of evidence that Trump is even doing anything as a president. All he has done is tainted with corruption or has been entirely done by cronies. To prove he is even doing anything himself as a president they will have to bring his crimes to the table. Plus it's an in your face dunk on his ego which even if it isn't effective legally is always good for the soul.
posted by srboisvert at 2:14 PM on January 29, 2020 [14 favorites]


Republicans fear Bolton domino effect: ‘More Witnesses = Hindenburg.’
Except the best strategy in a potential Hindenburg situation is not to cozy up as close as possible to the explosive gasbag.


Also nobody will say "Oh the humanity"
posted by srboisvert at 2:16 PM on January 29, 2020 [2 favorites]


They are doing this because regardless of how they feel about Trump personally, he has given them almost everything they want. They don’t want to give that up — that’s why they’re fighting so hard.

If that were the case, what is left that Trump would give them that Pence wouldn't?
I think Pence is messed up in this too, but his involvement isn't currently at issue.
posted by kirkaracha at 2:32 PM on January 29, 2020 [4 favorites]


Today would be an excellent day to plan something to help with your self care for post-Monday.

I just confirmed that BevMo will deliver bourbon directly to my house, so I got that covered.
posted by kirkaracha at 2:34 PM on January 29, 2020 [8 favorites]


I think Vladimir would prefer his victory be toasted with Stoli.
posted by Dashy at 2:39 PM on January 29, 2020 [3 favorites]


The idea that Putin has Epstein tapes featuring Trump, Dershowitz, Starr, et al. may not quite align with Occam's Razor, but it isn't entirely outrageous, either.
posted by PhineasGage at 2:45 PM on January 29, 2020 [4 favorites]


If that were the case, what is left that Trump would give them that Pence wouldn't?

Four more years.
posted by tllaya at 2:48 PM on January 29, 2020 [10 favorites]


what is left that Trump would give them that Pence wouldn't?

They learned with Ford that a VP stepping in after impeachment is weakened, and probably won't get re-elected. Whereas there's still a real chance they can get Trump re-elected.

Plus it's just your typical sociopathic inability to ever admit that you were ever wrong about anything.

"Why are Republicans doing this?" does not have one answer; there is an ugly knot of overlapping reasons. Some definitely is fear of exposure or even of retribution. Some is just Eff You, That's Why. Politicians are herd animals and no one wants to be the first to break rank, either. The Republicans have definitely selected for party members who are more compliant and respectful of authority; everyone else got primaried.
posted by emjaybee at 2:50 PM on January 29, 2020 [15 favorites]


Gelatin: If that were true, then the president couldn't be bound to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed," as required by Article 2 of the Constitution. He could ignore anything Congress passed and spend money on anything he pleased, regardless of how Congress appropriated it.

The defense is an exquisite corpse: Each part is drawn such that, if you squint, it connects with the preceding part, but the whole is a monstrous absurdity.
posted by InTheYear2017 at 2:50 PM on January 29, 2020 [13 favorites]


Humor me for a moment. I had this nutty idea that the inevitable non-removal of Trump isn't even the worst possible outcome!

The worst outcome, though vanishingly unlikely, would be for him to be removed from office without being barred from office. Pence would be a caretaker president for the remainder of the term and Trump could go into an aggrieved re-election campaign immediately on the basis that the presidency was stolen from him.

It's almost certainly not going to happen and I guess that's evidence that we're not on the worst possible timeline.
posted by sjswitzer at 2:55 PM on January 29, 2020 [7 favorites]


I guess that's evidence that we're not on the worst possible timeline.

Sure, tempt fate. I wanted to scream into the void in the company of people in the politics slack but couldn’t get access for tedious reasons. And watching these lying liars lying theI wanted to scream into the void in the company of people in the politics slack but couldn’t get access for tedious reasons. And watching these lying liars lying their fucking heads off is just too stressful on this particular afternoon. America is fucked. It’s been fucked for a really really really long time. I am glad this impeachment is taking place but won’t save our democracy. Hang in there, dear MeFites. Time for me to take a break.
posted by Bella Donna at 3:01 PM on January 29, 2020 [11 favorites]


I can’t remember - are there closing arguments before the Senate goes behind closed doors for “debate” or is the Q&A period it?
posted by Big Al 8000 at 3:11 PM on January 29, 2020


Questions the Ds should be asking Trump’s lawyers:

1. What evidence have you provided that contradicts [WITNESS STATEMENT “X”].
2. What evidence have you offered in support of your claim that Joe/Hunter Biden engaged in corrupt behavior?
3. Explain why [INSERT TRUMP TWEET HERE] appears to contradict [LAWYER STATEMENT “X”].
4. Explain why [LAWYER STATEMENT “X”] appears to contradict [RECORD OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION/ FEDERALIST PAPER #XX / MISC. DOCUMENT FROM FOUNDERS].

I’m not a lawyer but these sorts of questions seem simple to me - ask them questions that reveal a)their failure to provide exculpatory evidence and b)their ahistorical arguments about impeachment.
posted by Big Al 8000 at 3:24 PM on January 29, 2020 [16 favorites]


5. Why evidence exists that that Trump, fined 2 million dollars for defrauding his own charity, cared about any potential corruption other than that of his political opponent?
posted by mikelieman at 3:49 PM on January 29, 2020 [8 favorites]


Give them an enumerated list of Trumps crimes. Ask them why they presented no evidence that he did not do these things. Ask them if they are agreeing that he did do those things.
posted by njohnson23 at 3:49 PM on January 29, 2020 [4 favorites]


[opens cockpit door] I just want to tell you all good luck. We're all counting on you. [closes cockpit door]
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 3:51 PM on January 29, 2020 [24 favorites]


So now we are going to tiptoe toward outing the whistleblower. Cool.

There's currently a concerted effort by Trump staffers and paid supporters to retweet their name and image in violation of the Whistleblower Protection Act.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 3:52 PM on January 29, 2020


Outing the whistleblower is pointless in relation to issues of fact. The whole reason to do it is to punish him (or her) and to send a signal that any stepping out will be punished.

I don't have a lot of faith in John Roberts, but I hope he will not allow that to happen in these proceedings.
posted by sjswitzer at 4:04 PM on January 29, 2020 [2 favorites]


You would think that the growing list of Trump's associates and water-carriers being convicted would give the underlings pause, but apparently even the threat of prison time worries them not a bit. It's not as if the pardons have been flowing freely, either.
posted by wierdo at 4:08 PM on January 29, 2020 [2 favorites]


ermm "hearing from more witnesses? What witnesses?
posted by baegucb at 4:20 PM on January 29, 2020


Schiff hints at new "body of intelligence" relevant to impeachment (CBS News)
Senator Mark Warner, the Democratic vice chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, submitted a question asking whether additional information exists related to Russia's dissemination of conspiracy theories embraced by Mr. Trump and Giuliani — and whether the Senate should have that information before deliberating a verdict.

Schiff, who is chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, replied that senators should take the time to review supplemental testimony by an aide to Vice President Mike Pence that remains classified. But he added that the House and Senate committees have been provided a "second body of intelligence" that is "relevant to this trial that you should also read." [...]

Schiff, however, also noted that the intelligence community has failed to produce other material he said is relevant to the case. He said the NSA "been advised not to provide" evidence it has collected, which he called part of "a deeply concerning and new phenomenon."
posted by katra at 4:20 PM on January 29, 2020 [6 favorites]


Guardian: "As senators mull the merits of calling John Bolton as a witness, an attorney for the former national security adviser has issued a statement.
“I have received no response whatever to my urgent request for the NSC’s immediate guidance as to any concerns it may have with respect to the chapter of the manuscript dealing with Ambassador Bolton’s involvement in matters related to Ukraine,” said Charles Cooper, an attorney for Bolton.

Cooper also shared his reply to a National Security Council letter saying Bolton’s manuscript contained classified information. “We do not believe that any of the information could reasonably be considered classified,” he wrote in an emailed response.

The lawyer requested “urgent” guidance from the NSC given that Bolton may be called to testify in the Senate trial. “If he is asked to testify, it seems certain he will be asked questions that will elicit much of the information contained in the chapter of the manuscript dealing with his involvement in matters related to Ukraine,” Cooper wrote.
posted by katra at 4:27 PM on January 29, 2020 [3 favorites]


Senate GOP Will Move to Acquit Friday Night
Sen. John Barrasso (R-WV) told NBC News says the GOP’s plan would be to move to immediately acquit President Trump on Friday night if in fact the U.S. Senate votes against calling additional witnesses.

The Hill: “It was clear to Senate Republicans on Wednesday after a morning meeting between Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) that the question of having additional witnesses is settled, and the Senate will vote Friday to wrap up the impeachment trial of President Trump.”
bevmo.com
posted by kirkaracha at 4:29 PM on January 29, 2020 [3 favorites]


4:18 P.M. Rand Paul not allowed to ask question (Politico)
Sen. Rand Paul is not being allowed to ask a question about the origins of the House impeachment trial, according to a source familiar with the matter.

It's not exactly clear what the Kentucky Republican is trying to ask, though he's been a proponent of naming the whistleblower behind the Ukraine probe and is a close ally of the president.
posted by katra at 4:38 PM on January 29, 2020 [3 favorites]


Lessons for Life: The Obituaries of Republicans Who Opposed Nixon’s Impeachment
What will the future think of President Donald Trump and two historic votes senators must take on his impeachment? The obituaries of the Republicans who voted in favor and against the articles of impeachment for President Richard Nixon could provide some insight. How these GOP members of Congress voted in 1974 featured prominently in all of their obituaries.
posted by kirkaracha at 4:44 PM on January 29, 2020 [6 favorites]


Schumer calls the possibility of the whistleblower being named on Senate floor "despicable" (CNN)
During a 45-minute break today, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer spoke about a question GOP Sen. Rand Paul attempted to ask that would have revealed the whistleblower's identity.

Schumer called that potential scenario “despicable."

“I thought this question period again was just so good for our side. So many different instances where our arguments prevailed," Schumer added.

More on what happened with Paul's question: Chief Justice John Roberts essentially said no to reading it, a source told CNN. It is not clear how this is going to be resolved at the moment, but it doesn’t appear to have de-escalated yet.
posted by katra at 4:47 PM on January 29, 2020 [4 favorites]


4:15 PM EST Republican senators ask specific question about whistleblower identity (WaPo)
Republican Sens. Mike Lee (Utah), Ted Cruz (Tex.) and Josh Hawley (Mo.) sought confirmation of identifying information about the intelligence agency whistleblower who first launched a complaint against Trump, but Trump’s lawyer — while repeating the alleged details — said he couldn’t confirm the information. [...]

“The only knowledge that we have, that I have of this, comes from public reports,” said White House Deputy Counsel Patrick Philbin. “I gather there is a news report in some publication that suggests a name for the whistleblower, suggests where he worked, that he worked at that time while detailed to the NSC staff for then-Vice President Biden. … We have no knowledge of that other than what’s in those public reports. And I don’t want to get into speculating about that.”
posted by katra at 4:56 PM on January 29, 2020 [4 favorites]


Sen. Rand Paul is not being allowed to ask a question about the origins of the House impeachment trial, according to a source familiar with the matter.

I feel almost like a seer when I wrote,

I don't have a lot of faith in John Roberts, but I hope he will not allow that [outing the whistleblower] to happen in these proceedings.

The whole thing is a terrible mess, but at least it isn't going to be used as a beat-down.
posted by sjswitzer at 5:01 PM on January 29, 2020 [2 favorites]


7:20: Van Hollen will file motion to require Chief Justice Roberts to rule on witnesses (WaPo)
Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) intends to file a motion on Friday that would give Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., who is presiding over the trial, the job of deciding on witnesses and use of new evidence.

“No Republican can question the fairness of this approach — the Chief Justice oversees the highest court in our land and was nominated by a Republican President. And, given his authority to rule on questions of privilege, they should not fear a drawn-out process. I urge my colleagues to seek out the truth and the facts and to vote in support of my motion. Anything else constitutes an effort to hide the truth,” Van Hollen said in a statement.

The text of the motion is: “I move that for this trial the presiding officer shall issue subpoenas of any witness or any document that a Senator or a party moves to subpoena if the presiding officer deems them likely to have probative evidence relevant to either article of impeachment, and, consistent with his authority to rule on all questions of evidence, shall rule on any assertion of privilege.”
posted by katra at 5:07 PM on January 29, 2020 [19 favorites]


Trump's lawyer claims impeachment trial will go on for "months" if witnesses are called (CNN)
White House counsel Jay Sekulow believes the impeachment trial will go on for "months" if witnesses are called, in part because President Trump's legal team will subpoena "anybody we want," he said tonight on the Senate floor.

"I want Adam Schiff. I want Hunter Biden. I want Joe Biden. I want the whistleblower. I want to also understand there may be additional people within the House Intelligence Committee that have had conversations with that whistleblower. I get anybody we want. By the way, if we get anybody we want, we'll be here for a very long time. The fact of the matter is, we're not here to argue witnesses tonight, but obviously it is an undercurrent.

Sekulow went on to suggest the trial could go on for "months."
posted by katra at 5:18 PM on January 29, 2020 [6 favorites]


White House counsel Jay Sekulow believes the impeachment trial will go on for "months" if witnesses are called, in part because President Trump's legal team will subpoena "anybody we want," he said tonight on the Senate floor.

Okay. Fine. Let it.
posted by nushustu at 5:22 PM on January 29, 2020 [27 favorites]


So essentially he's hinting at more obstruction of congress by some sort of fillibuster via witnesses.?.
posted by p3t3 at 5:23 PM on January 29, 2020 [7 favorites]


Fiat justitia ruat caelum

Ceterum autem censeo Trump delenda est
posted by kirkaracha at 5:23 PM on January 29, 2020 [9 favorites]


White House counsel Jay Sekulow can hopefully ask questions from Nunes's cow as well. That might take months.
posted by baegucb at 5:32 PM on January 29, 2020 [11 favorites]


That's cool. If there were witnesses out there with exonerating testimony, republicans would have had them testify back in the House when they had the chance, then in the Senate they would have voted up front to allow witnesses.

trump will flip his lid if the trial isn't over by the SOTU, and the longer it goes on the worse it gets for him. Every witness called can only be bad for trump. Jay Sekulow is threatening to produce an unending stream of bad press and evidence of criminality for his own client right up into the election. He'd be disbarred if he tried this in a regular trial.

Jay Sekulow is bluffing, and he fucking sucks at it. So, Jay, Proceed.
posted by mrgoat at 5:35 PM on January 29, 2020 [26 favorites]


Also, the House impeachment managers ought to jump on that statement. They want witnesses, the defense wants witnesses, it's not even in contest anymore! Get Bolton's ass in a chair already!
posted by mrgoat at 5:44 PM on January 29, 2020 [12 favorites]


Sekulow went on to suggest the trial could go on for "months."
If the trial goes on for months, it's not great for any Democratic senator with a presidential bid and it's not great for Biden's campaign if he gets called as a witness; I think that's Sekulow's angle with this particular bluster.
posted by Iris Gambol at 5:50 PM on January 29, 2020 [1 favorite]


White House counsel Jay Sekulow believes the impeachment trial will go on for "months" if witnesses are called, in part because President Trump's legal team will subpoena "anybody we want," he said tonight on the Senate floor.

Presumably, the idea is that the American public would get so frustrated and just want the whole thing over? Meaning, it hurts Dems in the coming election to have a "never-ending impeachment".

I don't possibly see how having a president under impeachment as close to an election is a good thing. But, I have also not understood any of the defense in the impeachment to be anything beyond "throw it to the wall. see what sticks. i don't care if it contradicts. throw it on a different wall and see if it sticks."
posted by a non mouse, a cow herd at 5:55 PM on January 29, 2020 [2 favorites]


If Biden gets a subpoena, he should refuse to show and let the republicans fight it out in court, which is the appropriate action and venue according to... *checks notes from today's questioning* Jay Sekulow.
posted by mrgoat at 5:56 PM on January 29, 2020 [22 favorites]


If the trial goes on for months, it's not great for any Democratic senator with a presidential bid

I'll take that bet for a dollar, Johnny.
posted by Etrigan at 5:57 PM on January 29, 2020 [13 favorites]


Republicans’ damaging new line of defense (WaPo Editorial Board)
The former national security adviser is reported to have written that Mr. Trump directly connected his freeze on military aid to Ukraine with his demand that the country’s president launch politicized investigations, including of Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden, the former vice president. The result is that some Republican senators who previously insisted that there was no evidence of such a quid pro quo have now retreated to a new line of defense: Maybe there was but, if so, there is nothing wrong with it. [...]

“We basically know what the facts are,” Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.) told Fox News on Tuesday. Yet Mr. Cornyn and other GOP senators are now arguing that the behavior is not an abuse of power, merely a routine presidential act. “Presidents always leverage foreign aid,” said Mr. Cornyn.

That contention is as dangerous as it is wrong. Presidents do occasionally wield U.S. assistance to advance foreign policy ends. But Mr. Trump was manifestly seeking a personal gain. An investigation of Mr. Biden was not a goal of U.S. foreign policy. There was no domestic probe of his actions and no evidence that he was guilty of wrongdoing. On the contrary, the proof that the then-vice president was pursuing official U.S. policy when he intervened in Ukraine is overwhelming. [...]

The implications of this position are frightening. If Republicans acquit Mr. Trump on the basis of Mr. Dershowitz’s arguments, they will be saying that presidents are entitled to use their official powers to force foreign governments to investigate any U.S. citizen they choose to target — even if there is no evidence of wrongdoing. Mr. Trump could induce Russia or Saudi Arabia or China to spy on Mr. Biden, or on any other of the many people subject to his offensive tweets. In exchange for any embarrassing information, the president might offer official favors, such as arms sales or a trade deal or the lifting of sanctions. Do Republicans really wish to ratify such presidential authority? Will they not object if the next Democratic president resorts to it?

Republicans are finally beginning to accept the facts of what Mr. Trump did — though all the facts will not be known unless they allow Mr. Bolton and other witnesses to testify. They must now draw the necessary conclusion from those facts: that what Mr. Trump did was wrong. After doing so, they could argue that the offense does not merit impeachment, or that any sanction should be delivered by voters. But a conclusion that the president did nothing wrong would inflict grave damage on our political system.
posted by katra at 6:00 PM on January 29, 2020 [14 favorites]


Point-counterpoint on how long the trial could last (Politico)
Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), the lead House manager, lit into the White House lawyers, accusing them of threatening the Senate with endless court battles if they dared to request a single witness who might offer derogatory information about Trump. Schiff said if the House really wanted to tie up the Senate for weeks, he would ask for Sekulow to disclose his contacts with Lev Parnas, the indicted associate of Rudy Giuliani, or White House Counsel Pat Cipollone’s involvement in blocking documents from going to the House.

Schiff said the solution is to rely on Roberts to make decisions in camera about what evidence is relevant and whether it’s appropriate for the White House team to identify the whistleblower.

“They’re doing the same thing to the Senate they did to the House, which is, ‘You try to investigate the president, we will tie you and your entire chamber up in knots for weeks and months,’” Schiff said.

[...] Sekulow ignored the House managers’ call to allow Roberts to adjudicate questions about privilege and disputes over witnesses.
Would it be OK if Obama did it? (Politico)
Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), the lead impeachment manager, said it was “remarkable to me that we even have to have this conversation,” and he took issue with the hypothetical itself, saying that Trump only wanted the investigation of the Bidens to be announced — not conducted.

Leveraging official political acts “to target their political opponent is wrong and corrupt,” Schiff said, adding: “I can’t imagine any circumstance where that’s justified.”
posted by katra at 6:07 PM on January 29, 2020 [12 favorites]


Former Nixon WH counsel: 'Dershowitz unimpeached Richard Nixon' (NBC News)
Alan Dershowitz unimpeached Richard Nixon today. All Nixon was doing was obstructing justice and abusing power because he thought he was the best person for the USA to be POTUS. When POTUS does it... etc. Seriously, that was his motive! Agree with Alan and impeachment is gone! — John Dean (@JohnWDean) January 30, 2020
posted by katra at 6:09 PM on January 29, 2020 [19 favorites]


I’m starting to get the feeling that there are probably a decent quantity of Republicans that didn’t understand just how foolish this was all going to make them look.
posted by a box and a stick and a string and a bear at 6:35 PM on January 29, 2020 [14 favorites]


I expect Roberts to rule against witnesses. But... I’m pretty sure this is not a position he wants to be in. Hey, he was a huge part of creating this problem. Obama was prescient when he called out the SC over Citizens United.
posted by azpenguin at 6:38 PM on January 29, 2020 [8 favorites]






Eventually, when you subscribe to an identity, there becomes no greater drive than preserving that identity. That usually only lasts so long before being denounced by people outside of it who are like hey wait stop being insane bro, but the world has the technology and is teetering on the brink of climate disaster to where I think we can't fuck around forever.

Then again, maybe I would've had the same thought in the Weimar Republic.
posted by OnTheLastCastle at 9:00 PM on January 29, 2020 [6 favorites]


Dershowitz’s power play and a Trump team stumble: The moments that mattered in the Senate Q&A (Politico)
Alan Dershowitz, the former Harvard law professor and prominent criminal defense attorney, took his expansive view of presidential power to an entirely new level.

Dershowitz, a member of Trump’s legal team, said a president could do virtually anything — including engaging in a quid pro quo for a purely political benefit — as long as it's in service of winning reelection. “Every public official that I know believes that his election is in the public interest,” Dershowitz said on the Senate floor, responding to a question about how presidents conduct foreign policy. “And if a president did something that he believes will help him get elected — in the public interest — that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment.”

Dershowitz’s argument cuts at the heart of the House managers’ case against the president: that Trump sought to leverage official U.S. government acts in order to boost his re-election bid, and that he improperly solicited foreign interference in an American election.

But his contention is well outside the mainstream of legal scholars — and one that the House impeachment managers said would put the president above the law and the Constitution. Schiff said Dershowitz’s view gives a president “carte blanche” to use his or her office to further his or her own political interests, rather than the interests of the nation.

Dershowitz’s remarks underscore the extent to which Trump has surrounded himself with lawyers who believe in the so-called unitary executive theory — the idea that the president’s power is all but absolute and rarely subject to congressional oversight or investigation. But Dershowitz’s justification of all presidential quid pro quos goes even further than some of the most vocal proponents of expansive presidential power and quickly raised eyebrows on and off Capitol Hill.
posted by katra at 9:09 PM on January 29, 2020 [6 favorites]


Fox News Has Blocked and Unfriended John Bolton (vice)

Fox News is now indistinguishable from a clique of tweenage girls.

You can't sit with us!
posted by adept256 at 9:19 PM on January 29, 2020 [12 favorites]


After all the threats from Starr, Dersh, Sekulow and the Epstein Dream Team about weaponizing impeachment, I'll just leave this here:

Barack Obama Impeachment Efforts (wiki)
posted by benzenedream at 10:21 PM on January 29, 2020 [14 favorites]


“Every public official that I know believes that his election is in the public interest,” Dershowitz said on the Senate floor, responding to a question about how presidents conduct foreign policy. “And if a president did something that he believes will help him get elected — in the public interest — that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment.”
--
"you don't have to be crazy to work (t)here, but it helps" is an old saw
posted by Iris Gambol at 11:22 PM on January 29, 2020 [1 favorite]


Quite fond of the variant that appears on the wall of one of my local eateries, which seems equally apposite: you don't have to be crazy to work here, we'll train you.
posted by flabdablet at 11:57 PM on January 29, 2020 [23 favorites]


Conservative Pastor Says Jesus Would Have 'Beat The Crap' Out of John Bolton

We found the guy that started the Rambo meme! It's funny because Rambo wasn't a draft dodger and Jesus isn't really in the ass-kicking business. What's not funny and pretty scary is that this guy has actually met John Bolton in the oval office, because Trump invited him.

Rodney Howard-Browne has a wikipedia page. He's a total peice of shit.

He may have called the Christchurch shooting a hoax, but he gets the votes, so to the White House he must come! An honor not extended to Zelensky, the democratically elected leader of Ukraine, who isn't doing his part for team Trump.

There's been a parade of reprehensible ass-kissers marching through the oval office. There really is no excuse for excluding Zelensky, except he wouldn't cooperate with the smear campaign.
posted by adept256 at 4:11 AM on January 30, 2020 [17 favorites]


Trump Administration: a parade of reprehensible ass-kissers

Sums it up really well.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 5:11 AM on January 30, 2020 [7 favorites]


Jesus Would Have 'Beat The Crap' Out of John Bolton

Wait 'til you see the rest of Jesus' list, Rodney.
posted by Rykey at 6:28 AM on January 30, 2020 [18 favorites]


Guardian: Dershowitz backtracks on 'public interest' argument
Many commentators reacted with confusion and outrage when Dershowitz said Trump was acting in “the public interest” by pushing for Ukrainian investigations of Democrats because the president considers his reelection to be in the public interest.

“If a president does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment,” Dershowitz told senators as part of the question-and-answer session. [...] The president’s lawyer is now trying to walk back that argument, blaming the media for distorting his point. (But the video above clearly shows otherwise.)

Alan Dershowitz (@AlanDersh) They characterized my argument as if I had said that if a president believes that his re-election was in the national interest, he can do anything. I said nothing like that, as anyone who actually heard what I said can attest.
January 30, 2020
posted by katra at 7:20 AM on January 30, 2020 [6 favorites]


I'll believe it when he clarifies that at trial. I hope this buries his academic reputation (more).
posted by j_curiouser at 7:39 AM on January 30, 2020 [8 favorites]


Shouldn't telling verifiable lies* in public be the kind of ethical violation that gets a lawyer disbarred?

It's good to see that this the=president-is-a-king claim was too obvious for many Republicans to embrace publicly; even Fox News' Mara Liasson was incredulous on NPR this morning.

*Not just plausibly deniable falsehoods or statements of dubious opinion, but whoppers on the order of "I did not say what the video clearly shows me saying," as Dershowitz is doing here.
posted by Gelatin at 7:40 AM on January 30, 2020 [11 favorites]


Schiff explains why Trump was not charged with bribery (CBS News)
Towards the end of the first day of the Q&A session, Senator Collins submitted a question to House impeachment managers asking why President Trump was not charged with bribery, even though the managers continue to insist there is overwhelming proof he is guilty of the offense.

"We could have charged bribery," Schiff said in response. "In fact, we outlined the facts that constitute bribery in the article, but abuse of power is the highest crime ... The facts we allege within that do constitute bribery. But had we charged bribery within the abuse of power article, I can assure you the counsel here would be arguing, 'you have charged two offenses within the same article. That makes that invalid.' ... If we split them into two separate articles, one for abuse of power and one for bribery, they would have argued, 'you've taken one crime and made it into two.'"
Philbin says trading information with foreign actors is also okay (WaPo)
Dershowitz was nabbing headlines for much of the day for the way he broadened Trump’s defense, but Philbin near the end of Wednesday’s proceedings made another bold claim. He responded to a question from Sen. Christopher A. Coons (D-Del.) about whether Trump considers foreign interference illegal, and Philbin pushed a legal defense we haven’t heard before.

“Mere information is not something that would violate the campaign finance laws,” Philbin said. “And if there is credible information, credible information of wrongdoing by someone who is running for a public office, it’s not campaign interference for credible information about wrongdoing to be brought to light.”

At the next break, Democratic senators responded in awe that a White House lawyer just suggested this. Receiving “a thing of value” in a campaign from foreign actors is illegal, and House managers brought it up quickly on the floor after that.

“I’m stunned,” said Senate Intelligence Committee ranking member Mark R. Warner (D-Va.).

“I was stunned to hear that now, apparently, it’s okay for the president to get information from foreign governments in an election,” said Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), one of the House managers. “That’s news to me.”
posted by katra at 7:50 AM on January 30, 2020 [8 favorites]


it’s not campaign interference for credible information about wrongdoing to be brought to light

Where are the credible allegations? How does this not get serious pushback!?
posted by Big Al 8000 at 8:00 AM on January 30, 2020 [5 favorites]


At the next break, Democratic senators responded in awe that a White House lawyer just suggested this. Receiving “a thing of value” in a campaign from foreign actors is illegal, and House managers brought it up quickly on the floor after that.

52 USC 30121, in case you feel like looking it up. ( And a hearty Fuck You to the writers of 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2020 for creating a world where I can cite this off the top of my head... )
posted by mikelieman at 8:00 AM on January 30, 2020 [34 favorites]


“I was stunned to hear that now, apparently, it’s okay for the president to get information from foreign governments in an election,” said Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), one of the House managers. “That’s news to me.”

Trump's defense is playing to an audience of one. Trump has been saying right along that of course he'd accept information on a rival from a foreign source ("If it's what you say I love it especially later in the summer," as Donald Trump Jr. put it), and he keeps saying it, so his lawyers are arguing, to paraphrase Dershowitz, that Trump isn't openly admitting that he'd break the law, but rather the media is mischaracterizing his statements.

Republican Senators accept these arguments to the diminishment of their own power, as it'd allow a President to ignore duly passed laws as he pleases and then claim his state of mind shields him from any consequences. But accept it they are indeed likely to do.
posted by Gelatin at 8:11 AM on January 30, 2020 [2 favorites]


To conflate Trump's self interest with public interest, you must first concede there is an interest. An interest in influencing the election. It's a 'Yes he did it, but...' argument.

The conflation is a fallacy, the concession is an admission of guilt.
posted by adept256 at 8:15 AM on January 30, 2020 [10 favorites]


Since animals tend to avoid pain (this is a Donald Judd quote) I haven't seen the defence argument, just followed it here. But I watched a bit of The Late Show with a clip from Dershowitz' presentation, and now I am convinced that he is (not very) secretly arguing for Trump's removal from office. Nothing makes sense otherwise. Obviously Trump can't get good lawyers and prefers TV lawyers anyway, but if that was supposed to be a defence, I have a bridge, etc.
posted by mumimor at 8:55 AM on January 30, 2020 [2 favorites]


Senate Impeachment Trial, Day 10 (C-SPAN) The Senate impeachment trial of President Trump continues as Senators ask House impeachment managers and the President’s defense team questions. Watch LIVE On January 30 | 1pm ET | C-SPAN2

U.S. Senate: Impeachment Trial (Day 10) (C-SPAN YouTube) The Senate impeachment trial of President Trump continues as Senators ask House impeachment managers and the President’s defense team questions. Scheduled for Jan 30, 2020

The Report: Impeachment, Day Eight (Lawfare) "On the eighth day of the impeachment trial of President Donald J. Trump, the question-and-answer session began. [...] It was a marathon day in the Senate, with questions proceeding well into the night. [...] Lawfare and Goat Rodeo boiled the first day of Q&A down to the most essential one-hour and 47 minutes."
posted by katra at 9:07 AM on January 30, 2020 [3 favorites]


On the eighth day of impeachment
My true love gave to me
Eight lawyers lying
Seven managers saying
Six Romney waffles
Five grifting Trumps
Four shots of bourbon
Three "moderates"
Two impeachment counts
And a whistleblower in a pear tree
posted by kirkaracha at 9:33 AM on January 30, 2020 [11 favorites]


They characterized my argument as if I had said that if a president believes that his re-election was in the national interest. I said in the public interest. Totally different.
posted by kirkaracha at 9:49 AM on January 30, 2020 [4 favorites]


I think his dodge is that he was talking about when a "quid pro quo" would be acceptable, rather than "anything" such as the Watergate break-in, mass arrests of likely Democratic voters, or having the other candidate killed.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 9:53 AM on January 30, 2020 [2 favorites]


GOP senators know Trump’s defense is based on lies. Here’s proof. (Greg Sargent, WaPo Opinion)
As President Trump’s trial hurtles toward a vote on new witnesses, his lawyers have based his defense in part on the notion that Trump’s demand that Ukraine investigate the Bidens was legitimate. A core claim from Trump’s team has been that Trump had at least some reason to suspect there was something untoward about Joe Biden’s efforts as vice president to oust a Ukrainian prosecutor.

They’ve cited two facts — that Biden threatened to withhold loan guarantees from Ukraine to leverage that ouster and that Biden’s son Hunter sat on the board of Ukrainian company Burisma — which they claim presented a potential conflict of interest. That made Trump’s suspicions reasonable, they say.

But Republican senators themselves know this argument is nonsense. And here’s how we can be certain they know this.

At a Senate hearing in 2016, a number of GOP senators who are still in office today sat in attendance during discussions of the Obama administration’s approach to Ukraine. At those hearings, officials and outside experts repeatedly discussed the need to remove the prosecutor in question — Viktor Shokin, the prosecutor general — describing this imperative as central to official U.S. policy.

What’s more, Joe Biden’s own role in prompting this ouster came up repeatedly, and it was openly and explicitly discussed that the loan guarantees were being used as leverage to bring it about — as U.S. policy.

None of this was treated as remotely controversial at the time. [...] Indeed, it’s even more absurd than this. As James Risen has detailed, in 2015, U.S. officials criticized the Ukrainian prosecutor general’s office for failing to assist with a British investigation into Burisma’s owner, which cuts directly against the nonsense that this was a corrupt effort to help Burisma (or Hunter).
posted by katra at 10:06 AM on January 30, 2020 [18 favorites]


I think his dodge is that he was talking about when a "quid pro quo" would be acceptable, rather than "anything" such as the Watergate break-in, mass arrests of likely Democratic voters, or having the other candidate killed.

Not much of a dodge. What if the quid pro quo had been "I'll release aid to Ukraine if Ukraine sends agents to break into the DNC headquarters"? Or breaking into Biden's office?

Similarly, the argument that it's okay to receive something of value as long as that something is information about a crime (e.g. supposed corruption on the part of one's political opponent) doesn't hold water either. The Fourth Amendment prevents the government from using evidence that it obtained illegally. The obvious rationale is that otherwise the government would be tempted to say the ends justify the means and run roughshod over people's rights in the pursuit of "justice". It would be absurd to say that the President is free from such constraints and can engage in that kind of perverse incentive, particularly if it means involving a foreign government pursuing its own agenda.
posted by jedicus at 10:07 AM on January 30, 2020 [4 favorites]


I'm not saying it isn't! When your argument boils down to "Watergate was fine, actually, but I know I'd get yelled at for saying those exact words so let me get a thesaurus" no hair is going to go unsplit.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 10:10 AM on January 30, 2020 [6 favorites]


Oh, I'm definitely only critiquing Dershowitz and Trump here, not you.
posted by jedicus at 10:12 AM on January 30, 2020


I think I need to stop following current events. Maybe for good. The idea that by Saturday morning Trump could be acquitted and then the news cycle moves forward and everyone goes back to business as usual...it's Kavanaugh all over again. It makes me soulsick.

I don't know what to do.
posted by Gadarene at 10:22 AM on January 30, 2020 [38 favorites]


Guardian: "Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell thanked senators for being “respectful” with their questions, which are read by Supreme Court chief justice John Roberts, and expressed hope that today would follow that pattern.
The comment was clearly directed at Rand Paul, the Republican senator who has tried to include the name of the alleged whistleblower in a question, even though Roberts has said he will not read the whistleblower’s name aloud.
Guardian: Roberts declines to reads Paul's question
Rand Paul has submitted his question, which appears to have included the name of the alleged whistleblower, as the Republican senator threatened to do. But Supreme Court chief justice John Roberts, who previously said he would not say the name of the alleged whistleblower aloud, refused to read the question.

“The presiding officer declines to read the question as submitted,” said Roberts, who then turned to take the next question from Senate Democrats.
posted by katra at 10:30 AM on January 30, 2020 [5 favorites]


I don't know what to do.

Vote against every Republican in every election for the foreseeable future, and urge your friends to do the same. Work to get Democrats elected -- canvass, write postcards, donate money, whatever works for you. Share on social media that awesome rap video / civics lesson about the importance of voting.

Those kinds of activities worked in 2018, which is why Trump's ability to damage the United States has been constrained, if not eliminated. The power of the majority of loyal Americans is constrained too, yes, by the compromises the Founders made to appease a bunch of slavers who would go on to betray their country anyway.

But while Republicans like to swagger to intimidate the media and people of good faith, they are in the minority, they're getting more so with every election cycle, and they know it. Like Pompeo's childish tantrum over NPR having the temerity to ask him questions Fox News softballs left him unprepared to answer, these people are weak and incapable and they know it. They try to pretend, and their base likes bullying, but -- while 2016 was a nasty surprise -- many vastly underestimate how unpopular Trump is, and how very much so. Trump depends on firing up his base, but for more than three years, good people from across the country have been equally fired up to get rid of him, and they've won.

Yes Trump has left much damage to be undone and yes, even in victory we will have to contend with politicians who never grew out of the defensive crouch they learned under Reagan to make the word "feckless" synonymous with "Democrat." But with the Presidency at least, and perhaps even the Senate, it's within the ability of loyal Americans to take power away from Republicans.

And we start by not letting them fool us into giving away our own power -- the power that they fear.
posted by Gelatin at 10:36 AM on January 30, 2020 [47 favorites]


Pelosi: "You cannot be acquitted if you don't have a trial" (CBS News)
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says acquitting Mr. Trump would not be legitimate because the ongoing impeachment trial has not allowed for additional evidence.

"He will not be acquitted," Pelosi told reporters during her weekly press conference Thursday. "You cannot be acquitted if you don't have a trial, and you don't have a trial if you don't have witnesses and documentation."

[...] Pelosi said she prays "senators will have the courage and the ability to handle the truth instead of blocking the truth."

"No matter what the senators have the courage to do, he will be impeached forever," she said.
posted by katra at 10:37 AM on January 30, 2020 [30 favorites]


Pelosi throwing shade at Republicans' cowardice lampshades the fact that Republicans are panicky and, while they seem prepared to rubber-stamp Trump's authoritarian ambitions, they obviously do not like their choices. But they, too, have power, and if they choose not to use it wisely, they deserve to suffer the public shame that results.

Forever.
posted by Gelatin at 10:41 AM on January 30, 2020 [17 favorites]


Guardian: "While holding a press conference about his question that named the alleged whistleblower, Rand Paul was asked why he had left the Senate chamber where the impeachment trial is taking place.
Kadia Goba (@kadiagoba) Reporter asks @RandPaul “with all do respect, shouldn’t you be in the impeachment hearing right now?” pic.twitter.com/Qir0z0dds0
January 30, 2020

Each day of the impeachment trial begins with the sergeant-at-arms instructing senators, “All persons are commanded to keep silence, on pain of imprisonment.”
posted by katra at 10:49 AM on January 30, 2020 [9 favorites]


He wouldn't do it, of course, but wouldn't you love to hear Roberts rule that anyone who has left the chamber during the proceedings is disqualified from any further voting?
posted by bcd at 11:25 AM on January 30, 2020 [14 favorites]


I don't know what to do.
In addition to the excellent advice offered by Gelatin, never forget that despite all their bluster the Republican officials who are debasing themselves during this process know, however much they pretend otherwise, that what they are doing is legally unsupported, unpopular even with many among their diminishing base, and ultimately likely to stain their party for a generation or more to come. Think how many times they have had to move their own goalposts. They know that they would lose in any objective judgement (and so they muster the power they have to prevent any such judgement.) Their power is indeed considerable but they're on the defensive and losing ground, which is the best we can currently hope for.

Now is exactly the time not to give up hope.
posted by Nerd of the North at 11:29 AM on January 30, 2020 [17 favorites]


The next time lying and cheating in support of wealthy, white, male, powerful criminals (and in opposition to minorities, women, and the powerless) stains the Republican Party for any significant time, or in any meaningful manner, at all will be the first.
posted by Gadarene at 11:36 AM on January 30, 2020 [17 favorites]


Watching the U.S. Senate (or at least the current Republican majority) move towards voting to make themselves an irrelevant adjunct to an authoritarian, omnipotent Executive Branch, the phrase "to fall on one's sword" came to mind. The Senate is on the verge of committing institutional suicide.
posted by PhineasGage at 11:40 AM on January 30, 2020 [19 favorites]


Guardian: "Lead impeachment manager Adam Schiff pointed out that a Justice Department lawyer said in court earlier today that the House can impeach a president for defying congressional subpoenas, sharply contradicting Trump’s lawyers in the impeachment trial.
Schiff’s answer elicited laughter from the senators sitting in the chamber where the trial is being held.

CNN has more on the case that Schiff referenced:

Asked by a federal judge what the House can do to enforce its subpoenas, Justice Department lawyer James Burnham said without hesitation that the House can use its impeachment powers, among other options, like withholding appropriations.
posted by katra at 11:49 AM on January 30, 2020 [14 favorites]


Rand Paul's "one weird trick to publicly reveal the whistleblowers name" failed and he's furious about his fantasy being wrecked again by reality.
posted by Joey Michaels at 11:52 AM on January 30, 2020 [4 favorites]


Who is paying Giuliani’s legal fees? (WaPo)
Democratic senators asked the House managers and Trump’s legal team who is paying Rudolph W. Giuliani in his capacity as the president’s personal attorney.

Neither side could say.

Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), the lead impeachment manager, said he doesn’t know, but that it “raises profound questions.”

“I don’t know who’s directly paying the freight for it, but I can tell you the whole country is paying the freight for it because there are leaders around the world who are watching this, and they’re saying the American presidency is open for business,” Schiff said.

Trump attorney Jay Sekulow ignored the question and instead repeated talking points about the Bidens and their dealings in Ukraine.
posted by katra at 11:57 AM on January 30, 2020 [9 favorites]


The Republicans remind me of nothing more than cowardly children. Like, kids who want to curse, but fear punishment, so they try to trick someone else into saying something dirty.

If Rand Paul had actual conviction in his righteousness, he'd have just blasted it onto Twitter or on a live interview on TV. Some way that is irrevocable. Instead, he's hoping to hide behind "the Chief Justice said it, not me," because he *knows* he's in the wrong.
posted by explosion at 11:57 AM on January 30, 2020 [17 favorites]


Their power is indeed considerable but they're on the defensive and losing ground, which is the best we can currently hope for.

Well, said, and consider: McConnell is, for whatever reason, using his power and influence over his caucus to conduct a kangaroo court, and an obvious kangaroo court, even though he wanted very much to avoid that perception. To do so, he has had to force purple-state senators to abandon their usual phony pose as a "reasonable moderate," as when he announced there would be no vote to call witnesses after meeting with (read: leaning on) Murkowski. He isn't giving them any cover for their vote, because any reasonable, moderate course of action makes Trump and the Republicans look bad, and the Republicans are now in the position where they look bad anyway.

McConnell has clearly calculated that, if such is to be the case, better to participate openly in Trump's cover-up and hope nothing too damaging emerges later. But if 2020 is another blue wave election as collective disgust by loyal Americans has them tell him "you're fired!" (TTTCS), it's likely that some of those phony purple-state senators, like Collins, also get the boot. (I don't dare hope McConnell loses his seat as well as his gavel, but it'd be sweeeeet!)

In any case, Republican losses due to voter backlash over this disgrace of an impeachment trial will mean Trumpism will have committed the one unforgivable sin to Republicans: It'll make them losers. Without the White House and/or the Senate majority, Republicans will be in no position to enact any agenda, and if they lose the Senate, they won't even be able to stand in the Democrats' way (if Democrats are smart and eliminate, or at least reform, the legislative filibuster). If Republicans see that their embrace of Trump is poison at the voting booth, they will pretend they never supported him at all.

We must never forget -- or forgive.
posted by Gelatin at 12:01 PM on January 30, 2020 [13 favorites]


Who's paying Rudy? Giuliani's compensation brought up in Senate trial (NBC News)
Democratic Sens. Jack Reed, Tammy Duckworth and Kamala Harris asked who is paying Trump's personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, who is doing unpaid legal work for the president.

Reuters has reported Giuliani's indicted associate Lev Parnas paid him $500,000 for consulting related to Parnas' firm. Parnas and another indicted associate, Igor Fruman, worked with Giuliani is Ukraine as part of his efforts there.
Democratic senators want to know who's paying Giuliani (CBS News)
Giuliani told "CBS This Morning" in an interview [January, 29, 2020] he is still Mr. Trump's personal attorney and remains in contact with him. In a May 2019 letter revealed by the House Intelligence Committee earlier this month, Giuliani requested a meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and said he had the president's "knowledge and consent" to meet.
posted by katra at 12:02 PM on January 30, 2020 [6 favorites]


Watching the U.S. Senate (or at least the current Republican majority) move towards voting to make themselves an irrelevant adjunct to an authoritarian, omnipotent Executive Branch, the phrase "to fall on one's sword" came to mind. The Senate is on the verge of committing institutional suicide.

It isn't, though, because a Republican-held Senate will have no trouble reversing itself and exercising aggressive oversight over the next Democratic president, while a Democratic-held Senate will fall over itself to restore norms and comity. This theory of unchecked executive power over the legislature is absolutely a one-way street.

Meanwhile they get away with it. Trump, Pence, Mulvaney, Barr, McConnell...they all get away with it. And any further institutional investigation of Trump by the Democrats between now and the election will be seen as pointless or redundant because they decided to pick a single clear thing amidst a sea of shit to try and hold Trump accountable for and were prevented from doing so by lawyers who we know are lying and a Justice Department that we know is lying and senators who we know are lying (aided by a media who won't say that any of them are lying) .

The fact that there are call readouts with MBS and Erdogan and Putin KNOWN to be illegally stashed on a classified server and we will in all probability never know what they say or be able to mete out any measure of justice regarding them, for example, is just absolutely insane to me.
posted by Gadarene at 12:09 PM on January 30, 2020 [22 favorites]


So... what if a bunch of liberals register as Republican and work to invent/advance a "liberal Republican" insurgency within that party that has so many structural advantages? Particularly in places where the Democratic party has failed to compete?
posted by another_20_year_lurker at 12:14 PM on January 30, 2020


A Trump lawyer just called Suleimani a terrorist from the floor, so Im anticipating Bolton doing an about-face now.
posted by Slackermagee at 12:17 PM on January 30, 2020


So... what if a bunch of liberals register as Republican and work to invent/advance a "liberal Republican" insurgency within that party that has so many structural advantages?

The conservatives change the rules to prevent it, just like they do whenever they seem to be losing.
posted by Etrigan at 12:25 PM on January 30, 2020 [9 favorites]


what if a bunch of liberals register as Republican and work to invent/advance a "liberal Republican" insurgency within that party that has so many structural advantages?

So, like a green tea party? Gonna need some serious astroturfing. Maybe crowdfund that shit?
posted by flabdablet at 12:26 PM on January 30, 2020 [3 favorites]


Think how many times they have had to move their own goalposts. They know that they would lose in any objective judgement (and so they muster the power they have to prevent any such judgement.) Their power is indeed considerable but they're on the defensive and losing ground, which is the best we can currently hope for.

Since this Congress began session, the so-called "liberal media" has defaulted to an attitude of smug cynicism -- why bother investigating the President, Democrats, when even if you impeach him, the Republican Senate will just acquit?" To their shame, they criticized Democrats for the universal and utterly correct assumption that Republicans would of course put party before country.

But now that Donald Trump is impeached -- and let's pause again to thank the whistleblower, whom Rand Paul is at least correct in recognizing is responsible for Trump and the Republicans being in the painful position they are after having successfully gulled the media into ignoring Mueller's ample findings -- the media is confronting the actual rapacity and dishonor of the Republicans as it plays out against a case that the Democrats can easily make because Trump, after all, did it, as even his own defense basically concedes.

Trump doesn't want to be here. Mitch McConnell doesn't want to be here. Senate Republicans don't want to be here. All of them live in fear of the next news cycle and the next round of revelations, because they are all dirty, and the number of retirees suggests that many Republicans expect their party to lose the coming elections. The best they can do makes them look like corrupt jackasses, to avoid even more damaging information -- look at them; they all act like they're hiding something even worse -- from coming to light.

McConnell may bury the impeachment this weekend and Trump may get his victory lap at the SOTU after all, but while not as damaging as a petulant meltdown would have been, there is no way he would use the opportunity, as a smarter politician would, to "heal the nation's wounds" and "put the past in the past." I predict he will still lash out with grievances and further the partisan divisions that serve him so well (with the so-called "liberal media" dutifully providing false equivalence over any perceived Democratic slight). And he's unlikely to win any converts.

Trump's entire style of politics is tailor-made for a party that knows it isn't a majority, but in a democratic system, it's still a serious weakness that can be and has been defeated by loyal Americans uniting to oppose it.
posted by Gelatin at 12:26 PM on January 30, 2020 [13 favorites]


a Republican-held Senate will have no trouble reversing itself and exercising aggressive oversight over the next Democratic president, while a Democratic-held Senate will fall over itself to restore norms and comity.

I disagree. Yes, Democrats will work hard to return government to a sense of normalcy after Trump's abuses, but they are also very much aware that their electorate is not in a forgiving mood. Nancy Pelosi -- who is hardly the liberal firebrand conservatives characterize her as -- has been relentless in winning what victories she can and rubbing Trump's nose in his ... inadequacies. Even Chuck Schumer is standing up to Trump, if not as masterfully.

Of course Republicans will act in bad faith. Of course they don't really mean what they say. Of course their power is an obstacle to be worked around and diminished. But Democrats, as are all loyal Americans, are thoroughly disgusted with Trump and unlikely to forget now craven and openly depraved the Republican Party has revealed itself to be. (And that's entirely discounting the outrage of Republicans stealing Garland's SCOTUS seat, which Democrats are also rightly furious about.)
posted by Gelatin at 12:37 PM on January 30, 2020 [4 favorites]


So... what if a bunch of liberals register as Republican and work to invent/advance a "liberal Republican" insurgency within that party that has so many structural advantages?

Republican gerrymandering, financial backing from wealthy interests, and control of a potent propaganda arm encourages extremism to the right. Liberal Republicans are a thing of the past (not so conservative Democrats, even today) because they can't prevail a well-funded primary opponent.

As a result, Republicans get to be extremely conservative -- and have gotten more so -- in ways that the more big-tent Democrats can't afford to (even the more liberal of the 2018 House are generally New Deal Democrats). But the media's phony, view-from-nowhere sense of "balance" (and fear of being called "liberal" by Republicans who will do so anyway) distorts this picture, which also tilts to the Republicans' advantage.
posted by Gelatin at 12:48 PM on January 30, 2020 [2 favorites]


Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish: I think his dodge is that he was talking about when a "quid pro quo" would be acceptable, rather than "anything" such as the Watergate break-in, mass arrests of likely Democratic voters, or having the other candidate killed.

I have felt very mildly frustrated by the widespread characterization of his words as licensing any illegal action. His argumentation has been demented and extreme, and there's no question he intends the pro-dictator subtext, but the surface intent is just that a personal-political-gain motive can't be what makes something illegal or wrong.

This is still nonsense because of course it can. I have difficulty seeing how it doesn't excuse, for example, the diversion of money to his campaign funds.

One larger point of these tricks is to take advantage of the number of degrees involved; today's Republicans might not, verbally and to a man, excuse the break-in of the Watergate Hotel... but they would absolutely characterize the cover-up as so much gobbeldygook, wholly within the prerogative of the executive branch. (And the cover-up, rather than the burglary, is all Nixon was ever generally believed to have been invovled in anyway!)
posted by InTheYear2017 at 12:51 PM on January 30, 2020 [2 favorites]


I agree, Gelatin, and didn't mean to daydream about anything like a "liberal Republican" existing today. Instead, I meant to speculate more along the lines of what flabdablet phrased as a "Green Tea Party". Suppose a bunch of liberal Democrats in somewhere like, say, North Carolina all decided to coordinate and register as Republicans so they could participate in primaries and give some cover for a more moderate Republican politician than currently exists to run (and then all voted Democratic in the general, of course). Like, actually go to caucus meetings or whatever the process is, and campaign actively for any less-crazy Republicans.
posted by another_20_year_lurker at 1:04 PM on January 30, 2020 [1 favorite]


The time is better spent working towards open primaries or same-day registration in your state.
posted by cmfletcher at 1:08 PM on January 30, 2020 [16 favorites]


The time is better spent working towards open primaries or same-day registration in your state.

And competitive districts created without gerrymandering, which will encourage moderate candidates and not extreme ones.

Which, by the way, is why turnout everywhere and running up the score is so essential this year. YelloPain, in his rap / civics video, is quite correct in pointing out that Democrats being asleep at the switch in 2010 not only deprived Obama of a Congress he could work with but also allowed for more gerrymandering and voter suppression at the state level.

We have an opportunity to revers all that this year, and seriously cripple Republican power by doing nothing more than drawing fair districts.
posted by Gelatin at 1:13 PM on January 30, 2020 [17 favorites]


From the states that have open primaries for congressional and state-level races, the strategy of working towards open primaries doesn't seem to have been effective at moderating political partisanship and Republican extremism so far. (And though I would _really_ like to explore this idea and appreciate your engagement, I fear this is a derail, so we should probably not go too far down this path.)
posted by another_20_year_lurker at 1:22 PM on January 30, 2020 [1 favorite]


Mod note: Folks, let's maybe not stay off in the weeds about general political strategy. This is a thread about the impeachment proceedings, not US politics now and future writ large.
posted by cortex (staff) at 1:26 PM on January 30, 2020 [12 favorites]


Guardian: "A bipartisan group of senators -- Democrats Kyrsten Sinema and Joe Manchin and Republicans Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski -- have asked a question that appears to center on Rudy Giuliani.
The four senators asked Trump’s lawyers if the president could assure the American people that he would not deploy private citizens to carry out foreign policy unless sanctioned by the State Department.

Deputy White House counsel Patrick Philbin responded by pushing back against the notion that Giuliani, the president’s personal lawyer, was carrying out US foreign policy, insisting he was only a source of “information” about Trump’s thinking.

Philbin went on to argue the president was acting “within his authority” under Article II of the Constitution in regards to Giuliani’s efforts in Ukraine.
Guardian: "Deputy White House counsel Patrick Philbin argued that Rudy Giulaini was not carrying out US foreign policy in Ukraine but was rather considered a mere source of “information” about the president’s thinking.
However, the White House’s own memo on Trump’s July phone call with Volodymyr Zelenskiy clearly shows the US president asking his Ukrainian counterpart to confer with Giuliani about potential investigations of corruption.

Kathryn Watson (@kathrynw5) PHILBIN: "The first is I just want to make clear that there was no conduct of foreign policy being carried on here by a private person. "

THE PRESIDENT to Zelensky on July 25: pic.twitter.com/UiZ1Smp4d7 January 30, 2020
Schiff just referred to Philbin's statement as a "startling" admission that undermines the entire defense argument.
posted by katra at 1:26 PM on January 30, 2020 [21 favorites]


Lawyer says Trump not 'necessarily' pushing Biden investigation. Call summary shows otherwise. (NBC News)
Trump lawyer Patrick Philbin argued on Thursday that Trump wasn't "necessarily" asking for a probe of the Bidens, he just wanted to look into the firing of former top Ukrainian prosecutor Viktor Shokin

"All the president says is 'so if you can look into it, that sounds horrible, it sounds like a bad situation,'" Philbin said, pointing to the White House summary of Trump's July 25 call with Zelenskiy. "That's not calling for an investigation necessarily into Vice President Biden or his son, but the situation in which the prosecutor had been fired, which affected anti-corruption efforts in the Ukraine.'

"And President Zelenskiy responded by saying 'the issue of the investigation of the case is actually the issue of making sure to restore the honesty, so we will take care of that,'" Philbin added.

Shokin, who had investigated the energy company that Hunter Biden sat on the board of, was seen as ineffective by the international community and pushed out for not more aggressively tackling corruption. Trump and allies have accused Biden of acting with his son's interest in mind when, in 2016, he called on Ukraine to oust Shokin, threatening to withhold loan guarantees if Ukraine did not remove the prosecutor.

His call, on behalf of the Obama administration, was backed by a number of other countries and international authorities. [...] In the call summary, Trump said to Zelenskiy: "The other thing, there's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great."

"Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it ... It sounds horrible to me," he continued.
posted by katra at 1:32 PM on January 30, 2020 [2 favorites]


Large number of GOP senators just submitted another whistleblower fishing expedition. And insulted some of Schiff's staff with innuendo.
posted by Harry Caul at 1:41 PM on January 30, 2020 [6 favorites]


Schiff just referred to Philbin's statement as a "startling" admission that undermines the entire defense argument.

ALSO: Those Senators are pleading for a way out of this and Philbin just let them know there's no way out that goes through the White House.
posted by notyou at 1:50 PM on January 30, 2020 [12 favorites]


White House's Philbin suggests president will keep using Giuliani as international 'confidante' (NBC News)
Philbin said, "There was no conduct of foreign policy being carried on here by a private person," and "many presidents have relied on people who are trusted confidantes." Philbin added "there would not be anything improper" about continuing to use a private citizen in the same way in the future.

As for the senators' concern that conduct could potentially violate the Logan Act, which bars private citizens from intervening without authorization in disputes between the United States and foreign governments, Philbin said, "the president's policy is always to abide by the laws."

House manager Adam Schiff called Philbin's comments a "breathtaking admission," given Trump's lawyers have maintained the president withheld aid to Ukraine as a matter of policy.

"What president's counsel said was that no foreign policy was being conducted by a private party here. That is, Rudy Giuliani was not conducting U.S. foreign policy. Rudy Giuliani was not conducting policy," Schiff said. "The investigations Giuliani was charged with trying to get Ukraine to announce into Joe Biden, into this Russian propaganda theory, they just admitted, was not part of policy."

It was, Schiff said, "a domestic political errand," referring to the testimony of ex-White House Russia expert Fiona Hill.
posted by katra at 2:11 PM on January 30, 2020 [12 favorites]


Schiff says Trump team's claim that Giuliani wasn't conducting foreign policy "undermined their entire argument" (CBS News)
Philbin said he assumed that question referenced Giuliani. "Ambassador Volker was clear that he understood Mr. Giuliani just to be a source of information for the president," Philbin claimed.

Schiff: “They have now acknowledged that the person in charge of this [Rudy Giuliani] was not conducting policy. That is a startling admission.” https://t.co/kfaqEJJajc pic.twitter.com/078mN8Nojk
— CBS News (@CBSNews) January 30, 2020

Philbin would not commit the administration to keeping private citizens out of foreign policy, but said the president's "policy is always to abide by the laws." Schiff seized on Philbin's words, asking what Giuliani was doing if not conducting foreign policy. "They have just undermined their entire argument," Schiff said, adding that Giuliani must have then been conducting a "personal political errand."
posted by katra at 2:18 PM on January 30, 2020 [12 favorites]


Schiff just referred to Philbin's statement as a "startling" admission that undermines the entire defense argument.

Schiff also explicitly referred to consideration of the SOTU in suggesting witness testimony be limited to one week. He's arguing rings around Team Trump, but I predict Dershowitz will remain a TV personality for some reason despite being pantsed on live TV.
posted by Gelatin at 2:55 PM on January 30, 2020 [5 favorites]


We, or at least I, have focused more on the drumming up false investigations into a competitor angle, but this news puts some extra focus on the whole 2016 disinfo parallel goal.

Seems Furman and Manafort go way back.
posted by bcd at 3:07 PM on January 30, 2020 [1 favorite]


Can someone explain to me like I’m stupid what the GOP obsession with the whistleblower is? I assume they know who it is at that point and want to “out” them so they can then claim that they are a never-Trump dirty democrat. But then what? How is the whistleblower even relevant at this point in that everything they reported has been verified by multiple first-hand witnesses? I’m just confused by the end game with this strategy.
posted by misterpatrick at 3:16 PM on January 30, 2020 [1 favorite]


They want to send a message to any future potential whistleblowers.
posted by Rykey at 3:18 PM on January 30, 2020 [29 favorites]


Can someone explain to me like I’m stupid what the GOP obsession with the whistleblower is?

It's a beat-down as an example to any others who might feel so bold.
posted by sjswitzer at 3:19 PM on January 30, 2020 [7 favorites]


At the same time, it's echoing Trump's stated policy that if you come at me, I come back at you ten-fold. In that sense, it's a message to the master that you are his servant.
posted by sjswitzer at 3:21 PM on January 30, 2020 [1 favorite]


want to “out” them so they can then claim that they are a never-Trump dirty democrat.

That’s always been their strategy. Literally any fact can be nullified by blaming the liberal media.
posted by 1970s Antihero at 3:22 PM on January 30, 2020 [1 favorite]


What's fascinating to me is that the GOP senators probably hate each other more than they hate the Democrats. I mean, that's just the game, right? But surely every GOP senator hates Rand Paul almost as much as they hate Ted Cruz. So there's an aspect of this where Rand Paul is preening himself to get more respect from his peers. It's pathetic, really.
posted by sjswitzer at 3:27 PM on January 30, 2020 [1 favorite]


Can someone explain to me like I’m stupid what the GOP obsession with the whistleblower is?

They think that by exposing the whistleblower they’ll prove that the person is a liberal plant intent on taking down Trump at any cost.

What not a single one of these morons has thought through is that punishing snitches is exactly what drug dealers and mobsters do when they’re trying to cover up a crime.
posted by Big Al 8000 at 3:27 PM on January 30, 2020 [2 favorites]


If logic had anything to do with it, the politics of the whistleblower would have no bearing. It kicked off the events but all of the charges are based on other evidence than the whistleblower's complaint. If it had not been amply corroborated, we would not be here. This is sheer thuggish BS and I applaud John Roberts for having no part of it.
posted by sjswitzer at 3:32 PM on January 30, 2020 [3 favorites]


NPR, November 2019: The Whistleblower Complaint Has Largely Been Corroborated. Here's How
...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.
Ceterum autem censeo Trump delenda est
posted by kirkaracha at 3:34 PM on January 30, 2020 [2 favorites]


Re: whistleblower reveal attempts.
Per katra's WaPo link above, "The only knowledge that we have, that I have of this, comes from public reports,” said White House Deputy Counsel Patrick Philbin. “I gather there is a news report in some publication that suggests a name for the whistleblower, suggests where he worked, that he worked at that time while detailed to the NSC staff for then-Vice President Biden."

Sure, Republicans and their leader want to punish this particular person for coming forward, and to dissuade future whistle-blowers, but they'd also love to cast doubt on this person's impartiality. Biden is the specific "liberal" association, and the Republicans are using their trial time to campaign against him.
posted by Iris Gambol at 3:35 PM on January 30, 2020


Overwhelming Confirmation of Whistleblower Complaint: An Annotation
As the following analysis clearly demonstrates, an overwhelming percentage of the whistleblower’s complaint in Ukrainegate has been confirmed by U.S. government documents, witness statements, and independent investigative reports. We highlight all the key portions of the complaint that have been confirmed or corroborated, and we include links to the sources confirming or corroborating the information.
Ceterum autem censeo Trump delenda est
posted by kirkaracha at 3:36 PM on January 30, 2020 [10 favorites]


Schiff also explicitly referred to consideration of the SOTU in suggesting witness testimony be limited to one week. He's arguing rings around Team Trump

It's funny how when one actually has convictions and has spent the time to consider the actions they are taking that they can make showboaters just look embarrassing.

In either intro to Philosophy or.... Ethics, maybe?... Philosophy vs. Rhetoric was discussed/defined.

Philosophers, literally by that title, were considered lovers of wisdom. Plato (or Socrates. that distinction is a derail) said the best argument they had was always the one they lost because they learned something.

Rhetoricians, on the other hand, were lovers of winning the argument. They used rhetoric (duh) and any trick in the book to prove they were smarter than every one else in the room.

When one looks at it through those lenses, it seems pretty clear who is standing behind their words and who is saying, "I am going to win this argument because I can."

I have also never been a fan of High School debate for this reason. memail me if I am wrong.
posted by a non mouse, a cow herd at 3:47 PM on January 30, 2020 [6 favorites]


Rhetoricians is a kind word for Sophists. :) Which I prefer, as Sophists used rhetoric and any other "trick in the book" not so much to "prove they were smarter" (an acceptable side-effect) but to win the argument in service of wielding more power.

Republicans are today's Sophists, some Sith-level, many decidedly ... not.
posted by riverlife at 3:57 PM on January 30, 2020 [12 favorites]


Roberts reads Warren's question asking whether presiding over a sham trial contributes to the loss of legitimacy of the Chief Justice. Schumer parlays that to impugn the GOP rather than the Chief Justice.

Twitter is all, "Warren pantsed Roberts" but I disagree. He's already rejected questions, asking that they at least be reworded. He could have asked that this one be reworded. Instead he just read it. It's as if Warren gave him the words to speak that he would not have been allowed to speak for himself.

I don't agree with the man's politics, but he must be nauseated to have to preside over these sham proceedings. This must be excruciating for him. And, FWIW, I hope and expect that it will steel him to do what is necessary in the future.
posted by sjswitzer at 4:04 PM on January 30, 2020 [16 favorites]


Highlights from Alan Dershowitz’s interview on CNN:
  • Alan Dershowitz has not been misunderstood; he has been deliberately quoted out of context by people like you, Wolf Blitzer, and your network should be ashamed
  • Alan Dershowitz didn’t say what he said (presidents can do anything if they think it will help with re-election in the public interest), he made the eminently reasonable and entirely hypothetical observation that just because a president might be slightly and partially motivated by his political prospects, it doesn’t turn legal and benign conduct into criminal and impeachable conduct
  • Alan Dershowitz made this observation because the House Managers had claimed the opposite, but you won’t play that clip will you Wolf
  • Alan Dershowitz has no political bias and despite slapping Mike Pompeo on the back for harassing an NPR journalist earlier this week, Alan Dershowitz is a liberal Democrat who is even more left-wing than you, Wolf
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 4:07 PM on January 30, 2020 [10 favorites]


Once I saw the rumor that the whistleblower was on Biden's staff when he was VP it became crystal clear to me why they want to reveal their identity so badly. If this is true, it's just the kind of thing that would be a great subhead 1 immediately after the headline SENATE DECLARES TRUMP INNOCENT.
posted by feloniousmonk at 4:08 PM on January 30, 2020 [2 favorites]


If Rand Paul had actual conviction in his righteousness, he'd have just blasted it onto Twitter or on a live interview on TV. Some way that is irrevocable. Instead, he's hoping to hide behind "the Chief Justice said it, not me," because he *knows* he's in the wrong.

This helped me figure out the whole 50 for 50 nay vote possibility.

I did not (and still remain) largely unconvinced that it will become 50-50. Maybe 1 R senator is allowed to vote no.

But, eruption's comment about hiding behind Roberts made me see a no lose situation:

In the case of a 50-50 vote, where Roberts gives the final ruling on whether witnesses should be alloweed, any of these may apply:

1. 3 "moderate" Republicans in purple states get to vote for witnesses, come across as bipartisan, to help their election.

1a. Roberts says no witnesses, in which those Rs that voted yes say, "we voted for the interests of the nation. Roberts, rightfully, chose otherwise. We thought it should be his call."

1b. Roberts says yes to witnesses. Rs immediately scream "NOW EVEN THE SC IS PARTISAN/POLITICAL" neglecting to mention that he was nominated by GWB and, when appointed, was immediately appointed as CSCJ. This offers cover for pretty much every R and is my hellfire scenario.

2. From either of these, R senate does what they intend, which, obviously, is to acquit. Either way they have justification:

2a: Roberts agreed no witnesses. Therefore our case is proven. Let's vote.
2b: Roberts disagreed, so let's follow his rules. Ok. We heard the testimony. Do we have 67? (I would be curious if they could do it as a voice vote.) No? Ok. We even followed the partisan/political AND STILL acquit.

I am distressed. My only hope is this lasts at least through SOTU bc who the hell knows what happens then.
posted by a non mouse, a cow herd at 4:13 PM on January 30, 2020 [3 favorites]


Now we know Dershowitz is a self-described “liberal Democrat” it’s not too late for him to win the Iowa caucus on Monday
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 4:16 PM on January 30, 2020 [8 favorites]


In the case of a 50-50 vote, where Roberts gives the final ruling on whether witnesses should be allowed

Even that is unclear. The Constitution gives tie-breaking votes to the President of the Senate (Pence), not specifying if they are also provided to the Chief Justice.
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 4:21 PM on January 30, 2020


If Rand Paul had actual conviction in his righteousness, he'd have just blasted it onto Twitter or on a live interview on TV. Some way that is irrevocable. Instead, he's hoping to hide behind "the Chief Justice said it, not me," because he *knows* he's in the wrong.

Rand Paul has in fact "blasted" his question onto Twitter, in which he names two individuals.
posted by snuffleupagus at 4:26 PM on January 30, 2020 [3 favorites]


Speaking of the SOTU, why does a House that has impeached the President invite said Impeachee to speak to them--and the nation on live telestream--about the state of the union, or anything else? They've impeached him, he has been found, ahem, lacking, for what on earth do they need to have him come to their House and viciously preen? Let him submit his SOTU as a Mad Lib, or tweet it.
posted by riverlife at 4:28 PM on January 30, 2020 [9 favorites]


On the one hand, it's being bigger than him. On the other hand, it's letting him feed on his shoe. It's win-win, really.
posted by sjswitzer at 4:35 PM on January 30, 2020




GOP Sen. Lamar Alexander says he will announce decision on witnesses tonight (CNN)
Key GOP Sen. Lamar Alexander, a swing vote, told CNN he's going to announce his decision on witnesses tonight, a decision that will make clear whether the Senate trial will come to a swift conclusion or if it will lead to an unpredictable phase over witnesses and documents.

"I'm going to make my decision after the last question tonight," Alexander said.

Asked if he would announce it tonight, he said, "Yes."
posted by katra at 4:36 PM on January 30, 2020 [3 favorites]


Mod note: Couple deleted; let's please stick to impeachment in here, if there's other big news worth discussing it can get its own thread.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 4:44 PM on January 30, 2020 [2 favorites]


Trump lawyer says Pence aide's classified testimony relates to conversation with foreign head of state (NBC News)
A classified document containing testimony from an aide to Vice President Mike Pence, Jennifer Williams, was classified because it related to a conversation with a foreign head of state, a Trump defense lawyer said Thursday.

"My understanding is that that document is derivatively classified because it refers to another document a transcript that was originally classified,” said lawyer Patrick Philbin in response to a question from Sen. Tammy Baldwin, D-Wis. [...]

Democrats have been calling on the White House to declassify the document, but they haven’t done so.

Williams, a State Department aide detailed to Pence's office, "requested in writing an early departure," Pence chief of staff Marc Short said Thursday evening. "Ms. Williams’ original scheduled departure date was the end of March. The Office of the Vice President is evaluating her request."
Pence aide who testified in impeachment inquiry to leave VP's office (Politico)
Williams was one of the few White House officials who listened to the July 25 phone call between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky that led to Trump’s impeachment. She said that Trump’s efforts to pressure Ukraine to investigate his political opponents were “unusual and inappropriate,” and “shed some light on possible other motivations” for the president’s order to freeze military aid to the U.S. ally.

She also provided investigators with a firsthand account of Pence’s Sept. 1 meeting with Zelensky, and testified that the very first question Zelensky asked Pence was about the military aid. Williams also submitted additional classified evidence to House impeachment investigators about a phone call between Pence and Zelensky, according to House impeachment manager Adam Schiff. [...]

Schiff brought up Williams’ supplemental testimony again on Wednesday, confirming that it contains information about Russia’s role in promoting the unsubstantiated theory that Ukraine rather than the Kremlin interfered in the 2016 election.
posted by katra at 4:45 PM on January 30, 2020 [2 favorites]


Democrats seek to ease concerns over time needed for testimony, documents (CBS News)
Schumer submitted a question for the House managers asking them to elaborate on Schiff's suggestion that additional witnesses be deposed in one week and reassure senators that having witnesses and documents will minimally impede on the business of the Senate.

Schiff, speaking on behalf of the managers, said the documents House Democrats have subpoenaed have already been collected and could be "readily provided" to the Senate. The California Democrat also said House managers and Mr. Trump's lawyers would agree on a finite number of witnesses who are "relevant and probative of the issues" to depose during the one-week period.

"Neither side would have an endless capacity to call witnesses," he said.

Schiff said that if there was dispute over a witness, the decision on whether to hear from that individual would fall to the chief justice. Additionally, if there was a dispute over a passage in a document and the White House sought to invoke a privilege, that, too, would fall to the chief justice.

"This can be done very quickly," Schiff said. "This can be done I think effectively."

Schiff called for a "reasonable accommodation," that being the one week during which senators would "continue with the business in the Senate."

Then, once depositions are completed, both the House managers and Mr. Trump's legal team would present their findings from the testimony and the Senate could decide to call witnesses to appear in person.
posted by katra at 5:09 PM on January 30, 2020 [3 favorites]


Murkowski asks Trump defense: why not call Bolton? (WaPo)
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), who is being closely watched as one of the most potentially pivotal GOP senators on the question of witnesses, asked Trump’s defense point-blank Thursday night: “Why should this body not call in Ambassador Bolton?” [...]

“This dispute about material facts weighs in favor of calling additional witnesses with direct knowledge,” her question stated, as read by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., challenging Trump’s team to argue against that assumption.

Defense attorney Patrick Philbin gave a procedural answer, arguing that the Senate shouldn’t set a precedent that the House can deliver a “half-baked, not finished” impeachment case to the Senate and expect it to fill in the holes.

“The primary consideration here is, the House could have pursued Ambassador Bolton… They chose not to subpoena him,” Philbin said. “It will do grave damage to this body to say that the proceedings in the House don’t have to really be complete, you don’t have to subpoena the witnesses that you think are necessary to prove your case, you don’t really have to put it all together before you bring the package here.”

Philbin also tried to dismiss the seriousness of Bolton’s allegations — while also effectively acknowledging that there was reason to verify them.

“It’s simply alleged that the manuscript says that,” Philbin said. “Ambassador Bolton hasn’t come out to verify that to my knowledge.”
posted by katra at 5:45 PM on January 30, 2020 [8 favorites]


The Ukrainian “Drug Deal” and All the President’s Lawyers (Kathleen Clark, Just Security)
A drug deal, by definition, is illegal. So when former National Security Adviser John Bolton directed Fiona Hill on July 10 to tell Deputy White House Counsel John Eisenberg that Bolton was “not part of whatever drug deal Sondland and Mulvaney are cooking up,” it was to get the lawyer to protect Bolton – and the U.S. government – from the illegal scheme he believed Amb. Gordon Sondland and Mick Mulvaney were concocting.

There’s a distinction between appropriate professional zeal — helping a client achieve lawful goals — and unethical conduct — assisting a client in a crime or its cover-up. This is a distinction that has tripped up high-level officials in the past, as illustrated by the 14 lawyers disbarred or suspended and the 11 lawyers convicted of crimes in Watergate.

Today, the emerging picture of how key lawyers in the Trump administration are operating bears a striking similarity. Eisenberg – along with other lawyers in the White House, the Office of Management of Budget (OMB) and the Department of Justice (DoJ) – appear to be acting more like operatives helping to facilitate an illegal scheme, rather than lawyers with an obligation to end it.

When these lawyers were asked to address potentially illegal conduct by government officials, they took steps to cover it up. When they were called upon to act as a legal gatekeeper, they gave their blessing to violations of law or ignored persistent warnings. When they were approached for legal advice, they distorted the law rather than explain how it actually works. Acting more like Trump’s co-conspirators than lawyers, they failed to protect their true client, the federal government. Government lawyers, like corporate lawyers, owe a duty of loyalty to the organization — the city, state or federal government they serve — not to its mayor, governor or president.

White House Counsel

Let’s start with the White House lawyers.
posted by katra at 6:07 PM on January 30, 2020 [7 favorites]


Defense attorney Patrick Philbin gave a procedural answer, arguing that the Senate shouldn’t set a precedent that the House can deliver a “half-baked, not finished” impeachment case to the Senate and expect it to fill in the holes.

If heard other GOP shills use this "defense", too, but in this case it really begs the follow-up question, "Are you asking the House to go back and submit additional articles of impeachment?"
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 6:31 PM on January 30, 2020 [7 favorites]


Former senator calls on Republicans to allow witnesses. (NYT)
John Warner, a Republican elder statesman who served for 30 years in the Senate, called on his fellow Republicans on Thursday night to bring “relevant witnesses and documents” into President Trump’s impeachment trial.

“As a lifelong Republican and retired member of the U.S. Senate, who once served as a juror in a presidential impeachment trial, I am mindful of the difficult responsibilities those currently serving now shoulder,” Mr. Warner, 92, wrote in a statement.

“I respectfully urge the Senate to be guided by the rules of evidence and follow our nation’s norms, precedents and institutions to uphold the Constitution and the rule of law by welcoming relevant witnesses and documents as part of this impeachment trial,” he added. [...]

“Not long ago, senators of both major parties always worked to accommodate fellow colleagues with differing points of view to arrive at outcomes that would best serve the nation’s interests,” he wrote. “If witnesses are suppressed in this trial and a majority of Americans are left believing the trial was a sham, I can only imagine the lasting damage done to the Senate, and to our fragile national consensus.”
posted by katra at 6:32 PM on January 30, 2020 [10 favorites]


SOTU

The Dems own the chamber. Given what's going on with the trial, the Dems in the House should just boo and jeer at him and laugh at every applause line until he leaves. It won't take too long, there's nothing that unravels Trump faster than being treated like the farce he is.

Sadly, they lack the gumption, there's still this weird shared falsehood that rancor and conflict have never prevailed in Congress at various points in US history, and Pelosi still has delusions that a high road exists in this axe fight.
posted by snuffleupagus at 6:33 PM on January 30, 2020 [29 favorites]


Guardian: "With the trial back in session, House manager Adam Schiff said that the Trump team’s justification for not calling witnesses makes no sense.
The argument that “‘if their case is so good, let them try it without witnesses,’ is not a valid argument,” Schiff said. “That wouldn’t fly before any judge in America and it shouldn’t fly here either.”

The Trump administration made clear that it wouldn’t cooperate with Congress’ impeachment investigation, Schiff said — making a case for the Senate to get the evidence the House wasn’t able to.
Moderate Democrats ask why House managers didn’t negotiate with White House on documents (WaPo)
Democratic senators from conservative states, Joe Manchin (W.Va.), Doug Jones (Ala.) and Krysten Sinema (Ariz.) pressed the House managers on why they didn’t launch formal negotiations with the White House over documents and witnesses.

Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) said plainly that the president made it clear the White House wasn’t going to participate and would fight all subpoenas, calling it a “blanket obstruction.”

“The president’s marching order were, ‘go pound sand,’ ” Schiff said.
posted by katra at 6:58 PM on January 30, 2020 [9 favorites]


Murkowski, Alexander and Sullivan sign onto question suggesting Trump's actions aren't impeachable (CBS News)
The senators submitted a question asking, "Assuming for argument's sake that Bolton were to testify in the light most favorable to the allegations contained in the articles of impeachment, isn't it true that the allegations still would not rise to the level of an impeachable offense, and that therefore, for this and other reasons, his testimony would add nothing to this case?" The White House counsel, as would be expected, argued the president's actions would not be impeachable.
Key GOP swing votes ask if Bolton's testimony would change trial (NBC News)
"Assuming for the sake of argument that ambassador Bolton would come and testify the way "The New York Times" article alleges, the way his book describes the conversation," Philbin said, referring to an unpublished Bolton book in which he alleged that Trump linked aid for Ukraine to Biden investigations. "Then it is correct that even if that happened, even if he gave that testimony, the articles of impeachment still wouldn't rise to an impeachable offense."

He added, "Even if everything you allege is true, even if John Bolton would say it's true, that is not an impeachable offense under the constitutional standard. Because the way you've tried to define the constitutional standard, this theory of abuse of power is far too malleable."

Schiff fired back that Bolton's testimony would undeniably be pertinent because it would underscore the House's evidence alleging a link between the withholding of military aid and Ukraine investigating the Bidens. "The truth is staring us in the eyes. We know why they don't want John Bolton to testify. It's not because we don't really know what happened here. They just don't want the American people to hear it in all of its ugly graphic detail," Schiff said.
posted by katra at 7:37 PM on January 30, 2020 [4 favorites]


Collins to vote in support of witnesses (CNN)

Murkowski: “I am going to reflect on what I’ve heard” (CNN)

Key Republican says he'll announce his decision on witnesses within the hour (CNN)
Sen. Lamar Alexander said his statement will come within the hour. He said he has told Mitch McConnell his decision.

Asked if it was a difficult decision, he said he will let it speak for itself.
posted by katra at 8:03 PM on January 30, 2020 [1 favorite]


Well, there it is, Alexander's a "no". Barring something completely miraculous, that's the end of it. No witnesses, sham trial wraps up tomorrow, SotU victory lap next on the agenda.

Time for a drink.
posted by bcd at 8:04 PM on January 30, 2020 [8 favorites]


Here's Alexander's bullshit spin.
posted by bcd at 8:05 PM on January 30, 2020 [4 favorites]


Let us note that arguing a key witness shouldn’t testify because they surely won’t say anything incriminating is a novel legal position that would be treated somewhat differently in a traditional trial
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 8:05 PM on January 30, 2020 [20 favorites]


Collins to vote in support of witnesses (CNN)

Well, that clinches it. There absolutely will not be witnesses. McConnell has taken his head count and given his blessing to Collins, who is facing a tough re-election. She would not be announcing tonight, this far in advance, if she hadn't first cleared it with McConnell.
posted by JackFlash at 8:07 PM on January 30, 2020 [25 favorites]


I suppose it's still technically possible we get Romney, Collins and Murkowski and no defections from, say, Jones and it comes out 50-50 with Roberts to decide. But I think JackFlash has called it correctly above. Collins wouldn't be announcing her 'yes' unless McConnell has the votes.
posted by bcd at 8:11 PM on January 30, 2020 [3 favorites]


Maybe they will have a John-McCain-thumbs-down moment. Certainly the three of them have nothing to lose but their dignity.

lol, "dignity"
posted by tivalasvegas at 8:15 PM on January 30, 2020 [10 favorites]


Collins and Murkowski take a long time to negotiate relection payola with McConnell.
posted by benzenedream at 8:23 PM on January 30, 2020 [5 favorites]


Lamar Alexander, a key GOP swing vote, will vote against witnesses in impeachment trial (Li Zhou, Vox)
Alexander made his announcement late Thursday — effectively deciding the outcome of a vote on witnesses.
See the twitter thread linked by bcd.
posted by ZeusHumms at 8:25 PM on January 30, 2020


Lamar?
posted by notyou at 8:45 PM on January 30, 2020 [2 favorites]


it comes out 50-50 with Roberts to decide.

Roberts doesn't cast deciding votes. Any ties are resolved in the negative. (p.22)
posted by snuffleupagus at 8:49 PM on January 30, 2020 [2 favorites]


Roberts doesn't cast deciding votes. Any ties are resolved in the negative. (p.22)

Your citation says that the Chief Justice would not be expected to vote. That's a long way from a flat negative. There's a footnote to this which says
95 During the trial of President Andrew Johnson, the Chief Justice voted on two occasions to break a tie. This was controversial at the time, and he did not vote in all instances of ties.
So, there's no barrier to the Chief Justice voting on a tie, and in fact there is precedent for it. It's a moot point, however, because the Republicans will not let there be a tie.
posted by Joe in Australia at 8:59 PM on January 30, 2020 [4 favorites]


Witness Deadlock in Senate Could Put Roberts in Tiebreaker Spot (Bloomberg)
Roberts has largely shied away from action that could sway the outcome of the impeachment, and casting the tiebreaking vote on witnesses would be one of the most consequential moments of the trial. There is historical precedent for a trial’s presiding officer to rule on a draw: in 1868, Chief Justice Salmon Chase twice cast votes to resolve procedural deadlocks in the impeachment trial of President Andrew Johnson. The Senate twice voted down efforts to strip Chase of that power. [...]

The Senate’s impeachment rules, adopted in 1986, leave open the possibility that Roberts could decide in the case of a draw. Usually the vice president casts the tiebreaking vote in Senate draws on legislation or confirmations.

If Roberts does weigh in, the impeachment rules allow the Senate to overrule him with a simple majority vote. That could create a situation in which a senator votes to call witnesses, but then votes against Roberts’ tiebreaking decision, effectively moving the trial to a speedier resolution. [...]

Roberts is likely to consult Senate parliamentarian, Elizabeth MacDonough, on any decision regarding his authority in the trial.
posted by katra at 9:01 PM on January 30, 2020 [1 favorite]


The senators submitted a question asking, "Assuming for argument's sake that Bolton were to testify in the light most favorable to the allegations contained in the articles of impeachment, isn't it true that the allegations still would not rise to the level of an impeachable offense, and that therefore, for this and other reasons, his testimony would add nothing to this case?" The White House counsel, as would be expected, argued the president's actions would not be impeachable.

So am I reading this right that Murkowski, Alexander, Sullivan, and friends are effectively saying that even if we believe all of the allegations from the House (what the most favorable Bolton testimony could potentially amount to), then it still wouldn't rise to an impeachable offense, hence we don't need to bother with the conviction trial? Meaning it's OK to block congressionally approved aid for allies at war, and then use it to extort the ally for election favors. WTF is wrong with these people?!?!?
posted by p3t3 at 9:10 PM on January 30, 2020 [14 favorites]


That's right, and in so-doing they implicated themselves in the conspiracy.
posted by sjswitzer at 9:22 PM on January 30, 2020 [4 favorites]


Once again, Collins proves she can always be counted on to do the right thing when it doesn’t matter.
posted by darkstar at 9:27 PM on January 30, 2020 [13 favorites]


So in the end, it's up to Roberts?
posted by ZeusHumms at 10:07 PM on January 30, 2020


No. The end already happened.
posted by kerf at 10:25 PM on January 30, 2020


This makes me feel sick. The senate has ruled its ok to break the law if the president thinks in the nations interest that he remain president.

So how exactly will he be removed from office now? Vote him out? He will stay because even though he’s breaking the law, he thinks he should still be president. And unless we get a significant margin of the senate so in theory they take office before he’s supposed to step down and even that’s slim given that the justice department is just as corrupt.
posted by mrzarquon at 10:42 PM on January 30, 2020 [9 favorites]


The senate has ruled its ok to break the law if the president thinks in the nations interest that he remain president.

Never thought suspension of elections seemed possible, back in 2016. Maybe the gun nuts are right and we need to arm ourselves — it does seem to be getting that serious.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 11:38 PM on January 30, 2020 [4 favorites]


Never thought suspension of elections seemed possible, back in 2016.

Who would stop him?
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 11:55 PM on January 30, 2020 [3 favorites]


It did seem there were more checks on power in his first year with the career officials on staff, Jeff Sessions recusing himself, the courts knocking down early iterations of his worst policies, and the Senate at least appearing more cool-headed than the GOP House.

There were at least a bare minimum of checks, but those seem to have fallen apart in the past year. For all the right's talk of letting voters/elections decide things, they still took a hard right turn after the '18 blue wave.
posted by p3t3 at 12:13 AM on January 31, 2020 [2 favorites]


Not fallen apart. Been disassembled.
posted by Too-Ticky at 12:39 AM on January 31, 2020 [16 favorites]


Maybe the gun nuts are right and we need to arm ourselves

That argument might have more legs were it not for the indisputable fact that we are the ones the gun nuts have always seen a need to arm themselves against.

The gun nuts have always seen government as The Problem, and they correctly perceive Trump and his gang of enablers and sycophants as fundamentally opposed to the whole notion of government.
posted by flabdablet at 12:52 AM on January 31, 2020 [3 favorites]


The gun nuts are also going to have the upper hand if it ever does come to the firefights they've been having wet dreams about fighting, because they've been training for that for longer.

The way we beat this pack of fucking clowns is with our superior ability to work together and organize for the common good. Because the defining characteristic of the Right is an obsession with gaining power at the expense of every other purpose. They have no fucking clue what to do with power once they have it, so instead of wielding it for good ends they just burn it all on making up imaginary enemies to blame for the consequences of their own incompetence.

No enterprise composed entirely of people who believe in their own bullshit has any kind of long term future, and the present US administration does appear to be composed entirely of people who do exactly that.

The abuses they will find ways to perpetrate by using the very power structures they're busily trying to dismantle will do incalculable amounts of damage before they manage to tear them apart altogether, but tear them apart they surely will. Trump has been trying to saw off the yardarm he's perched on for his whole life, and he will inevitably run his administration aground on the rocks of reality just as he's done with his businesses and just as every fascist before him has always done as well.

We don't need a revolution any more, because the work of dismantling existing power structures is already being done for us by the idiots in charge. What we need is the ground-level, grass roots organizing work that is always what it takes to rebuild a civil society after a revolution. If we just take the losses and get on with that work, we can surely achieve something like a workable politics again for the three generations it will take for most of us to forget once again that fascism is even a thing.

So, take socialism as a given. Act as if it's already been achieved. Because the consensus for it really has been, at least amongst those who have the motivation and ability and the numbers to implement it; all that remains is the long and difficult work of the actual implementation.

Let a million grass roots run in under the astroturf as it burns and rots and falls to pieces under the sun.
posted by flabdablet at 1:27 AM on January 31, 2020 [35 favorites]


Never thought suspension of elections seemed possible, back in 2016.

Who would stop him?


the states are responsible for the holding of elections, so those states that didn't want to cancel them would simply proceed
posted by pyramid termite at 2:06 AM on January 31, 2020 [5 favorites]


Once again, Collins proves she can always be counted on to do the right thing when it doesn’t matter.

Collins is facing a real challenge for her seat this year. Democrats need to make sure this message is heard loud and clear -- Collins' announcement came as Alexander announced his opposition. McConnell may have given her a "hall pass," but only because he didn't need her vote. The question is, do the voters of Maine want a senator who basically votes the way Mitch McConnell tells her to?
posted by Gelatin at 2:55 AM on January 31, 2020 [15 favorites]


The idea that anyone would "cancel" an election is, in a perverse way, a kind of wish fulfillment on at least two levels. First, that they may cross a line so bright that anyone can see it; like a film where a child has been unable to convince adults about a monster, but in act three the monster finally shows himself. (But if the monster's powers include invisibility, why do so?) Second, a canceled election will implicitly let us off the hook for action -- no getting out the vote when no vote is to be had at all, right? It would seem like the next step is grabbing muskets, and most of us are gun-shy, so there you go, no difficult choices ahead, just collective knowledge of dystopia.

Far more plausible is interference with basically no upper limit. In addition to a repeat of what Russia did in 2016, Republicans might tear up registrations for all naturalized citizens (just as they've been de-naturalizing them), summon the national guard to "protect" elections in major cities, or even hack votes electronically where possible (the most effective way being to hack the databases of registrations to prevent votes in the first place).

But I guarantee that after November has come and gone, it will remain Republican orthodoxy that something called "an election" happened, and the news media will agree. None of them are going to tear down the curtain and show us the little man behind it. Putin, Saddam, and other dictators held and hold elections; countries without even the pretense of democracy can probably be counted on a single hand.
posted by InTheYear2017 at 6:24 AM on January 31, 2020 [17 favorites]


The appearance of democracy seems to have worldwide appeal.
posted by ZeusHumms at 6:30 AM on January 31, 2020 [1 favorite]


Shorter Senator Alexander: Yes, he’s guilty. Yes, he’s unrepentant. Yes, he’s still trying to steal the election. Now let’s act responsibly and move on from this distasteful business!
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 6:30 AM on January 31, 2020 [31 favorites]


Shorter Senator Alexander: Yes, he’s guilty. Yes, he’s unrepentant. Yes, he’s still trying to steal the election. Now let’s act responsibly and move on from this distasteful business!

Yeah, the incredible thing about Trump's so-called defense is that it now admits everything and then pretends the Senate isn't responsible for imposing any consequences.

The media is often bamboozled by moving goalposts, but I wonder if this frank admission of corruption will play as well with loyal Americans.
posted by Gelatin at 6:41 AM on January 31, 2020 [5 favorites]


Collins is just going by her usual playbook. Make sure that things will go right for the GOP and then cast a meaningless vote against it. Remember that she was the deciding vote to get DeVos out of committee and then voted against her on the final confirmation vote when there were enough votes to confirm.
posted by azpenguin at 6:42 AM on January 31, 2020 [15 favorites]


Trump Claims ‘This Is A Happy Period,’ Tries To Water Down His Impeachment To ‘Impeachment-Lite’ (Cristina Cabrera, TPM)

As overheard at a rally in Des Moines last night.
posted by ZeusHumms at 7:12 AM on January 31, 2020 [1 favorite]


By June of 2016, Donald Trump’s presidential campaign had illegally solicited campaign donations from foreign nationals, according to a complaint filed with the Federal Election Commission. The complaint also charged that even after reports had emerged about Mr. Trump’s “Icelandic fundraising appeals,” “Donald J. Trump for President continued to send email fundraising solicitations to the official email accounts of multiple members of the British, Scottish, and Australian parliaments.”

How were these crimes punished? They were not.
Also in June of 2016, after receiving a promise of incriminating information about Hillary Clinton plainly said to be from the Russian government, two of Trump’s close family members and his campaign chief agreed to take a meeting to discuss it. In Trump Tower.
Donald Trump Jr. even wrote, “If it’s what you say I love it.” After many interviews blocked, and investigations by Mueller and co. and admission by Don Jr. himself, in public . . how were these crimes punished? They were not.

DJT came in with apparent permission to steal elections. It was so effective it even surprised him and his family.

Today will just be a continuation of this baffling mechanism in our presidential election system. Smashing norms, ignoring laws, inviting foreign interference, behaving without shame and signaling domestic terrorists, crypto-evangelicals and racists that their homicidal dreams can come true . . turns out to be one of the best strategies for becoming president.
Because apparently there is no accountability.
posted by Harry Caul at 7:12 AM on January 31, 2020 [13 favorites]


You know what? I agree with Trump on something. He is the best Republican. Beyond him, you get both Trump and cowardice.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 7:40 AM on January 31, 2020 [3 favorites]


Our best hope is that someone tells the President that Senator Alexander says he did something wrong, and Trump angrily tweets that the Senator's dad was Jack the Ripper or something
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 7:43 AM on January 31, 2020 [5 favorites]


Meanwhile, in Ukraine: Pompeo meets the president but does not invite him to visit. (NYT)
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said Friday that the Trump administration was committed to supporting Ukraine in its defense against aggression by Russia, though he did not offer President Volodymyr Zelensky the one thing he has sought since last May: an invitation to meet President Trump at the White House.

Mr. Pompeo’s visit was aimed at calming unease among Ukrainian officials about the relationship between Washington and Kyiv, which has been thrust into the spotlight because of the impeachment of Mr. Trump.

An invitation to meet Mr. Trump at the White House would be an important signal to Russia of American support for Ukraine. Mr. Pompeo’s message that Mr. Trump had no immediate plans to receive Mr. Zelensky at the White House was a blow to the Ukrainian president’s national security efforts.

Ukrainian officials are angry that the Americans have granted Russia’s foreign minister, Sergey V. Lavrov, two visits with Mr. Trump in the White House, most recently in December.

In renewing his request for a meeting Friday, Mr. Zelensky said, “If there is anything we can negotiate and discuss, and if I can bring something back home, I am ready to go straight away.”
posted by katra at 7:54 AM on January 31, 2020 [6 favorites]


Guardian: "Even though the impeachment trial is expected to wrap up soon if the witness vote fails, it will likely still be a long night before Trump is acquitted.
If Senate Democrats cannot wrangle enough votes to secure witness testimony in the trial, they are expected to introduce a number of procedural motions to delay the final vote on the two articles of impeachment.

Senators on both sides of the aisle are predicting the vote on acquittal will not take place until the early hours of tomorrow morning.

Addy Baird (@addysbaird) Re-upping this flow chart for today. We are (barring a wild twist) going with the witness vote fails path. And let me tell you, it’s going to be a long night. Rumor is the vote on final judgement is going to be between 3 and 5 am Saturday morning. https://t.co/KFuIsXH1Wc January 31, 2020
Guardian: Romney spokesperson confirms he will vote for witnesses
If Romney and Collins are the only Republican senators who support calling witnesses, the final vote will likely be 51-49 against witness testimony. If Lisa Murkowski, another closely watched Republican in this vote, joins Romney and Collins, the final vote could be 50-50.

Some Democratic senators have called on Chief Justice John Roberts to break the tie if the vote is 50-50, but it seems unlikely Roberts would take such a step. In that case, a tie vote will be a failed vote, and the trial will move toward a rapid end.
posted by katra at 8:03 AM on January 31, 2020 [3 favorites]


the states are responsible for the holding of elections, so those states that didn't want to cancel them would simply proceed

This is true. But the President is elected by counting the electoral college votes in the Congress. Let us hope that Trump's loss is sufficiently massive to overcome whatever skullduggering ratfuckery his minions are inevitably devising.
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 8:05 AM on January 31, 2020 [2 favorites]


Some Democratic senators have called on Chief Justice John Roberts to break the tie if the vote is 50-50, but it seems unlikely Roberts would take such a step.

Unlikely is putting it mildly. I'd love to be wrong.
posted by snuffleupagus at 8:11 AM on January 31, 2020 [3 favorites]


It's simultaneously unthinkable that Roberts would impose himself on the process like that, and that he would want his crowning achievement to be overseeing the first impeachment trial with no documents and no witnesses.
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 8:12 AM on January 31, 2020 [5 favorites]


Roberts did vote to keep Obamacare once upon a time.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 8:13 AM on January 31, 2020 [3 favorites]


Monica Lewinsky weighs in with some levity on allowing witnesses (WaPo)
Anti-bullying activist Monica Lewinsky, who knows a thing or two about impeachment trials, offered this commentary on the Senate’s likely decision not to allow new witnesses:

“gee,” she tweeted, “too bad i had to give that videoed witness testimony for the senate trial in the clinton impeachment. (i mean, talk about unflattering lighting and having a bad hair day.)”
posted by katra at 8:15 AM on January 31, 2020 [18 favorites]


Some Democratic senators have called on Chief Justice John Roberts to break the tie if the vote is 50-50, but it seems unlikely Roberts would take such a step.

Excluding witnesses to Trump's guilt is a Republican cover-up, so Democrats must make clear that if Roberts helps shield Trump from exposure of his wrongdoing, he will also be party to the cover-up.
posted by Gelatin at 8:17 AM on January 31, 2020 [5 favorites]


But the President is elected by counting the electoral college votes in the Congress.

Specifically the House of Representatives, which the Democrats control.
posted by Gelatin at 8:19 AM on January 31, 2020 [2 favorites]


The impeachment trial is a reminder: our democracy is fragile. Civil rights activists already know that (Reverend William Barber, Guardian Opinion)
The coordinated cover-up we are witnessing as 53 senators conspire to facilitate Trump’s obstruction of Congress is deeply troubling to anyone who knows the long history of southern courthouses where district attorneys openly coordinated with all-white juries and corrupt judges to cover up acts of racial terror. With patience and decorum, Mitch McConnell has brought southern justice to the US Senate. [...]

People like John Lewis, who voted as a member of the House to impeach Donald Trump for seeking foreign help to rig the 2020 election, went to jail and faced beatings in the 1960s to ensure free and fair elections. Half a century later, we have fewer voting rights protections in America than we did in 1965, when the Voting Rights Act was signed into law. As the majority leader in the Senate, Mitch McConnell covered up the voter suppression efforts that guaranteed him a Senate majority long before he was called upon to cover up Donald Trump’s efforts to rig the next election.

Americans remember from the Nixon impeachment that the cover-up is evidence of the crime. But it is more than that. Time and again, the civil rights movement has learned that the cost of the cover-up is democracy itself. When the people who have power can abuse that power to influence elections and suppress the electoral power of those who would challenge them, we do not have a representative democracy. We have southern justice covering for minority rule.

But if we who have been denied full citizenship in this nation know the cost of a cover-up, we also know the power of moral movements to tap a greater power and push America toward a more perfect union. Slaveholders invested everything they had to cover up the crimes of human bondage. Jim Crow did everything it knew to cover up the immorality of separate but equal. And for a long time, it looked like they had all the votes. But movements of people committed to the truth did not give up. They kept believing and building on the conviction that the moral arc of the universe bends toward justice. And they uncovered the lies that crippled democracy in their day. Our present moral crisis demands nothing less of us.
posted by katra at 8:22 AM on January 31, 2020 [27 favorites]


I tuned in to the end of the questions last night and heard the White House Counsel actually say that Trump was not impeachable but Biden was because only Biden did whatever the fuck they say he did because of pure self interest.

The hubris and magnitude of their mind twisting is really something.
posted by OnTheLastCastle at 8:22 AM on January 31, 2020 [7 favorites]


The hubris and magnitude of their mind twisting is really something.

Which says to me that this rat fucking will never end. If Biden were to win we're going to have Republican Bengazi-like investigations for 4 years. If Bernie wins, we'll have not only investigations but also every piece of legislation he signs dragged through the courts with the supreme court siding with Republicans again and again. The next 4-12 years are going to be an endless shit show if the Dems can't take the house, senate and presidency. And I have zero faith of that happening.
posted by photoslob at 8:40 AM on January 31, 2020 [12 favorites]


It's simultaneously unthinkable that Roberts would impose himself on the process like that, and that he would want his crowning achievement to be overseeing the first impeachment trial with no documents and no witnesses.

His crowning achievement was Citizens United. Everything else flows from that.
posted by azpenguin at 8:44 AM on January 31, 2020 [27 favorites]


Senate Impeachment Trial, Day 11 (C-SPAN) The Senate impeachment trial of President Trump continues with debate and a vote on whether additional witnesses should testify. LIVE On January 31 | 1pm ET | C-SPAN2

U.S. Senate: Impeachment Trial (Day 11) (C-SPAN YouTube) The Senate impeachment trial of President Trump continues. Scheduled for Jan 31, 2020

The Report: Impeachment, Day Nine (Lawfare) "On the ninth day of the impeachment trial of President Donald J. Trump, the Senate continued the question-and-answer period of the trial. [...] Lawfare and Goat Rodeo bring you the final day of Q&A in the impeachment trial of President Trump in one hour and 40 minutes."
posted by katra at 8:57 AM on January 31, 2020 [1 favorite]


If the Senate is going to hold a sham trial, then I think it's actually better that it's obviously a sham. In recent polls, 70–80% of Americans want the Senate to call witnesses. If the Republican senators refuse to call witnesses, it looks bad for them and for Trump.

Given that the evidence produced by the House is already about as damning as anyone could ask for, I doubt any witness has a significant chance of changing the outcome of the trial or public perception of Trump’s guilt. So if our only options are “trial with witnesses, then vote to acquit” or “trial without witnesses, then vote to acquit,” then I think the former helps Trump more, and the latter is more damaging to Republicans in November. Especially since Republicans can’t offer a convincing excuse not to hear from witnesses. (Schiff succinctly refuted their “takes too much time” argument by offering to limit testimony to one week.)

I believe pressure to block witness testimony is coming more from the White House than from the Senate majority leadership, and is about protecting Trump’s pride rather than any greater strategic concern.
posted by mbrubeck at 8:59 AM on January 31, 2020 [10 favorites]


Trial could extend into next week, officials say (WaPo)
A senior administration official and two congressional officials said Friday it was unlikely that senators would rush immediately to a verdict after the witness vote fails. They requested anonymity to speak candidly about internal discussions.

The administration official and a congressional official raised the possibility that the Senate could take up a new procedural resolution laying out rules for the trial’s endgame — which could include time for closing arguments, private deliberations and public speeches by senators.

The Senate passed such a supplemental resolution in the middle of the 1999 impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton. Even passing that resolution could be a lengthy process: When senators debated the initial rules resolution last week, it took more than 12 hours of floor time to process debate on Democratic amendments to the GOP proposal, which ultimately passed unamended just before 2 a.m. on Jan. 22.

Should the Senate embark on this process, the senior administration official said, a final verdict could be delayed as late as Wednesday — after the Iowa caucuses on Monday and Trump’s State of the Union address on Tuesday.

But a congressional official noted that much depends on what a majority of senators want to do: A 51-vote majority could choose to hasten the final verdict at any point.
posted by katra at 9:02 AM on January 31, 2020 [3 favorites]


The next 4-12 years are going to be an endless shit show if the Dems can't take the house, senate and presidency. And I have zero faith of that happening.

The Senate is about to give Trump a pass to do whatever he wants to win the election.
posted by kirkaracha at 9:03 AM on January 31, 2020 [11 favorites]


Watching even the "moderate" Republicans cave to Trump as part of this slow, creeping slide toward authoritarianism, I am glad Mike Godwin gives license to say this feels like how things were moving in Germany in, oh, maybe 1934 or 1935.
posted by PhineasGage at 9:07 AM on January 31, 2020 [18 favorites]


The New York Times: More than two months before he asked Ukraine’s president to investigate his political opponents, President Trump directed John R. Bolton, then his national security adviser, to help with his pressure campaign to extract damaging information on Democrats from Ukrainian officials, according to an unpublished manuscript by Mr. Bolton.

Mr. Trump gave the instruction, Mr. Bolton wrote, during an Oval Office conversation in early May that included the acting White House chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney, the president’s personal lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani and the White House counsel, Pat A. Cipollone, who is now leading the president’s impeachment defense.
If they're unwilling to call new witnesses, maybe they could ask the White House counsel to testify under oath?
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 9:11 AM on January 31, 2020 [9 favorites]


Some Democratic senators have called on Chief Justice John Roberts to break the tie if the vote is 50-50, but it seems unlikely Roberts would take such a step.

It's not going to be a 50-50 vote. McConnell would never have given his permission for Collins to vote yes if it were going to be 50-50. McConnell knows how to count votes and he knows how to enforce discipline. Collins knows that if her vote were to make a difference, Trump and McConnell would cut her off at the knees in Maine.
posted by JackFlash at 9:14 AM on January 31, 2020 [11 favorites]


What will we do when the president decides it's in the best interest of the people for him to remain in office indefinitely? He already feels he's owed extra time on the clock, due to having to deal with investigation and impeachment...
posted by dreamling at 9:15 AM on January 31, 2020 [6 favorites]


Collins knows that if her vote were to make a difference, Trump and McConnell would cut her off at the knees in Maine.

That would be pure Misery
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 9:17 AM on January 31, 2020 [32 favorites]


Breaking: Trump Told Bolton to Help His Ukraine Pressure Campaign, Book Says (NYT)
More than two months before he asked Ukraine’s president to investigate his political opponents, President Trump directed John R. Bolton, then his national security adviser, to help with his pressure campaign to extract damaging information on Democrats from Ukrainian officials, according to an unpublished manuscript by Mr. Bolton.

Mr. Trump gave the instruction, Mr. Bolton wrote, during an Oval Office conversation in early May that included the acting White House chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney, the president’s personal lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani and the White House counsel, Pat A. Cipollone, who is now leading the president’s impeachment defense.

Mr. Trump told Mr. Bolton to call Volodymyr Zelensky, who had recently won election as president of Ukraine, to ensure Mr. Zelensky would meet with Mr. Giuliani, who was planning a trip to Ukraine to discuss the investigations that the president sought, in Mr. Bolton’s account. Mr. Bolton never made the call, he wrote.

The previously undisclosed directive that Mr. Bolton describes would be the earliest known instance of Mr. Trump seeking to harness the power of the United States government to advance his pressure campaign against Ukraine, as he later did on the July call with Mr. Zelensky that triggered a whistle-blower complaint and impeachment proceedings. [...]

The account in Mr. Bolton’s manuscript portrays the most senior White House advisers as early witnesses in the effort that they have sought to distance the president from. And disclosure of the meeting underscores the kind of information Democrats were looking for in seeking testimony from his top advisers in their impeachment investigation, including Mr. Bolton and Mr. Mulvaney, only to be blocked by the White House.
posted by katra at 9:55 AM on January 31, 2020 [7 favorites]


mbrubeck: I believe pressure to block witness testimony is coming more from the White House than from the Senate majority leadership, and is about protecting Trump’s pride rather than any greater strategic concern.

I'm not sure this is quite true; at least some weeks back, it seemed the other way around (with Trump hoping for the spectacle and McConnell wanting to get it over with fast). But I can definitely imagine a flip having occurred, with Trump preferring the opportunity to crow on Tuesday, while at least some senators feel increasing heat from constituents.

In both cases, I think the fallacy is simple tunnel vision; they don't want the short-term pain of Bolton (or whoever) making a devastating case on every major network, despite the fact that the book will come out in March anyway.

But regardless, despite having called my own senator Toomey's office that he should support having witnesses... a big part of me has agreed that it would only dignify what is a sham anyway, and could easily mislead more people into thinking the result was legitimate than would be swayed the other way, by watching testimony, into seeing him as guilty.

(This was always my fear about impeachment: millions of voters thinking "He got acquitted so I guess it was a big nothing", where they otherwise would have thought, as many did about Hillary, "Huh! Dark clouds! Questions raised!". But, ta-da, a witness-free trial manages to undercut that thinking substantially, even among those with low news literacy.)

We went into this with at least half of Americans thinking the president should be convicted. I consider that close to a ceiling, because even if Trump can get more unpopular, you will have a very hard time shaking out the "decorum!" mentality from an additional 10% or even 5%.
posted by InTheYear2017 at 10:00 AM on January 31, 2020 [2 favorites]


Bolton is a snake. If he cared about democracy he could have voluntarily provided this information to the House investigative committees months ago. He is saving his leaks to the last minute for maximum drama and bigger book sales.
posted by JackFlash at 10:03 AM on January 31, 2020 [19 favorites]


If the Senate is going to hold a sham trial, then I think it's actually better that it's obviously a sham. In recent polls, 70–80% of Americans want the Senate to call witnesses. If the Republican senators refuse to call witnesses, it looks bad for them and for Trump.

Which means Republican senators have good reason to believe that witness testimony would look even worse for them and for Trump.
posted by Gelatin at 10:05 AM on January 31, 2020 [1 favorite]


And shame on the New York Times for participating in this "anonymous" leaking.
posted by JackFlash at 10:05 AM on January 31, 2020 [4 favorites]


... I am glad Mike Godwin gives license to say this feels like how things were moving in Germany in, oh, maybe 1934 or 1935.

It's small comfort that Godwin's Law invocations seem to have dwindled to nothing. The people who so predictably called it out never did pay much attention to its actual content.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 10:08 AM on January 31, 2020 [2 favorites]


Lamar Alexander and the power of right-wing political correctness (Zack Beauchamp, Vox)
"A top reporter explained Lamar Alexander’s impeachment trial vote on witnesses. Here’s what that reveals. "

The best explanation I’ve seen comes from Tim Alberta, Politico’s chief political correspondent and a deeply sourced reporter among congressional Republicans. He suggests that Alexander was afraid — not of losing his job, but of threats to his future income and social status:

[Twitter thread]

To put it another way, many Republicans exist in a social world where criticizing Donald Trump is an act of cultural treason. Bucking Trump doesn’t merely risk their congressional seat, but also their ability to find future employment and live comfortably in their communities even after retiring. Alberta describes profound fears of Trump’s “cult,” of “harassment of their families, loss of standing in local communities, [and] estranged relationships.”

I agree with Alberta that, when the stakes are as high as impeachment, this is a form of “weak-ass excuse-making.” And not all Republican officials live in social worlds as Trumpy as the ones described in his thread. But those qualms aside, I think it’s also worth making two additional points about the significance of the phenomenon he’s describing.

[Partisanship] In a country defined by two mega-identities, defeat for your side isn’t merely a political loss, but an existential threat to your entire way of life. When Republicans feel this way about politics, then it makes sense that they’d see a vote against their president as an act of deep betrayal — and treat the person responsible accordingly, even in private life. This kind of extreme identity polarization poisons politics in ways often invisible in day-to-day observation that, nonetheless, contribute to the fundamental dysfunction of our political system.

[Right Wing Political Correctness] In conservative cultural spaces, even a very long right-wing record like Alexander’s doesn’t immunize you from the consequences of violating the community’s political standards. Stalwart conservative legislators are, according to Alberta, terrified of what people in their communities think of them. Imagine the ways in which many ordinary people in red areas, who have far less financial and social capital than the Lamar Alexanders of the world, feel about expressing anti-Trump sentiment!
Bolded, inserted terms are mine.
posted by ZeusHumms at 10:12 AM on January 31, 2020 [13 favorites]


this feels like how things were moving in Germany in, oh, maybe 1934 or 1935

To continue the comparison, most of the early mischief at that time was directed towards suppressing the communist and socialist threat, fully supported by much of the citizenry.

Here's hoping we can skip this phase after Bernie wins the nomination.
posted by Mei's lost sandal at 10:14 AM on January 31, 2020


This is a small annoyance in the grander scheme of things, but how dare Bolton call his book The Room Where it Happened. Can't Lin Manuel shut that down somehow?
posted by jokeefe at 10:17 AM on January 31, 2020 [12 favorites]


He suggests that Alexander was afraid — not of losing his job, but of threats to his future income and social status:

I call bullshit. Alexander is 79 years old and has over $15 million dollars. The last thing he should be worried about as an old man is future income and social status.

He's doing this because he is a shitty Republican -- just like all the other shitty Republicans.
posted by JackFlash at 10:17 AM on January 31, 2020 [34 favorites]


Per CNN, Murkowski is indicating she will vote no on witnesses. These people need to go.
posted by Bacon Bit at 10:24 AM on January 31, 2020 [2 favorites]


... as John Roberts wipes a bead of sweat from his brow.
posted by sjswitzer at 10:28 AM on January 31, 2020 [4 favorites]


McConnell didn’t want to mess with a Roberts tiebreaker so he only gave two hall passes.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 10:29 AM on January 31, 2020


Per CNN, Murkowski is indicating she will vote no on witnesses.

I hope the chyron says "The Fix Is In."

These people need to go.

And for much more than their participation in Trump's cover-up, but it is now indeed up to loyal Americans to see that Republicans' betrayal leads to genuine consequences at the ballot box.
posted by Gelatin at 10:38 AM on January 31, 2020 [3 favorites]


I like to imagine that Roberts could declare a mistrial.
posted by sjswitzer at 10:44 AM on January 31, 2020 [3 favorites]


Rubio just said, "Just because actions meet a standard of impeachment does not mean it is in the best interest of the country to remove a President from office."

So, that's nice to know.
posted by bcd at 10:45 AM on January 31, 2020 [27 favorites]


And Murkowski is trying to spin a "more in sorrow than in anger" schitck with, "I have come to the conclusion that there will be no fair trial in the Senate. I don’t believe the continuation of this process will change anything. It is sad for me to admit that, as an institution, the Congress has failed", as she announces she's a 'no' on witnesses.
posted by bcd at 10:49 AM on January 31, 2020 [3 favorites]


That shit works both ways Marco.

I mean, they're republicans so it won't because the subtext to that comment is "and a GOP president will always be in the best interest of the country."
posted by VTX at 10:51 AM on January 31, 2020


"I have come to the conclusion that there will be no fair trial in the Senate. I don’t believe the continuation of this process will change anything. It is sad for me to admit that, as an institution, the Congress has failed"

That's some pretty phenomenal projection, or at least telling on one's self.

Knowing that Pelosi and Schumer are no idiots, I am hoping that they have a media blitz planned for the aftermath of the impeachment trial, including targeting vulnerable GOP Senators on their complicity with the coverup, and pointing to the 2020 election as the only way to stop a president who now believes that nothing and no one can stop him.

Pelosi's comments from yesterday about there being no acquittal without a fair trial lead me to believe that they are already working on this.
posted by Ben Trismegistus at 10:54 AM on January 31, 2020 [12 favorites]


I also hope Schumer is whipping the hell out of the Dems to ensure that Manchin or Sinema or Jones don't vote with the GOP on witnesses or acquittal. You just know that the Republicans would call it a "bipartisan" acquittal otherwise.
posted by Ben Trismegistus at 10:57 AM on January 31, 2020 [11 favorites]


And Murkowski is trying to spin a "more in sorrow than in anger" schitck with, "I have come to the conclusion that there will be no fair trial in the Senate. I don’t believe the continuation of this process will change anything. It is sad for me to admit that, as an institution, the Congress has failed", as she announces she's a 'no' on witnesses.

Did...did she just blame her fellow Republicans for her own complicity in Trump's cover-up?

I mean, she isn't wrong, but it's astonishing what these people are saying out loud. Even Republicans have basically admitted -- in the face of the Democratic case that left no doubt -- that Trump did what he's accused of doing.
posted by Gelatin at 11:07 AM on January 31, 2020 [23 favorites]


If anyone's here that was of the perspective that there wouldn't be a vote to impeach but the process itself would lay the corruption of the administration bare for the public to see, do you feel that the process up until the witness suppression has been sufficient to do so, or not? To me the Dershowitz argument and the vote against witnesses despite clear relevance looks #really# bad, but I'm not independent or undecided.
posted by Selena777 at 11:12 AM on January 31, 2020 [1 favorite]


You know that thing where the lowest person on the corporate ladder has to make the coffee, but they're really bad at it, so finally, someone else says "FINE, I'll make the coffee.", but everyone knows that Stu was intentionally fucking it up because he didn't want to have to do it anymore?

53 percent of the U.S. Senate is making bad coffee right now and hoping someone else says "FINE."
posted by Etrigan at 11:15 AM on January 31, 2020 [19 favorites]


Ken White/popehat has translated Murkowski's statement into more colloquial English for us:

I must declare this church picnic closed on the grounds that my friends and I have fucked this goat, which is extremely regrettable and demonstrates the failure of the church and church picnic as institutions.
posted by bcd at 11:20 AM on January 31, 2020 [48 favorites]


Impeachment Was the Right Call. Doing It This Way Was Not.
First, the decision not to subpoena key witnesses during the House investigation on the theory that it would take too long to litigate Trump’s obstruction in the courts was inexcusable. Had Democrats taken this very rudimentary legal step, the incessant Republican argument that Democrats should bear the fallout for failing to use their subpoena power when they had it would have been off the table during the Senate trial.
...
Second, aside from failing to push for fuller facts during the House inquiry, it’s clear that Democrats left themselves unnecessarily vulnerable in their drafting of the two articles of impeachment now being debated in the Senate.
...
In the first article of impeachment, identifying even one of the legal violations embedded in the Ukrainian quid pro quo—such as Trump’s plain violation of the Impoundment Control Act, which mandated that he alert Congress to his freeze on appropriated aid—would have forced Republican senators to cast an affirmative vote on whether it’s okay for presidents to blatantly violate acts of Congress.
...
Obstruction of Congress—the charge in the second article of impeachment—is in fact a crime under the U.S. Code. Simply including that citation in the text of the second article might have staved off a major defense swirling around abuse of office as a basis for impeachment and removal.
posted by kirkaracha at 11:22 AM on January 31, 2020 [3 favorites]


Did...did she just blame her fellow Republicans for her own complicity in Trump's cover-up?

The Republican Party is a party of nihilists, and that Constitution really tied the room together
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 11:27 AM on January 31, 2020 [6 favorites]


Had Democrats taken this very rudimentary legal step, the incessant Republican argument that Democrats should bear the fallout for failing to use their subpoena power when they had it would have been off the table during the Senate trial.

... Obstruction of Congress—the charge in the second article of impeachment—is in fact a crime under the U.S. Code. Simply including that citation in the text of the second article might have staved off a major defense swirling around abuse of office as a basis for impeachment and removal.


Shit, why didn't they think of pre-emptively removing Republican excuses in advance? If only that had happened, the Rs would basically have to go with a bold, truly outrageous defense like "He can do whatever he wants, screw you", instead of what I assume was a more respectable-sounding blather.

Democrats are So. Bad. At. This.
posted by InTheYear2017 at 11:30 AM on January 31, 2020 [8 favorites]


Fire up soundbites of GOP Senators supporting the "5th Avenue" doctrine instead of firing in a circle.
posted by Slackermagee at 11:34 AM on January 31, 2020 [2 favorites]


Ken White/popehat continues a bit later:
[at the Session Meeting the next month]
All the discussion about how I held down the goat has deeply divided this church community and I call upon my colleagues to move past it instead of sowing hatred.
You should just follow him directly, of course.
posted by bcd at 11:36 AM on January 31, 2020 [14 favorites]


If I didn't know she had an (R) after her name, I'd think Murkowski is planning to ultimately vote to convict! The Republicans can certainly afford a lot of hall passes there since they only need 34 votes to acquit. But I doubt any hall passes at all will be handed out because of the optics of having over 50 votes to convict while still letting him skate. That would be an even bigger asterisk after Trump's name.
posted by sjswitzer at 11:37 AM on January 31, 2020


> Simply including that citation in the text of the second article might have staved off a major defense swirling around abuse of office as a basis for impeachment and removal.

I'm sorry, but this is magical thinking on par with Moon Law and gold fringes on flags implying that income taxes are illegal.
posted by RedOrGreen at 11:38 AM on January 31, 2020 [15 favorites]


Trump won't tolerate any Republicans voting to convict him. As was pointed out in Lamar Alexander's case, Trump and his base would see any deviation as a betrayal.

I hope Democrats are leaning on their own senators not to vote to acquit. Having this kangaroo court end on a party line vote would spotlight how illegitimate the Republicans' cover-up is.
posted by Gelatin at 11:40 AM on January 31, 2020 [1 favorite]


> I'm sorry, but this is magical thinking on par with Moon Law and gold fringes on flags implying that income taxes are illegal.

Murc's Law meets Moon Law. If only the Democrats (and *only* the Democrats, because they, as the Senate minority, hold all of the power) had invoked ONE WEIRD TRICK.
posted by tonycpsu at 11:47 AM on January 31, 2020 [12 favorites]


If only the Democrats had somehow proven their case, as Senator Alexander (R-TN) freely admits they did
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 11:53 AM on January 31, 2020 [30 favorites]


the "5th Avenue" doctrine

Newscasters should just sub this in wherever they would usually put 'unitary executive'.
posted by j_curiouser at 11:56 AM on January 31, 2020 [2 favorites]


Impeachment Was the Right Call. Doing It This Way Was Not.

Meh. There is no good and sufficient way to deal with bad faith. Had they done those things the problem would have been something else.
posted by mazola at 12:00 PM on January 31, 2020 [33 favorites]


I have absolute faith that if the House had specified specific statutory laws which were broken, the Republicans would have spent the trial offering expert in-the-weeds analysis of how those specific statutory laws were NOT broken, or at least you can't PROVE they were broken beyond a reasonable doubt, so we must acquit. Instead, Republicans have been forced to say, we don't think this behavior, which most of the country thinks is worthy of removal from office, is a serious problem, nor even worthy of further investigation by way of allowing witnesses or documents. By eschewing unnecessary technical debate, the Democrats have forced the Republicans to put their vile narcissistic cowardice on the record.
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 12:00 PM on January 31, 2020 [21 favorites]


If only the Democrats had somehow proven their case, as Senator Alexander (R-TN) freely admits they did


Yeah, Monday morning quarterbacking is irrelevant given that Trump was always going to stonewall and Republicans were always going to acquit. There is no "one weird trick" that would have resulted in any other outcome given that Republicans were never operating in good faith.

The Democrats in charge of impeachment never expected a conviction. They evidence of Trump's guilt is overwhelming, to the point where even the Republicans basically admit it. The Democrats knew they would place this evidence before the American people and watch the Republicans fall all over themselves to help Trump cover it up. (They were probably surprised only by the extend to which Dershowitz would argue that the President can do whatever he pleases and the Congress can butt out.)

The Democrats have done so, and going into Trump's inevitable acquittal, it's the Republicans who look guilty. The American people may not have had an opportunity to suss out all the details or the full extent of Trump's guilt, but they can see that the entire Republican Party stinks on ice. Lamar Alexander can say it's best to leave it to the voters, since he won't have to face them, and so his statement is a tell as to how much of a bind the Republicans feel. Let's help them feel that bind all the way to November.
posted by Gelatin at 12:07 PM on January 31, 2020 [13 favorites]


Any chance this all a lot of bluster and they’ll vote him out, they’re just making sure he doesn’t see it coming?

When it’s time to vote for removal, they all just vote right? It’s not like the voting takes days.

There have to be enough Rs who see it’s terrible and either aren’t up for re-election or have constituents who also see it’s a terrible. Right?

Could really use a good “season finale, baddies see the light” thing here.
posted by affectionateborg at 12:13 PM on January 31, 2020 [4 favorites]


Even if twenty Republican senators managed to secretly agree to convict, how would they know they could trust each other to follow through and not leave them hanging? These are Republican senators we are talking about. You can't trust them!
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 12:15 PM on January 31, 2020 [10 favorites]


McConnell, Schumer reach deal to wrap up trial on Wednesday (NBC News)
Sens. Chuck Schumer and Mitch McConnell told their members at their respective closed-door lunches that the two leaders have agreed to a proposal that would culminate in a Wednesday vote to acquit the president, according to two Democrats in the room and two Republican aides familiar with the matter.

Since the proposal requires the buy-in of senators of both parties and the president, the details and timeline could shift. The White House and some Republicans are still hoping for an acquittal vote before Trump's State of the Union address on Tuesday night. A White House official told NBC News that the White House would prefer acquittal on Tuesday but would accept Wednesday. [...]

If the proposal is approved by all parties, the trial would not be in session this weekend. It would resume Monday with six hours of closing arguments divided between the House managers and the White House defense. If accepted by all parties, Tuesday would allow senators 10 minutes each to make a statement.
posted by katra at 12:17 PM on January 31, 2020 [5 favorites]


McConnell, Schumer reach deal to wrap up trial on Wednesday (NBC News)

Wow. As I said before, Trump still being under impeachment during the SOTU is pretty much the best outcome the Democrats could hope for, and an undeniable narcissistic injury to Trump. I hope the Democrats stand fast with whatever leverage Schumer had to get McConnell to agree.
posted by Gelatin at 12:23 PM on January 31, 2020 [12 favorites]


Maybe Collins, Murkowski et al didn't want POTUS to be able to spend the speech thanking them for their undying adulation
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 12:25 PM on January 31, 2020 [4 favorites]


Why is the fucking president's desire even a part of this?

The longer I live, the more I recognize that people in general really like being ruled by kings.
posted by maxwelton at 12:26 PM on January 31, 2020 [23 favorites]


Maybe Collins, Murkowski et al didn't want POTUS to be able to spend the speech thanking them for their undying adulation

Given the inviolable rule of trumpishness, he will assuredly do this now, right?
posted by Exceptional_Hubris at 12:27 PM on January 31, 2020 [1 favorite]


"Senator Alexander, where are you? Stand up! Oh, Senator Alexander, you're a tricky one, but you voted the right way didn't you? You're on Team Trump! Sit down now. Thanks."
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 12:28 PM on January 31, 2020 [10 favorites]


I have absolute faith that if the House had specified specific statutory laws which were broken, the Republicans would have spent the trial offering expert in-the-weeds analysis of how those specific statutory laws were NOT broken, or at least you can't PROVE they were broken beyond a reasonable doubt, so we must acquit.

They tried to do this all the way along in the House, trying to push the political process into the courts, where a) they have judges in their pocket; and b) they can say statutory laws don't apply to the president. Hobson's choice. I wonder if the Dems have fallen in with the criminal-procedure proponents, due process, yada yada, instead of saying "it's political, of course it's political, it's designed to be political." Trump's people don't even cite the Constitution except to opine on its "design" or "plan," before moving on to some Federalist Papers quote. I'd like to see Dems calling them out as shitty lawyers, but comity is a double-edged sword.
posted by rhizome at 12:28 PM on January 31, 2020 [1 favorite]


I'd agree if there were still witnesses to come and shoes to drop, but when it's a done deal like this, and everyone knows the acquittal will be hours later, I expect he will just treat it as having already been acquitted. Let's hope that ruffles some feathers, but that's more just enjoying knowing the Republican senators will hate it than any hope of changing their votes.
posted by bcd at 12:29 PM on January 31, 2020 [1 favorite]


The impact of the trial extending past the SOTU is severely undercut by the fact that it's only a formality at this point. He's already acquitted, everyone knows it, and he'll get his victory lap despite the fact that he's not technically acquitted until the following day.
posted by tonycpsu at 12:29 PM on January 31, 2020 [3 favorites]


Given what's happened in the last few days and that Mitch wanted it to be finished today, I don't think all is lost. The fact that removal will be hanging over the SOTU is a big big win for Dems, I feel, and there's still four days until Tuesday. Congresspeople in general are pros at dragging shit out, and I don't think the moving parts have stopped moving by any means.

News has still been happening on the weekends, so I'm still bullsh on popcorn futures.
posted by rhizome at 12:33 PM on January 31, 2020 [8 favorites]


It is sad for me to admit that, as an institution, the Congress has failed

Republicans as a whole are a craven, despicable lot — their Senators especially so — but I wonder if House Democrats could have done more by enforcing subpoenas for witnesses they called. Putting some key people into jail until testifying, instead of letting Trump staff continually thumb their noses at the law, instead of House Dems crossing their fingers and hoping a few Republican Senators would have done the right thing during the trial, might have resulted in a different outcome.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 12:34 PM on January 31, 2020 [2 favorites]


The longer I live, the more I recognize that people in general really like being ruled by kings.

I sense a similarity between Trump supporters and Putin supporters. Neither group truly believes that their leader is not corrupt. They believe that ALL politicians are corrupt, by definition. They want a corrupt leader who is, sometimes, corrupt in their favor, or at least allows them to be part of a #Winning Team, punishing the Other.
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 12:35 PM on January 31, 2020 [17 favorites]


If House Democrats had let the subpoena fight play out in court for weeks or months, Republicans would be crying that the Democrats were purposely dragging out this partisan witch hunt to interfere with the election.
posted by sporkwort at 12:37 PM on January 31, 2020 [6 favorites]




The U.S. Congress does not arrest and detain people for ignoring its subpoenas anymore

Ah yes, one of those "unwritten yet immutable institutional norms" I hear so much about. How are those doing these days?
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 12:50 PM on January 31, 2020 [7 favorites]


> Ah yes, one of those "unwritten yet immutable institutional norms" I hear so much about. How are those doing these days?

Is this a suggestion that, because the GOP doesn't give fuck-all about norms of government, Democrats should abandon norms of not jailing people without clear legal justification?
posted by tonycpsu at 12:52 PM on January 31, 2020


Defying a subpoena is a clear legal justification.
posted by Gelatin at 12:53 PM on January 31, 2020 [23 favorites]


Jailing people until they comply with a Congressional subpoena is a clear legal justification, just as clear as jailing people for contempt of court. The idea is that by choosing to comply, and by being provided a reasonable ability to comply, they can end their imprisonment at any time.

Congress's ability to jail people until they comply with subpoenas has been upheld by SCOTUS.
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 12:53 PM on January 31, 2020 [13 favorites]


> Defying a subpoena is a clear legal justification.

The courts haven't decided that, as discussed in the article.
posted by tonycpsu at 12:54 PM on January 31, 2020 [1 favorite]


(Which is not to take a position on the House unilaterally jailing people, but if it did so, it wouldn't be without clear legal justification.)
posted by Gelatin at 12:54 PM on January 31, 2020


"The Supreme Court said in an 1821 case that Congress has the “inherent authority” to arrest and detain recalcitrant witnesses.

In a 1927 case, the high court said the Senate acted lawfully in sending its deputy sergeant-at-arms to Ohio to arrest and detain the brother of the then-attorney general, who had refused to testify about a bribery scheme known as the Teapot Dome scandal.

It has been almost a century since Congress exercised this arrest-and-detain authority, and the practice is unlikely to make a comeback, legal experts said."
Old precedent is still precedent.
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 12:56 PM on January 31, 2020 [9 favorites]




> Old precedent is still precedent.

Not when John Roberts will be deciding. cf. Shelby County v. Holder
posted by tonycpsu at 12:57 PM on January 31, 2020 [3 favorites]


Schiff seizes on new New York Times report in arguing for witnesses (WaPo)
As he opened the House impeachment manager’s arguments for calling witnesses, Rep. Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.) seized on a New York Times report Friday, which said that the unpublished manuscript of a book by Bolton claims Trump asked him to help with his pressure campaign to extract damaging information on Democrats from the Ukrainians.

According to the report, Bolton wrote that Trump directed him to call the recently elected president of Ukraine to ensure he would meet with Trump’s personal lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani, who was planning a trip to Ukraine to discuss the investigations that the president sought.

“Yet another reason why we ought to hear from witnesses just as we predicted,” Schiff said. “And it didn’t require any great act of clairvoyance. The facts will come out. They will continue to come out. And the question before you today is whether they will come out in time for you to make a complete and informed judgment as to the guilt or innocence of the president.”

Schiff also pointed out that Bolton alleges that White House Counsel Pat Cipollone, Trump’s lead defense lawyer, was present when the directive was given. “Well, there’s a new fact which indicates that Mr. Cipollone was among those who are in the loop,” Schiff said and showed a video of Cipollone during the trial stressing the need for facts.
House managers target Trump defense team's top lawyer after latest Bolton report (NBC News)
Another manager, Rep. Sylvia Garcia, played video from earlier in the trial showing Cipollone telling the senators "impeachment shouldn't be a shell game. They should give you the facts."

Garcia responded, "Let's be very clear. We are not the ones hiding the facts."
posted by katra at 1:10 PM on January 31, 2020 [9 favorites]


Schumer says he and McConnell have no agreement on trial timing (CBS News)
Schumer, speaking briefly to reporters during a break, said he and McConnell have not reached any agreement on the timing of the trial. As CBS News has previously reported, the trial might not conclude until Wednesday.

Schumer said Democrats don't want the trial to take place in the dead of night. The Senate minority leader declined to take any reporters' questions.

Schumer, referencing the new New York Times report on Bolton, said information will continue to spill out into the public domain, no matter what happens in the Senate chamber.
posted by katra at 1:13 PM on January 31, 2020 [1 favorite]


Explainer: Congress no longer runs a jail, so just how powerful are its subpoenas?

House seeks to make Trump lawyers’ impeachment stand a liability in court (Politico, Jan. 30, 2020)
Earlier in the hearing, [Justice Department attorney James] Burnham repeated Justice Department arguments that the House isn’t powerless to enforce its subpoenas because of its ability to pass legislation, withhold appropriations or pursue impeachment.

However, [U.S. District Court Judge Randolph] Moss said it was “not a very good state of affairs for the country” to resort to impeachment in every subpoena fight.

Burnham’s argument that one remedy open to Congress for defiance of subpoenas is impeachment quickly traveled the few blocks to the Capitol, where Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), the lead impeachment manager and chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, suggested that the White House was engaged in a disingenuous shell game.

“The judge says, ‘If the Congress can’t enforce its subpoenas in court, then what remedy is there?’ and the Justice Department lawyer’s response is ‘impeachment.’ Impeachment,” Schiff said incredulously. “You can’t make this up. I mean, what more evidence do we need of the bad faith of this effort to cover up? I said the other day: They’re in this court making this argument [and] they’re down the street making the other argument. I didn’t think they’d make it the same day.”
posted by katra at 1:18 PM on January 31, 2020 [7 favorites]


Sekulow says White House lawyers would call witnesses who testified in the House (CBS News)
Even though it seems unlikely Democrats will have enough votes to call witnesses, Sekulow argued the president's legal team should have the opportunity to cross-examine all witnesses who testified in the House, and said they would seek to do so if new testimony is allowed.

Sekulow went through the list of individuals who testified before the House. The White House declined to participate in hearings before the House Judiciary Committee.
With the votes against him, Schiff makes one final appeal for witnesses. (NYT)
Representative Adam B. Schiff of California, the lead House manager, rose one final time on Friday to appeal to a Senate that had already essentially made up its mind against him. Vote for additional witnesses and documents, he implored them, or risk “long lasting and harmful consequences long after this impeachment trial is over.”

Mr. Schiff’s warning to senators was threefold: First, he said, it would set a dangerous precedent for every future impeachment trial that witnesses and evidence were not necessary; second, the facts about Mr. Trump’s pressure campaign on Ukraine will come out regardless; and third, Americans will see that for the president, there is a double standard of justice.

“The witnesses the president is concealing will tell their stories,” he said. “And we will be asked why we didn’t want to hear that information when we had the chance. What answer shall we give if we do not pursue the truth now?”

Mr. Schiff connected the trial to the enforcement of laws across the country.

“Only Donald Trump out of any defendant in America can insist on a trial without witnesses,” he said. “The importance of a fair trial here is not less than in any courtroom in America. It is greater than in any courtroom in America, because we set the example for America.”
posted by katra at 1:28 PM on January 31, 2020 [18 favorites]


There are lots of woulda, coulda, shoulda situations that may or may not have changed things vis a vis impeachment. I have said previously that the House should still be investigating right now — I didn’t (and don’t) see why the House had to impeach before Christmas.

But truthfully, impeachment can only succeed when it is a bipartisan effort. Bipartisanship requires courage, not more evidence or a more clever legal argument. It needs people to say “This is wrong.” — even when saying so will hurt their own careers and even the party at large. And they would need to be explicit in saying that very thing, too. And they would need to trust that others, who agree with them but aren’t as courageous would be emboldened to follow their example.

Instead, Lamar Alexander and Lisa Murkowski said “What Trump did was wrong but I don’t have the courage to do anything about it.”
posted by Big Al 8000 at 1:28 PM on January 31, 2020 [11 favorites]


House vows to continue impeachment probes regardless of Senate outcome (Politico, Dec. 16, 2019)
posted by katra at 1:31 PM on January 31, 2020 [14 favorites]


I don't really see anything that justifies handwringing as far as how the Dems have handled this. Why is it that they have to do everything absolutely impeccably sparkling perfectly, and the GOP doesn't? Furthermore, there is no way the Dems can do things "perfectly" because no matter what they do, the GOP will move the goalposts. Every. Damn. Time. And they don't care if it's grounded in reality. They'll lie through their teeth. They'll invent justifications. In the case of Rubio, he basically said Trump is guilty but he's not voting to remove. They call impeachment an invalid use of the House's power. They say that the president can decide his re-election is in the public interest. They don't care. Don't try to nitpick things that could be done differently. The only solution is voting as many of them as possible out of office.
posted by azpenguin at 1:49 PM on January 31, 2020 [52 favorites]


I think the sotu invite was the only obviously bad move. I could be wrong!
posted by j_curiouser at 2:04 PM on January 31, 2020


I just had lunch at a blue-collar fried chicken joint here in St. Louis. Very white crowd, though the place is definitely in an area you'd call "the hood". The impeachment trial was on one TV, mostly being ignored. One guy came in and asked if it was over yet. (I stiffened up, expecting a bunch of MAGA horseshit...hey, the chicken is amazing, ok?)

The bartender told him not yet, and he announced that he thinks all politicians - D or R - are crooked. But not calling witnesses at something called a trial? That's bullshit, man. The bartender and another patron agreed. Someone else piped up that even if you're an R, this is a bunch of nonsense.

Just an interesting vignette.
posted by notsnot at 2:05 PM on January 31, 2020 [46 favorites]


Former G.O.P. lawmakers call for witnesses. (NYT)
Claudine Schneider, a Republican who spent 10 years in the House representing Rhode Island, warned on Friday that by barring witnesses from testifying in President Trump’s impeachment trial, Senate Republicans would push the United States “closer than ever to authoritarian one-man rule.”

Ms. Schneider, who runs a group of moderate Republican former members of Congress called Republicans for Integrity, was joined in her call for witnesses by four other Republican former members of Congress: David Durenberger, a former senator from Minnesota, and three retired congressmen, Jim Kolbe of Arizona, David Emery of Maine and Wayne Gilchrest of Maryland.

Mr. Emery, whose home state senator, Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, intends to vote in favor of witnesses, said the founding fathers created the Senate “as a grand arbiter, able to envision the long-term consequences of our actions and measure them against the Constitution and the public interest.”

“So far,” he said, “Republican Senate leaders have failed that test.”
posted by katra at 2:40 PM on January 31, 2020 [6 favorites]




Is it possible that the Republican party is crammed full of secret Dominionists (alongside the blatant ones), and all 'voters won't forget / history will judge you' pleas go nowhere because they don't believe that there is a future (here, in this earthly realm, at least)?
posted by Iris Gambol at 2:49 PM on January 31, 2020 [1 favorite]


I'm trying not to get too discouraged, because we knew this was coming, and the election was always the only real hope. Eye on the ball.

In the spirit of "the House will keep investigating" and "the truth with will out"... I spent the morning updating my web site. I feel like it's not well understood that the Russia scandal and the Ukraine scandal are fundamentally the same scandal, so I re-wrote the Ukraine section to emphasize the connections more.

Just in case anyone's not already familiar with it -- the website is a set of notes I've been taking and updating since 2017, first about the Russia scandal, and now about Ukraine. Everytime I learn an important fact from any link shared on MeFi or on social media or in a paper I read, I document that fact on my site, and link the page I learned it from. So it also serves as a link collection which includes almost every Russia or Ukraine related Trump-story ever shared on MeFi, plus some.

The page for the Ukraine scandal:The 2019 Ukraine Scandal

And the (still being actively updated) page for the rest of the Russia scandal: 2016 Active Measures
posted by OnceUponATime at 2:56 PM on January 31, 2020 [84 favorites]


Thank you, OnceUponATime. Your work matters.
posted by MonkeyToes at 2:59 PM on January 31, 2020 [18 favorites]


Seconding: OnceUponATime's site is an outstanding resource.

Indeed, may I recommend to anyone who spends more than half an hour a day refreshing these threads, that you spend 20 minutes a day reading Active Measures and then quizzing yourself on your understanding? The whole catastrophic mess is big enough and complex enough that it's hard to distill things, even for yourself. The Active Measures site is a great reference to pass along to your friends - but it can be an excellent knowledge check even for those of us who are trying to keep up.

OnceUponATime, thank you so much for all the work you put into your excellent website.
posted by kristi at 3:13 PM on January 31, 2020 [4 favorites]


Does the Speaker of the House introduce the President before the State of the Union address? If so, it would be lovely if she could thank him for making time for them while the Senate deliberates on removing him from office based on his impeachment...
posted by mabelstreet at 3:20 PM on January 31, 2020 [3 favorites]


Is there anything that can be done about this besides the election in November? This should be an outrage. The brazenness of these craven individuals. Yes, we can vote in our local elections and become more involved but is there anything that can be done now? Protest? We can't give up or lose hope.
posted by VyanSelei at 3:27 PM on January 31, 2020 [5 favorites]


They better be figuring that they won't need to win another election because after this precedent setting omnishambles no President will ever be convicted for anything ever again. America will have an elected monarchy. Imagine what a hardened progressive with nothing to lose will have the executive doing.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 3:29 PM on January 31, 2020 [4 favorites]


Like if President Sanders or Warren woke up Jan 21st, 2021 and decided to declare the big four banks to be terrorist organizations and seize their assets, what are the GOP going to do? The Senate GOP have sowed this field and god only knows what the may reap.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 3:31 PM on January 31, 2020 [5 favorites]


> Like if President Sanders or Warren woke up Jan 21st, 2021 and decided to declare the big four banks to be terrorist organizations and seize their assets, what are the GOP going to do?

Laugh as the bill to prevent them from doing it passes 100-0. Let's not waste time with fantasies where Democrats adopt the GOP's ruthless killer mentality and indifference toward intellectual consistency.
posted by tonycpsu at 3:36 PM on January 31, 2020 [10 favorites]


The vote to end Trump's impeachment trial without documents or witnesses coincides almost perfectly with the UK finally achieving Steven Bannon's dream of leaving the European Union. The writers are laying it on a bit thick again
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 3:40 PM on January 31, 2020 [12 favorites]


Actually, I don’t think they’ll do anything drastic like seizing the banks. However... there is now zero to stop a President Sanders from declaring a national emergency on climate change or a President Warren from declaring a national emergency on gun violence.
posted by azpenguin at 3:50 PM on January 31, 2020 [2 favorites]


There is a lot to stop it. The rules only apply to Democrats. IOKIYAR.
posted by sjswitzer at 3:52 PM on January 31, 2020 [14 favorites]


For instance, as soon as a Democrat is elected, suddenly deficits will matter.

All the while, the Sunday morning analysis shows will continue to be full of Republican daddies and think-tankers explaining why the Democrats are coloring outside the lines.
posted by sjswitzer at 3:54 PM on January 31, 2020 [8 favorites]


Steven Bannon's dream of leaving the European Union

He was never in the Union.
posted by srboisvert at 3:55 PM on January 31, 2020 [2 favorites]


Azpenguin I wish you were right but there’s this thing called the Democratic Party and they love corporations and big business and lobbyists etc.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 4:01 PM on January 31, 2020 [2 favorites]


It will be unfortunate if any Democratic senators vote to acquit. I suggest every single Democrat votes "Present", to protest the illegitimacy of the first-ever impeachment trial with no documents and no witnesses. The President won't be genuinely acquitted because he hasn't had a genuine trial.
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 4:09 PM on January 31, 2020 [17 favorites]


Romney was just officially cancelled from the CPAC convention in February. (CPAC is the Conservative Political Action Conference hosted by the American Conservative Union).

Also, CPAC just invited Nigel Farage.

Given today's events, it all makes sense.
posted by JackFlash at 4:15 PM on January 31, 2020 [17 favorites]


East Manitoba, you are a genius. Democrats should all vote "present" as a protest.

This would also bury any Gabbardesque "present" votes, should they occur.
posted by sjswitzer at 4:21 PM on January 31, 2020 [7 favorites]


Symbolically, it would mean, "yes, we were there and we saw what you did."
posted by sjswitzer at 4:23 PM on January 31, 2020 [6 favorites]


Guardian: Senators will vote Wednesday on whether to acquit Donald Trump
In a statement, Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said that a vote on whether to acquit Trump will happen on Wednesday, Feb 5th at 4pm ET.

“Sen. McConnell and Republicans water to rush through an acquittal vote tonight. But Democrats wanted votes and witnesses and documents, for the House Managers to be able to make closing arguments, ample time for every member to speak, and to prevent GOP from rushing this through,” he said.

He continued: “Democrats will still oppose this McConnell resolution as it does not include witnesses and documents.”

This will be the first impeachment trial in the history of the Senate to have no witnesses.
posted by katra at 4:27 PM on January 31, 2020 [4 favorites]


Is there anything that can be done about this besides the election in November?

The House could continue to investigate and impeach him again on new charges. They could also investigate Pence and impeach him. But realistically, probably neither will happen.
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 4:33 PM on January 31, 2020 [5 favorites]


Guardian: Chief Justice John Roberts said it would be “inappropriate for me, an unelected official from a different branch of government” to break a 50-50 tie. If Senators tie on any votes, the motion will fail, Roberts said.
Roberts was responding to a question from Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, who pointed out that the Supreme Court Justice presiding over the impeachment trial of Andrew Johnson broke two ties. “I do not regard those isolated episodes 150 years ago as sufficient to support a general authority to break ties,” Roberts responded.
Schumer announces four amendments (CBS News)
7:29 p.m.: Democrats are introducing four amendments on Friday night, according to Schumer's office. The amendments are not expected to pass, given the previous vote against witnesses and documents. [...] Here are the amendments, as described by Schumer's office:

• An amendment from Schumer to subpoena Mulvaney, Bolton, Duffy, Blair and White House, OMB, DOD and State Department documents.
• An amendment from Schumer to subpoena John Bolton.
• An amendment from Schumer to subpoena Bolton; provided further that there be one day for a deposition presided over by Chief Justice, and one day for live testimony before the Senate, both of must occur within 5 days of adoption of the underlying resolution.
• An amendment from Van Hollen to require the Chief Justice to rule on motions to subpoena witnesses and documents, and to rule on any assertion of privilege.
Guardian: "Senators have swiftly moved to vote on Chuck Schumer’s first of four anticipated amendments, to subpoena Mick Mulvaney, John Bolton, Michael Duffey and Robert Blair as well as documents from White House, OMB and the Defense and State Department.
The amendment was defeated by a party-line, 53-47.
Guardian: "Chuck Schumer’s second amendment, to subpoena former national security adviser John Bolton, whose unpublished book reportedly contains shocking allegations that Donald Trump directly oversaw a pressure campaign in Ukraine.
Senators voted it down, once along on party lines.
posted by katra at 4:35 PM on January 31, 2020 [1 favorite]


Does it stick out to anyone else how the phrasing of the vote to conclude all this has - from whatever source I've seen - been "vote on whether to acquit" or "the vote to acquit" and not "to convict"? I mean, yes, we all know the outcome and I assume that is from where that phrasing is subconsciously arising but it's disappointing coming from, say, the Guardian or WaPo with whom we putatively agree and who would be cognizant of the way speech reinforces ideas.
posted by DeepSeaHaggis at 4:41 PM on January 31, 2020 [7 favorites]


Would this be considered a 'miscarriage of justice'?
posted by lunastellasol at 4:42 PM on January 31, 2020


Never mind, just searched and technically, it seems this is the opposite. Carry on.
posted by lunastellasol at 4:42 PM on January 31, 2020 [2 favorites]


Does it stick out to anyone else how the phrasing of the vote to conclude all this has - from whatever source I've seen - been "vote on whether to acquit" or "the vote to acquit" and not "to convict"?

Pelosi calls Senate Republicans ‘accomplices to the President’s cover-up’ (WaPo)
In a blistering statement, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Republican senators who voted against witnesses and documents are “accomplices to the President’s cover-up.”

“The President was impeached for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress,” Pelosi said. “He is impeached forever. There can be no acquittal without a trial. And there is no trial without witnesses, documents and evidence.”

She called it “a sad day for America to see Senator McConnell require the Chief Justice of the United States to preside over a vote which rejected our nation’s judicial norms, precedents and institutions to uphold the Constitution and the rule of law.”
posted by katra at 4:43 PM on January 31, 2020 [14 favorites]


A third amendment from the Democrats was just tabled (CNN)
The Democrats' third amendment has been tabled. This amendment called for the Senate to subpoena John Bolton, and spend one day on his deposition and one day on live testimony — both of which must occur within five days.

The vote to table passed 51 to 49. Republican senators Mitt Romney and Susan Collins voted for a second time tonight with the 47 Democrats against tabling the amendment to subpoena Bolton.
Motion to table Democrats' second amendment passes (CNN)
The vote to table passed 51 to 49. Republican senators Mitt Romney and Susan Collins voted with the 47 Democrats against tabling the amendment to subpoena Bolton.
posted by katra at 4:49 PM on January 31, 2020 [1 favorite]


Senate votes to table Democrats' fourth amendment (CNN)
A motion to table — or effectively kill — the Democrats' fourth amendment just passed.

The vote was 53-47.
posted by katra at 4:55 PM on January 31, 2020 [1 favorite]


“I do not regard those isolated episodes 150 years ago as sufficient to support a general authority to break ties,” Roberts responded.

"I do not regard precedent to count as precedent unless it helps my team," Roberts barfed.
posted by kirkaracha at 5:06 PM on January 31, 2020 [21 favorites]


I just resistbotted to my Senators about voting Present. I recommend everyone contact their senators about this.
posted by njohnson23 at 5:08 PM on January 31, 2020 [4 favorites]


So the House can just subpoena Bolton next week and resume their investigation. Bolton has obliterated any claim of executive privilege by publishing his book and leaking excerpts.
posted by JackFlash at 5:11 PM on January 31, 2020 [9 favorites]


...why can't the House subpoena Bolton now?
posted by MrVisible at 5:12 PM on January 31, 2020 [3 favorites]


ITMFAgain
posted by tonycpsu at 5:19 PM on January 31, 2020 [15 favorites]


She's obviously not wrong but, arguably, there's a difference in the way we receive a quote from Nancy Pelosi versus semi-latently from a WaPo writer. Either way, excellent work, katra. Thank you!
posted by DeepSeaHaggis at 5:20 PM on January 31, 2020 [1 favorite]


Charlotte Clymer on Twitter
Friends, it's a demoralizing day for our democracy, so I'm gonna tell you a quick story that will hopefully cheer you up and put things in perspective. It's about the simultaneous absurdity and rage and beauty of our democratic system. Let me take you back to 1789.(thread)
posted by Glinn at 5:27 PM on January 31, 2020 [9 favorites]


it's time for a 2nd republic
posted by pyramid termite at 6:01 PM on January 31, 2020 [1 favorite]


it's time for a 2nd republic

So New York, California and Scotland?
posted by JackFlash at 6:11 PM on January 31, 2020 [9 favorites]


ITMFAgain

The Mueller report is a pre-packaged article of impeachment, and should still kicking around the House somewhere. It would be encouraging if the House voted on moving them forward on say, Tuesday morning.

And keep the emoluments thing on-deck.
posted by mikelieman at 6:19 PM on January 31, 2020 [5 favorites]


And keep the emoluments thing on-deck

I still don't get why the House hasn't done anything with this. It's specifically mentioned in the Constitution and should be possible to prove conclusively. Also, "The President is taking bribes and stealing from taxpayers" seems clear enough for almost any voter to understand.
posted by Nat "King" Cole Porter Wagoner at 6:29 PM on January 31, 2020 [12 favorites]


Just reflecting on what has happened in the last six months:

It became clear that the Russians interfered in the 2016 US election to favor Trump, and this help was welcomed by the Trump campaign.

It then became clear that Trump then explicitly sought interference in the 2020 election to favor Trump’s re-election.

And in both cases, the Republican Party was complicit in covering up the crimes and preventing Trump from being held accountable for his role in them.

Setting the precedent in stone: if your party controls both the White House and Senate, then the President of the United States is truly above the law.
posted by darkstar at 6:32 PM on January 31, 2020 [22 favorites]


I think a lot of people don't grok the magnitude of the emoluments violations. They see it like stealing office supplies or getting a free lunch from a supplier.

Is there some reason none of these amendments ever attempt to subpoena the president? It seems like it would at somewhat spike the Cheeto's cannon on being able to claim he wanted to testify but the democrats wouldn't let him. A strong soundbite directed at Magas against McConnell in his re-election campaign.

Explainer: Congress no longer runs a jail, so just how powerful are its subpoenas?

I realize this is talking about the legalities but from a practical point of view it's not like they need a super max facility. Any 20th floor hotel room and an armed guard is pretty much all that is needed to physically hold these people.
posted by Mitheral at 6:33 PM on January 31, 2020 [5 favorites]


Any 20th floor hotel room and an armed guard is pretty much all that is needed to physically hold these people.

Or a cooperative governor who can spare a room in their state prison. I hear Virginia is close to DC.
posted by Big Al 8000 at 6:36 PM on January 31, 2020 [3 favorites]


I realize this is talking about the legalities but from a practical point of view it's not like they need a super max facility. Any 20th floor hotel room and an armed guard is pretty much all that is needed to physically hold these people.

This is magical thinking.
And there would be less than 30 minutes before a habeas corpus hearing and a federal judge would put them on release pending a year of court rulings and appeal rulings and supreme court rulings.
posted by JackFlash at 6:39 PM on January 31, 2020 [3 favorites]


Senators say they’ve settled on a schedule that would end the trial on Wednesday. (NYT)
“I’d rather conclude it right away,” said Senator Roy Blunt, Republican of Missouri. But the rules allowed for more time and Democrats insisted, he added. [...]

“The president is gratified that finally — at long last, after multiple delays — the Senate will set a schedule for his acquittals quickly as possible,” said Eric Ueland, Mr. Trump’s congressional liaison. “I do not believe that schedule interferes with his ability to deliver a strong and confident State of the Union message to the House of Representatives and the country next week.”

But people close to Mr. Trump said he was unhappy about the prospect of giving the speech before the Senate acquits him, and is mystified as to why Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky and the majority leader, could not force an end to the proceeding before his address. They spoke on the condition of anonymity to disclose Mr. Trump’s thinking.
Senate set to acquit Trump next week after bid for witnesses in impeachment trial is defeated (WaPo)
House Democrats have promised to continue investigating Trump, and new, potentially damaging information could emerge as it has at times during the trial from an indicted former associate of Trump’s personal attorney Rudolph W. Giuliani and a forthcoming book by John Bolton, the former national security adviser.
posted by katra at 6:41 PM on January 31, 2020 [3 favorites]


Lamar Alexander Just Gave Democrats What They Wanted (David A. Graham, The Atlantic)
Initially, the party line held in the Senate as well. With the notable exception of Mitt Romney of Utah, most Republicans declined to even tut-tut the president’s behavior, scared of either his wrath or that of his supporters.

Alexander broke that stasis. His statement split the difference, acknowledging Trump’s error while also concluding that it didn’t meet the standard for removal. Notably, he said he didn’t think there was a need to call witnesses, because the Democrats had already proved the facts of their case against Trump—even if he was not prepared to endorse the remedy they demanded. [...]

Weak though it is, Alexander’s statement still placed him outside the mainstream of Senate Republicans. But this expression of disapproval from a retiring elder statesman of the caucus seems to have given some other members the courage to take a similar stand. The result is several senators who acknowledge or imply that the president is guilty of the charges against him but don’t think they merit removing him from office.
Giving implicit permission to express disapproval while voting to acquit doesn't seem like much of a stand, but here, in the middle of the long game, it's something that might be useful. Cold comfort though.
posted by ZeusHumms at 6:45 PM on January 31, 2020 [4 favorites]


NYT: They spoke on the condition of anonymity to disclose Mr. Trump’s thinking.

This crap has to stop. There is absolutely no excuse for providing anonymity to a Trump press person or Trump himself to make anonymous press releases to the public. They are not protecting a whistleblower. They are anonymizing an authorized spokesperson for the president so that they cannot be cross-examined by the press.
posted by JackFlash at 6:47 PM on January 31, 2020 [26 favorites]


NYT: They spoke on the condition of anonymity to disclose Mr. Trump’s thinking.

And even worse, the NYT has lectured us over and over again that it is improper to calls Trumps lies "lying" because it is impossible for anyone to know Trump's true thoughts. Yet here they are telling us what Trump is "thinking".

Nobody knows what Trump is thinking. They can only know what Trump said to them in words. In which case they should just say "Trump says" and tell us who he said it to. Then the public can evaluate both the message and the messenger for veracity.
posted by JackFlash at 6:56 PM on January 31, 2020 [25 favorites]


Get a load of this shit, from CNN:
Washington (CNN) In announcing that she would vote against the Senate calling witnesses, Sen. Lisa Murkowski suggested that her decision was made in part to spare Chief Justice John Roberts from having to face a 50-50 tie, allowing him to avoid a legal and political storm.

"It has also become clear some of my colleagues intend to further politicize this process, and drag the Supreme Court into the fray, while attacking the chief justice," the Alaska Republican said Friday afternoon.

Her statement appeared to be a direct response to Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, a Democratic presidential candidate who had essentially forced Roberts to speculate about his credibility on national television.
So, set aside whether Warren's question was appropriate or tactically sound. Are we supposed to to believe that Murkowski was dying to convict but mean Liz Warren had to force her hand by saying nasty things about her friend? Of course not. It's an obvious "outrage off ramp", and CNN is laundering it, making us think it's Warren's fault. The fact that it hurts a Democratic presidential candidate is the cherry on top of CNN's "Democrats in disarray" sundae.
posted by tonycpsu at 7:16 PM on January 31, 2020 [22 favorites]


Efforts to stop anonymous sources clash with 1st Amendment (AP, Feb. 24, 2017)
President Donald Trump railed against the news media Friday, saying reporters shouldn’t be allowed to use anonymous sources. He said he’s been a target of unrelenting criticism by unnamed people, and he predicted that negative stories would “dry up like you’ve never seen before” if anonymous sources were jettisoned. [...]

[Gabe Rottman, a lawyer at the Center for Democracy & Technology,] said Trump’s comments about anonymous sources could have a chilling effect on people who want to tell reporters about waste, fraud or something worse in government.

“The use of anonymous sources has been essential in drawing back the veil of secrecy from an overstepping government,” Rottman said.
posted by katra at 7:17 PM on January 31, 2020 [4 favorites]


Murkowski shivving Warren was not on my impeachment bingo card. I mean, god damn.
posted by fluttering hellfire at 7:21 PM on January 31, 2020 [15 favorites]


I’m just glad Murkowski found her backbone, and boldly stepped up to hold accountable the real malfeasors in this whole situation.
posted by darkstar at 7:42 PM on January 31, 2020 [4 favorites]


NYT: They spoke on the condition of anonymity to disclose Mr. Trump’s thinking.

I don't think that these anonymous sources were making a statement that is friendly to Trump's messaging, which is part of why I included it - ultimately though, my point is to push back on what appears to be the emerging narrative, e.g. Senate punts final vote in Trump trial to next week (Politico)
The Senate impeachment trial for Donald Trump will drag into next week, with a vote set for Wednesday afternoon on two articles of impeachment against the president, according to a bipartisan resolution negotiated by party leaders.

Before agreeing to the delay, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) phoned Trump to get the president's approval, according to a source familiar with the conversation. Trump then signed off on the decision. [...]

Senate Republicans suggested scheduling concerns related to the Iowa caucuses on Monday and Trump’s State of the Union address on Tuesday were behind the possible delay in ending the proceedings. [...] White House officials also wanted more time to prepare their closing arguments in the case, said several sources close to the issue.
The point, such as it is, is more clearly stated by CNN:
Republican senators said tonight that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell had no choice but to cut the deal for the Wednesday acquittal vote.

That's because, the senators said, Democrats could have used their power under the rules to drag it out past the State of the Union. And Democrats had no desire to let Trump be cleared by the time of the Tuesday SOTU as the White House wanted, according to senators from both parties.

So they decided to cut the deal, spare themselves late nights and a weekend session, and agree to have the vote on Wednesday.

"Democrats were willing to use any number of dilatory tactics, many of which would probably carry us into next week," Sen. John Thune said, adding that it could delay the vote until "potentially" beyond the State of the Union if Democrats used their "full arsenal of tools."
posted by katra at 7:50 PM on January 31, 2020 [4 favorites]


Before agreeing to the delay, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) phoned Trump to get the president's approval, according to a source familiar with the conversation. Trump then signed off on the decision.


Ah yes. Fair trial. Impartial jurors.
posted by darkstar at 7:55 PM on January 31, 2020 [22 favorites]


Not that we can hold out a ton of hope, but any delay is good. Suppose there’s a bombshell from Lev or Bolton over the weekend that two more senators just can’t ignore. We probably won’t be so lucky, but we’re in “so you’re saying there’s a chance” territory.
posted by azpenguin at 8:27 PM on January 31, 2020 [7 favorites]


Giving implicit permission to express disapproval while voting to acquit doesn't seem like much of a stand, but here, in the middle of the long game, it's something that might be useful. Cold comfort though.

I got at this in an earlier post, but it bears restating: Ultimately, this impeachment will fail because it is not bipartisan. But that is not the Democrat's fault! They made a good argument and history will affirm this, I am sure. Alexander admits they are right in his statement, as does Rubio. I'm sure with the coming 10 minute speeches explaining their votes, we'll get at least 20 Senators who give some variation on the "Trump was bad, but not that bad, mmkay?" theme. When they give that speech, they are admitting the Democrats were correct in bringing these articles of impeachment and their case was solid.

No, this impeachment was never going to be bipartisan because no Republican had the courage to agree with the Democrats. When one steps out of line, they are crushed (see: Justin Amash, also CPAC's disinvitation to Mitt Romney). Bipartisanship requires courage -- a trait that is lacking in the GOP party today.
posted by Big Al 8000 at 8:49 PM on January 31, 2020 [10 favorites]


Wow. There’s craven and then there’s craven.
So I guess Citizens United was a roaring success.
Maybe someone should organize a citizen’s SuperPac, one working for the best interests of the people.
posted by From Bklyn at 10:41 PM on January 31, 2020 [1 favorite]


He said he’s been a target of unrelenting criticism by unnamed people

Yeah, well. When the entire world outside your own cocoon of sycophants and enablers can see at a glance what a complete shithead you are, that's gonna happen.
posted by flabdablet at 11:56 PM on January 31, 2020 [9 favorites]


No, this impeachment was never going to be bipartisan because no Republican had the courage to agree with the Democrats. When one steps out of line, they are crushed (see: Justin Amash, also CPAC's disinvitation to Mitt Romney). Bipartisanship requires courage -- a trait that is lacking in the GOP party today.

Does no one among Mr. Capone's associates have the courage to step forward and discuss his business dealings?
posted by benzenedream at 2:23 AM on February 1, 2020 [2 favorites]


"Democrats were willing to use any number of dilatory tactics, many of which would probably carry us into next week," Sen. John Thune said, adding that it could delay the vote until "potentially" beyond the State of the Union if Democrats used their "full arsenal of tools."

Good on the Democrats for sticking together and getting what they could out of this stinking process -- denying Trump his victory lap at his last (TTTCS) State of the Union address.

It's telling -- so much so that even NPR seemed to notice -- that Republicans insisted on speech time to justify their votes. Personally I think they don't deserve it, but I also expect that those speeches are going to come back to haunt them. Nothing at all about the impeachment process has made the Republicans look good, so it won't help any of them come November.
posted by Gelatin at 4:45 AM on February 1, 2020 [5 favorites]


They’re senators. If they have to sit in silence for 2 weeks listening to other people without getting to talk, they starve to death.
posted by Huffy Puffy at 7:02 AM on February 1, 2020 [7 favorites]


~"Democrats were willing to use any number of dilatory tactics, many of which would probably carry us into next week," Sen. John Thune said, adding that it could delay the vote until "potentially" beyond the State of the Union if Democrats used their "full arsenal of tools."

~Good on the Democrats for sticking together and getting what they could out of this stinking process -- denying Trump his victory lap at his last (TTTCS) State of the Union address.


Mitch isn't going to let this extend into the SotU address. Just as there are rules and tools for the Democrats to use to extend the process, I'm pretty sure there are tools in McConnell's box to shut things down.

I'm not sure what Democrats thought the outcome of this was going to be. Has this gone anywhere close to whatever plan they thought they had formulated? Did they even have a game plan? Or, did they honestly believe "we're doing our constitutional duty" would sway minds?

They can't possibly have been so naive as to think any Republicans were going to be (publicly) swayed, let alone enough to actually vote for witnesses. Sure, there's probably a good number of them who will privately admit to being disgusted by Trump, but, if recent history has taught us anything, it's that today's Republican party is a monolithic power that broaches no disloyalty. You march in-step with the party leader, and, today, that's the Orange One.

So, now we are to endure Trump's year-long victory lap, starting with what will possibly be the most unhinged SotU speech ever. I expect direct, in-name, personal attacks against Pelosi, Schiff, and the Dems in general. The big question is whether the Dems will sit there and take it, or respond back, or even walk out. I kind of doubt they'll do anything. Even now, they're still trying to be adults and play by the rules.

Sorry if this sounds like a rant. It wasn't meant to be. I'm just so frustrated and depressed by the way this system has been undermined over the past three years (well...let's be honest...this is just the culmination of roughly 40 years of effort and planning on the part of conservatives.) It's so hard to keep any flame of hope alive in me anymore. It's probably best I bow-out of these threads from now on. Sorry.
posted by Thorzdad at 7:31 AM on February 1, 2020 [6 favorites]


And that, my friends, is exactly the Republican game plan. By frustrating us, they hope to demoralize those who would vote against them and bait those who are inclined to believe (and promote) the "feckless Democrats" narrative.
posted by wierdo at 7:45 AM on February 1, 2020 [12 favorites]


But, echoing an article that I can't find now over in the Brexit thread: If you vote for the Democratic Party, it's because you like and want a rules-based society. Because rules protect normal people who aren't super-rich. So the Democrats have to keep on acting as people that believe in that. Even as they lose, they win.
The big question is whether the US can have a free and fair election where every vote counts equally. There's the structural unfairnesses built into the Senate and the Electoral College, and there are the politically controlled unfairnesses known as gerrymandering. Add in voter intimidation and actual cheating, and there is a lot to deal with.
posted by mumimor at 7:46 AM on February 1, 2020 [6 favorites]


Did they even have a game plan? Or, did they honestly believe "we're doing our constitutional duty" would sway minds?

Lack of resistance is worse than failed resistance. It is their job to impeach him, they did it because it was important to do their job, even knowing that it would sputter out. There certainly wasn't going to be an opportunity more likely to yield results later: that's how salami slicing works.
posted by PMdixon at 8:18 AM on February 1, 2020 [37 favorites]


While the weaponized trolling and microtargeted lies are new, all the rest is something we've overcome before. Don't let the bastards get you down. That is how they win, which is why so much of the news is calibrated to do precisely that.

Yes, our votes count less. That makes it all the more important we do it, no matter how pointless it seems. They wouldn't bother to put in the effort suppressing votes if it really didn't matter.
posted by wierdo at 8:24 AM on February 1, 2020 [18 favorites]


Because rules protect normal people who aren't super-rich. So the Democrats have to keep on acting as people that believe in that. Even as they lose, they win.

The problem is that people don't believe that anymore. 2008 we didn't see a single banker go to jail for basically blowing up the economy. Events like those are huge catalysts. If we live in a rules based system that doesn't actually do what we want or need it to, why do we have it?

The rules that Americans have been living by have not only hollowed out the middle class but also keep down the people who want to move up. The underclass (rightfully) want to change the rules, the remaining middle class liberals are clawing desperately to the rules that have kept them comfortable, the white working class just want to break it all thinking that's what it will take to bring America back to the days of Eisenhower, and the white male conservatives want to break it all thinking that's what it will take to bring America back to the antebellum. If someone has a delusional sense of self superiority in some imagined "natural hierarchy", of course rules based systems are an anathema to them.

The rules based liberal world order is breaking down because not enough people still perceive a benefit from it.
They're both right and wrong. The past 50 years have basically seen capital fuck everyone bar 5% of the first world but it's no doubt better being a poor person today than a poor person back in the 1960s. Hopefully we can rework the system and restore belief in it before something truly awful happens but I get a little less hopeful with each populist boulder rolled into the way of progress.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 8:48 AM on February 1, 2020 [10 favorites]


I'm not sure what Democrats thought the outcome of this was going to be. Has this gone anywhere close to whatever plan they thought they had formulated? Did they even have a game plan? Or, did they honestly believe "we're doing our constitutional duty" would sway minds?

They did their fucking jobs. That was their game plan.
posted by a non mouse, a cow herd at 8:57 AM on February 1, 2020 [49 favorites]


Public service announcement: if you are posting any form of lamenting about Democrats failed strategy, their tactical ineptitude, their lack of a "game plan", then the burden of proof is on you to articulate some other path not taken that would have led to a better outcome.

I am on record above wishing Democrats turned the proceedings into more of a spectacle, with less comity and more heated rhetoric, but I was never deluded into thinking this was going to change anything about the path toward conviction. I think they went in fully expecting acquittal, but knowing that predictions are hard, especially about the future, so they took their best shot. Master tactician McConnell didn't see McCain's thumbs down on skinny repeal coming, and while it's a much longer shot for someone to cast the decisive vote to convict a sitting president, it's a shot you need to take when none of your other options lead to conviction.

Setting aside who's going to Win The Messaging War (tm) at the State of the Union address, what the Democrats got out of this process is proof, in recorded votes and on video, that the GOP is complicit in a cover-up of POTUS45's abuses of power. The campaign ads write themselves, and may be enough to significantly impact some Senate races. It's a bad map for the Democrats, but having Senators affirm that they don't even want to see first-hand evidence of the crimes that are obvious to anyone watching will hurt these Senators in tight races. This is not the conviction we wanted, but it's not nothing.

The response to playing out the very shitty hand they were dealt is starting to remind me of the "Didn't. Even. Try" rhetoric around Obamacare circa 2009, wherein people thought there was some magical incantation that Democrats could utter that would have suddenly changed the minds of recalcitrant Republicans. That's not how any of this works, so if you're going to do the Murc's Law thing and blame Democrats, you owe it to everyone else to make a compelling case for how you think this could have played out differently.
posted by tonycpsu at 8:59 AM on February 1, 2020 [37 favorites]


2008 was a huge mistake in every aspect, but I totally understand why it happened. If it happens again in 2021, I will take to the streets.
The new EU parliament and commission seem to be dedicated to not repeat 2008, for what it's worth. That gives me a bit of hope.
I really have no clue about the US equivalent. It depends a lot on the senate, I think. Get those evil people out now, if you want change, and that means GOTV in red states.
posted by mumimor at 8:59 AM on February 1, 2020 [3 favorites]


Poll: Support for Trump's removal remains steady (Politico)
As the Senate impeachment trial goes into its third week, support for removing President Donald Trump from office remains steady, with half of voters registering approval for his conviction despite his all-but-certain acquittal, according to the latest POLITICO/Morning Consult poll.

The new poll conducted Jan. 29-30 and released Saturday shows minimal change in public opinion about the trial. While 50 percent approval and 43 percent disapproval for a Senate conviction represent a slightly wider gap than the last POLITICO/Morning Consult survey, both numbers remain within the poll’s margin of error. [...]

The POLITICO/Morning Consult poll was conducted online between Jan. 29-30 among a national sample of 1,992 registered voters. Results from the full survey have a margin of error of plus or minus 2 percentage points.
posted by katra at 8:59 AM on February 1, 2020 [6 favorites]


I really don't get why so many people seem to think there was a way for the Democrats to sufficiently out-strategize the Republicans to win here. Sometimes the bad guys win. You keep showing up and doing your part, but it's harder to build things than to break them. Building things requires cooperation. Breaking things does not. Impeachment could not succeed in securing a conviction without Republican cooperation. And nothing was going to get them to cooperate. Impeachment was still the absolutely right thing to do.
posted by bardophile at 9:04 AM on February 1, 2020 [33 favorites]


Dana Milbank/WaPo: The Senate impeachment trial was rigged!
In the end, they didn’t even pretend to take their oaths seriously.
Senators were instructed “to be in attendance at all times” during President Trump’s impeachment trial. But as the Democratic House managers made their last, fruitless appeals Friday for the Senate to bring witnesses and documents, several of the body’s 53 Republican senators didn’t even bother to show up.
“A trial is supposed to be a quest for the truth,” lead manager Adam Schiff pleaded.
Thirteen GOP senators were missing as he said this. Sens. Kevin Cramer (N.D.), Joni Ernst (Iowa) and Ron Johnson (Wis.) chewed gum.
Manager Val Demings (Fla.) reminded them that this would be the “only time in history” that an impeachment trial was held without witnesses or relevant documents.
Twelve Republican senators were missing. Josh Hawley (Mo.), Dan Sullivan (Alaska) and Tom Cotton (Ark.) joined in the chewing.
posted by mumimor at 9:17 AM on February 1, 2020 [12 favorites]


Or, did they honestly believe "we're doing our constitutional duty" would sway minds?


I deleted paragraphs of stuff from my last comment in order to make my point clear. Of the the things I deleted was discussion of the above quoted sentence.

Throzdad, if I am reading your comment correctly, I am assuming you are saying it would sway elected Sen R minds? I don't think that was ever in the equation.

Yet, all the Dems involved in the impeachment process seem to have done their constitutional duty. I believe the farce of this "trial" has swayed some voters minds (as indicated upthread from someone having a good chicken fried steak in stl).

Is it enough to make a difference? November is long way away to find out... (*sigh*)

eta: added the word voter.
posted by a non mouse, a cow herd at 9:24 AM on February 1, 2020 [2 favorites]


mumimor: ...rules protect normal people who aren't super-rich.

Your Childhood Pet Rock: The problem is that people don't believe that anymore. 2008 we didn't see a single banker go to jail for basically blowing up the economy. Events like those are huge catalysts. If we live in a rules based system that doesn't actually do what we want or need it to, why do we have it?

Ooo, ooo, I know this one!

Trick question! We don't have it! Because the cheating, conniving richies worked that sweet arms for hostages gambit and used it to unseat Carter, the last entirely decent US president who played by the rules and did not cheat. They brought in Reagan and began systematically breaking all the systems that used to work for us, all the while howling that the systems are broken. Unions are busted, public health is busted, education is busted, the list is long of the things they deliberately broke because they worked for the public and kept rich people from taking EVERYTHING for themselves. In the process, they made it impossible to succeed without cheating. And they were able to do this because one of the most busted things is the criminal justice system. That it is broken and no longer works to protect the public from rapacious whitecollar sociopaths means that they are free to work their various perfidious games pretty much with impunity--the southern strategy, the savings and loan moneygrab, gerrymandering, voter suppression, making obscene profits off of every foreign war, and now snuggling up to Putin: basically whatever vileness floats into their evil minds while they're pounding pricey scotch on Epstein's jet on their way to the various Caligulan lawless skyhells they inhabit.
posted by Don Pepino at 9:39 AM on February 1, 2020 [42 favorites]


Trump's lawyers during the trial give a preview of how its going to go if Biden wins the nomination. The new "but her emails" is going to be non-stop "Hunter Biden" every day until the election.

And you can expect Maggie the Trump Whisperer and her accomplices to go right along with it.
posted by JackFlash at 9:50 AM on February 1, 2020 [7 favorites]


POLITICO Playbook: The two Senate trials
BREAKING … REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D-Calif.) raised a stunning $2.5 MILLION in the fourth quarter of 2019, a new filing showed. He has $8.1 MILLION in the bank. This is a massive, massive haul and pile of cash for a member of the House. [...]

ON IMPEACHMENT … THERE WERE TWO TRIALS GOING ON THIS WEEK in the Senate: One was an argument among a couple of Ivy-educated lawyers about who did what in Ukraine, who sent what email, when, why and how. This was important. But there was another trial. That one was about raw power, and the structural incentives that rule modern American politics. That was the trial the Republicans won — and many would argue it’s a temporary and hollow victory.

WHAT’S RIGHT AND WRONG is not what rules American politics in the modern era -- and it’s especially irrelevant in Congress. The parties are geographically sorted. The Republican Party is nearly entirely homogeneous racially and uniform in its fealty to President DONALD TRUMP. The simple reality is this: With rare exception, you cannot win in today’s Republican Party without complete loyalty to the president.

CONGRESSIONAL POLITICS is not the place for political finesse or fancy legalese. It’s a game of brute political force -- just ask NANCY PELOSI and MITCH MCCONNELL, two longtime players of this game.

HERE’S THE TRUTH: REPUBLICANS are not comfortable with the president’s behavior. They say it privately, some say it publicly on their way out. But they have no incentive to say this aloud no matter how egregious they believe the president’s behavior to be. To win as a Republican in any seat that’s at all marginal, you need to appeal to Republicans to vote.

THOSE DYNAMICS, perhaps more than anything else, explain what just happened on Capitol Hill.
posted by katra at 9:54 AM on February 1, 2020 [7 favorites]


I don’t blame democrats so much as the one last Democratic president, who failed to call McConnell’s bluff at least two times.
posted by Harry Caul at 9:56 AM on February 1, 2020 [8 favorites]


U.S. Officials Warn of ‘Real Security Consequences’ if Trump’s Acquitted (The Daily Beast, Feb. 1, 2020)

Trump impeachment trial: What acquittal would mean for 2020 election (BBC.com, Feb. 1, 2020)

I'd like the Dem House Reps to walk out before the SOTU address begins (or not show up at all), and take questions outside as cameras pan the half-empty chamber. They impeached him, and he won't have the acquittal by then.

I'm poking around for any takes on what an acquittal means for Ukraine, and/or which countries are likely to endure the same treatment now that the blueprint's established. There was something putridly fishy going on with Lebanon's withheld aid (Exclusive: U.S. withholding $105 million in security aid for Lebanon - sources Reuters, Oct. 31, 2019, & Trump administration lifts hold on Lebanon security aid, Reuters, Dec. 2, 2019). He did ask China to "investigate" Biden, back in October (The Guardian, Oct. 3, 2019, & Lawfare blog, Oct. 10, 2019) but the US doesn't have a tenth of the leverage there (China rejects Trump's request to investigate Joe Biden, hoping to steer clear of U.S. politics, USA Today, Oct. 8, 2019).
posted by Iris Gambol at 10:04 AM on February 1, 2020 [5 favorites]


The rules based liberal world order is breaking down because not enough people still perceive a benefit from it.

I'm an old. Please feel free to "ok, boomer" me. That said, this really strikes to the core of my current despair for liberal society here and abroad. As late as ten years ago, I believed that the arc of the moral universe bends towards justice. But everything that has happened since undermined that faith. Racism is far, far more common than I believed. Ignorance and irrationality are rewarded by clicks and views. More and more, capitalism looks like a prototype of Roko's Basilisk.

It absolutely kills me that here, at the end of my life, the world is regressing into old evils that I once thought vanquished. (Why the hell do I have to explain that the Nazis were bad?!) I want to encourage young people, tell them everything will be OK if you just work hard and follow the rules (as I did as a young, idealistic fool). But I can't look them in the faces and lie; I can only look down and apologize.

When did I become Gandalf the Grey, asking innocent young heroes to step up and save the world from the evils I failed to vanquish because of my folly?
posted by SPrintF at 10:09 AM on February 1, 2020 [53 favorites]


SPrintF, look at people turning their noses up at vaccines. 50 years of not dealing with childhood communicable diseases has made us ignorant, arrogant, and complacent.

I was talking about this sort of thing to my therapist the other day. I personally believe this is the other side of the coin that lets human beings experience hope and faith. That we can purposefully remain ignorant of a situation, be irrational about our response, and still be confident? That's hope and faith and faith in a nutshell.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 10:15 AM on February 1, 2020 [8 favorites]


Don Pepino, I totally agree with you. But I also believe that the cure is a return to a rules-based society and that the Democrats must stand for that. Both during the 1930's and in my own lifetime, the militant left has unfortunately served to strengthen the fascists. If both sides are against rules and for violence, a lot of people will choose to be with the rich. (Still, I have resisted before and will resist again if there is an actual fascist takeover, and I acknowledge that right now we are on a thin line).
posted by mumimor at 10:25 AM on February 1, 2020 [4 favorites]


Mod note: Friendly nudge against generalized doomsaying; let's steer toward updates and more concrete impeachment stuff in here.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 10:28 AM on February 1, 2020 [9 favorites]


Trump impeachment: Republican Senate 'coverup' prompts backlash (Guardian)
Outraged by what they see as a coverup in the impeachment trial of Donald Trump, grassroots activists are planning a massive “payback project” designed to punish Republican senators at the ballot box.

Even as key Republican senators acknowledged Trump’s guilt on charges of abusing power and obstructing Congress, they defied public opinion on Friday by voting to block witnesses and documents, paving the way for the president to be acquitted and claim exoneration.

The party’s fealty to Trump has long wearied liberals but the senators’ move appeared to cause a new level of anger. The Indivisible Project, a progressive group, announced it would target nine senators, among them the majority leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and Trump loyalist Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, in November’s elections.

Indivisible said it would next week call out one of the “nine Payback Project senators for their participating in a coverup by placing a full page newspaper ad in one of their biggest state papers”. It also urged members to start text messaging. “Because rage is good for recruiting. Hello. Are you pissed about impeachment too?”

“These senators thrive on disenfranchisement,” it added, “so it’s our job to make sure voters show up to kick them out.”
posted by katra at 10:35 AM on February 1, 2020 [21 favorites]


Justice Department acknowledges 24 emails reveal Trump’s thinking on Ukraine (WaPo)
Hours after the Senate voted against seeking new evidence in the impeachment case against President Trump, the administration acknowledged in a midnight court filing Friday the existence of two dozen emails that reveal the president’s thinking about withholding military aid to Ukraine.

The Department of Justice filed a response to a lawsuit seeking access to unredacted copies of those communications. Heather Walsh, a lawyer for the Office of Management and Budget, wrote to the court that 24 of those emails were protected under “presidential privilege.” [...] Heavily blacked out versions of the emails were released in two batches in December in response to a lawsuit filed by the Center for Public Integrity. The filing Friday asked the court to deny the organization’s request for unredacted copies.
Trump administration reveals it's blocking dozens of emails about Ukraine aid freeze, including President's role (CNN)
The filing, released near midnight Friday, marks the first official acknowledgment from the Trump administration that emails about the President's thinking related to the aid exist, and that he was directly involved in asking about and deciding on the aid as early as June. The administration is still blocking those emails from the public and has successfully kept them from Congress.

A lawyer with the Office of Management and Budget wrote to the court that 24 emails between June and September 2019 -- including an internal discussion among DOD officials called "POTUS follow-up" on June 24 -- should stay confidential because the emails describe "communications by either the President, the Vice President, or the President's immediate advisors regarding Presidential decision-making about the scope, duration, and purpose of the hold on military assistance to Ukraine." [...]

Government officials testified in the House's impeachment inquiry to the existence of what appears to be some of the emails. "The day after DOD issued its June 18 press release announcing $250 million in security assistance funds for Ukraine, President Trump started asking OMB questions about the funding for Ukraine," the House outlined in its impeachment report.

The House noted that the OMB refused to turn over any documents when subpoenaed during the probe, and that emails may exist showing acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney passing along the President's order to halt the aid to Ukraine.
posted by katra at 11:20 AM on February 1, 2020 [9 favorites]


Winning back the Democratic majority in the U.S. Senate is the most important task for America in the next (gulp) nine months. Once again, I recommend (and am actively supporting) Flip the West as one of the groups actively and effectively working toward that goal.
posted by PhineasGage at 11:40 AM on February 1, 2020 [16 favorites]


Trump administration reveals it's blocking dozens of emails about Ukraine aid freeze, including President's role (CNN)
Like Schiff said: the information will keep on coming. Do you want it now, or do you want it to trickle on during the whole election year. I think it was McConnell who misjudged this. If they had ousted Trump now and had president Zealot, they wouldn't have won the next presidency, but the Senate would have been safe. Now, a very good Democratic campaign can flip the Senate.
posted by mumimor at 11:47 AM on February 1, 2020 [10 favorites]


Do you want it now, or do you want it to trickle on during the whole election year

I hope you're right. I can certainly imagine Republicans having a problem explaining their behavior through the impeachment when they let Trump off and the stories just keep getting worse and worse. Heck, we still have emails about Yovanovich being surveilled to look forward to.

There are many ways that this story can still have a happy ending, but it's going to take a lot of work, a lot of thinking, and a lot of mistakes on the GOP's part. I'm sure they've been gaming this out for ages by now.
posted by rhizome at 12:25 PM on February 1, 2020


How do SOTUs generally go? Does the Speaker deliver an introduction? If so, I hope it's something special.
posted by Joe in Australia at 12:46 PM on February 1, 2020 [1 favorite]


The sergeant-at-arms of the House of Representatives announces the president, he walks up to the podium, shakes hands with the Vice President (as president of the Senate) and the Speaker of the House, and starts his speech. There isn't an introduction.
posted by kirkaracha at 1:01 PM on February 1, 2020


No, there usually is an introduction by the Speaker: "Members of Congress, I have the high privilege and distinct honor of presenting to you the President of the United States," and then the whole chamber applauds (the office). Pelosi notably skipped introducing him last year, though.
posted by Rhaomi at 1:22 PM on February 1, 2020 [2 favorites]


Oops.
posted by kirkaracha at 1:33 PM on February 1, 2020 [1 favorite]


Can she give him a down-low-too-slow or something like that?
posted by Faint of Butt at 1:35 PM on February 1, 2020 [19 favorites]


"I present to you the President of the United States, Rufus Dingledong."
posted by rhizome at 1:37 PM on February 1, 2020 [11 favorites]


The sergeant-at-arms of the House of Representatives announces the president yt , he walks up to the podium, shakes hands with the Vice President (as president of the Senate) and the Speaker of the House, and starts his speech. There isn't an introduction.
You're back to norms again? I thought norms were out this year.
There's nothing in the constitution about the president giving a speech- it says "...from time to time give to Congress information of the State of the Union..."
No reason not to turn it into a question and answer period.
(or to try out the House jail idea...)
posted by MtDewd at 1:52 PM on February 1, 2020 [5 favorites]


You're back to norms again? I thought norms were out this year.

Wait til you see Dems applauding and being cordial all night.
posted by 922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a at 2:29 PM on February 1, 2020 [19 favorites]


My fantasy (not gonna happen but it would be SO satisfying) would be for Trump to walk up to the podium and for Pelosi to turn and say to him: "Do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?" and for Adam Schiff to step down to the floor of the chamber with a hand full of notes.
posted by Nerd of the North at 2:39 PM on February 1, 2020 [36 favorites]


Trump administration reveals it's blocking dozens of emails about Ukraine aid freeze, including President's role (CNN)
Like Schiff said: the information will keep on coming. Do you want it now, or do you want it to trickle on during the whole election year. I think it was McConnell who misjudged this. If they had ousted Trump now and had president Zealot, they wouldn't have won the next presidency, but the Senate would have been safe.


Republican Senators are going to protest that they had no idea Trump could be this corrupt, but if the fact that they voted not to hear another word of evidence isn't convincing, there's the fact that McConnell boasted he'd be coordinating with the White house to get him acquitted.

Well, maybe. And the whole pack of you voted out of office, let's hope.
posted by Gelatin at 3:35 PM on February 1, 2020 [5 favorites]


If you look at this like a ten-story condominium building, we were only in the Ukraine room, and when you turn on the lights, you saw rats everywhere. Who knows what's going on in the Turkey room, or the Saudi room, or the Russia room, and so, yes. We have a duty to protect our country, and explore further what claims John Bolton may have, and what other dealings this president may have been involved in, and we're not gonna stop just because the Senate didn't do their job. -- Eric Swalwell
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 4:59 PM on February 1, 2020 [37 favorites]


"I don’t blame democrats so much as the one last Democratic president, who failed to call McConnell’s bluff at least two times"

As much as I detest the timeline we are in today, I don't relish the idea that President Obama is to blame. He had zero good options once McConnell and crew abandoned the constitution. Seriously, what should be have done? Keeping in mind a Senate full of obstructionist?
posted by kiwi-epitome at 5:38 PM on February 1, 2020 [13 favorites]


"I present to you the President of the United States, Rufus Dingledong."

I present to you, impeached President of the United States, and current defendant in a Senate trial to remove him from office, Donald Trump.

They can't possibly have been so naive as to think any Republicans were going to be (publicly) swayed, let alone enough to actually vote for witnesses.
[...]
So, now we are to endure Trump's year-long victory lap


At some point you just have to do your job because it is the right thing to do. Doing otherwise is condoning all the illegal activity. Actual fights against corruption (and not the Cheetos' drain the swamp bullshit) have to start somewhere. And they will fail until the situation flips and honest is expected.

That switch happens very fast. IE: there is a sort of bimodal distribution where corruption (however you want to measure it) effects 75% of transactions and in a very short period of time that can flip to 25%. In a way say 20% of people are inherently honest and 20% inherently dishonest and the vast majority of of people and institutions can go either way to varying degrees. Having high profile honesty floating around can flip the middle 60% from allowing corruption to demanding honesty.

PS: We'll know the tide has really turned when Fox makes a big deal out of The Cheeto's former registration as a Democrat.
posted by Mitheral at 5:49 PM on February 1, 2020 [16 favorites]


CNN headline: Trump not expected to apologize or admit any wrongdoing after anticipated acquittal

No shit, Sherlock. It took you three years to figure this out?

Trump never apologizes for anything. It was a lesson his personal lawyer Roy Cohn taught him. Always attack, never admit blame or apologize. An apology is a sign of weakness.
posted by JackFlash at 6:40 PM on February 1, 2020 [9 favorites]


I still maintain that Trump is our incarnation of Baron Harkonnen.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 5:05 AM on February 2, 2020 [4 favorites]


Trump is Beast Rabban.
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 7:57 AM on February 2, 2020 [8 favorites]


Republicans tainted Joe Biden with the Ukraine scandal. It’s what Trump wanted all along. (WaPo Editorial Board)
[...] with the dishonorable help of some Republican members of Congress, the president may yet achieve his original goal: sliming Mr. Biden with absolutely no basis in fact.

“There is a mountain of evidence to suggest the Bidens’ behavior was harmful to the United States,” Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) tweeted last Wednesday. [...] As Congress has considered whether to impeach and remove Mr. Trump from office, Republicans rallying to his defense have argued that it is Mr. Biden who should be scrutinized. [...] Congress was thoroughly briefed at the time about the prosecutor general and the then-vice president’s activities. And there is nothing to indicate Joe Biden did anything on behalf of his son in Ukraine.

Yet now, even though Mr. Biden fought corruption in Ukraine, Republicans insist he should receive scrutiny for allegedly enabling corruption there. [...] Mr. Graham’s behavior has been particularly shabby as he has threatened to misuse his chairmanship of the Senate Judiciary Committee to investigate the former vice president. He has announced a formal probe and asked the State Department for documents. “We’re not going to live in a world where only Republicans get looked at,” he said in December, indulging in a toxic (and unwarranted) display of grievance and implying that Mr. Biden’s demonstrably benign activities in Ukraine are equivalent to Mr. Trump’s corruption.

But there is no moral equivalence. There is no reasonable case against Mr. Biden. [...] That Mr. Graham would suggest that the two belong in the same universe shows that he is so poisoned by partisanship, he either does not understand or has lost all moral direction.
posted by katra at 9:32 AM on February 2, 2020 [7 favorites]


By denying witnesses, Republicans made clear even a smoking gun would not be enough (Julian Borger, Guardian Opinion)
The 51-49 vote had been all but certain since 11pm the previous night, when the wobbliest Republican waverer, Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, announced which way he would vote, by tweet. He conceded that the Democrats had proven their case that Donald Trump had used his office to try to bully Ukraine into investigating the president’s political opponents. But Lamar explained while this was “inappropriate”, it was not an impeachable high crime or misdemeanour. So why drag out impeachment?

“So if you’ve got eight witnesses saying that you left the scene of an accident, you don’t need nine,” Alexander told National Public Radio on Friday, using a revealing parallel. Leaving the scene of an accident you cause is normally a crime, and this was of course no accident.

On Friday morning the New York Times reported that John Bolton, the president’s former national security adviser, had described a damning scene in his forthcoming memoir in which the president directly ordered him to commit the act at the heart of the impeachment case. Trump told Bolton to call the new Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelenskiy, and tell him to meet Trump’s lawyer and fixer, Rudy Giuliani, with the aim of arranging investigations into the former vice-president Joe Biden and his son Hunter.

It appeared to be the smoking gun the president’s lawyers had long claimed did not exist. The Republican response was, in effect, that the president had every right to a recently fired weapon. It was plainly evident from the start of the day that evidence was unlikely to play a major part in the majority’s deliberations. On each Democrat’s wooden desk there was a bulky white binder, detailing the articles of impeachment presented by the House of Representatives. The 53 Republican desks in contrast, were tidy and empty. [...]

When the vote came, the outcome was prosaic and expected, and the chamber adjourned for dinner and put off a final vote on Trump’s acquittal until Wednesday. But Friday’s decision ensured next week’s denouement will be largely a display of party loyalty. By any substantive measure, the trial is already over. [...] The right’s hopes are high that Trump – having shrugged off impeachment – will coast to re-election buoyed by tides that for now, seem to be moving inexorably in his favour.
posted by katra at 9:54 AM on February 2, 2020 [6 favorites]


Heather Cox Richardson, February 1, 2020
People are saying this is the end for American democracy, but I see the opposite. Radical ideologues who want the government to do nothing but protect property, build a strong military, and advance Christianity took over the Republican Party in the 1990s. They have been manipulating our political system to their own ends ever since. They want to destroy the government regulation of business and social safety net we have enjoyed since the 1930s. But they have done so gradually, and not enough people seem to have noticed, even when Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell took the shocking step of refusing to permit a hearing for a Supreme Court nominee named by a Democrat. Now they have gone too far, out in the open, and it looks to me as if Americans are finally seeing the radicals currently in charge of the Republican Party for what they are, and are determined to take America back.
posted by ZeusHumms at 11:02 AM on February 2, 2020 [20 favorites]


katra: Republicans tainted Joe Biden with the Ukraine scandal. It’s what Trump wanted all along. (WaPo Editorial Board)

I think the tarnishing of Biden has had some success but not nearly as much as they'd hoped, because (thanks mainly to the impeachment! Hooray Pelosi/Schiff/Nadler!) it's so inextricably tied in voters' minds to Trump, his cronies, and their ratfucking. By and large, you will only "fall" for the Hunter/Burisma thing if your impression of Trump isn't too negative.

This differs from emailz in that (a) many people were convinced Trump had no chance, so indulging in anti-Hillary narratives seemed low on risk, and (b) even among people who ostensibly understood it to be a Republican smear, there was still a sense that it had to be something there. Democrats often used the image of HRC withstanding hours and hours of questioning as a testament to her stamina (the thing Donald specifically claimed she lacked), and that may have been somewhat effective. But because no Republicans were ever indicted or impeached or tried for their pursuit of the case, it had an inherent "both sides" quality, i.e yes she messed up and yes the Rs overreached in going after her, so there she is on the stand, both sides politicking away. You weren't going to get 50%+ of voters thinking that Republicans should be literally punished for the Beghazi/emailz stuff.

Plus, there was at the time no high-profile story of Republicans breaking the same private-server rule, hence highlighting hypocrisy (Pence's equivalent only emerged later and never got much press, and I guess Colin Powell as well? But again, never a widely-known thing). Meanwhile, the only "there" to this Biden scandal is the appearance of nepotism, and that's extremely hard to ignore on the part of the Trump family. Even if you're not enough of a news junkie to know about (e.g) Ivanka's use of private email servers, you definitely know that Ivanka, Jared, and Don Jr all exist and that in some sense they blur the lines between government, business, and family. Of course you might just throw up your hands that "they're all corrupt" but if you still do so after this no-witness trial, you were probably impossible to convince regardless.
posted by InTheYear2017 at 11:03 AM on February 2, 2020 [8 favorites]


I also believe that the cure is a return to a rules-based society and that the Democrats must stand for that.
Me, too, very much so! I do wish we'd been able to start that return in 2008 and not bailed out the banks without putting a single solitary banker in jail, but that's water under the bridge: I am one hundred percent behind all attempts to enforce the rules now. I am an enthusiastic fan of the effort to remove Trump, which effort I cannot find fault with. I'm pleased with all the work the House has done, and was particularly delighted with that strategic delay that offered Trump many more days to crime his head off in front of TV cameras and more evidence to come out. That it's probably doomed does not make me love this effort any less. I'm relieved that the entire body politic is not bending over for a gang of obviously criminal jackals. Many, many people are trying to do the right thing, and it's a balm to the soul.
posted by Don Pepino at 11:17 AM on February 2, 2020 [13 favorites]


Schiff: Senators who fail to convict Trump will not be ‘off the hook’ (Politico)
“I'm not letting the senators off the hook. We're still going to go into to the Senate this week and make the case why this president needs to be removed,” Schiff said on CBS’s “Face the Nation." “It will be up to the senators to make that final judgment, and the senators will be held accountable for it.”

Although the president will most likely remain in office, the lead House impeachment manager said, “I still think it’s enormously important that the president was impeached.”

“By exposing [the president’s] wrongdoing, we are helping to slow the momentum away from our democratic values until that progress away from democracy can be arrested and we can return to some sense of normalcy and support for the founders' ideal,” the California Democrat continued.

Schiff also said calling the president’s actions “inappropriate” does not go far enough in what he calls misconduct that “undermined our national security, as well as that of our ally, and threatens the integrity of our elections.”
posted by katra at 12:12 PM on February 2, 2020 [12 favorites]


Law firm representing Rudy Giuliani beset by sordid allegations, partner exodus (NBC News) (CW: sexual assault)
The firm, Pierce Bainbridge Beck Price & Hecht, has faced an exodus of lawyers as the litigation stretches on, including two who were defending Giuliani amid a criminal probe launched by New York federal prosecutors.

Those partners, Eric Creizman and Melissa Madrigal, spent their last day at Pierce Bainbridge on Friday and are set to join the New York office of a different firm, Armstrong Teasdale, later this month, the lawyers confirmed to NBC News. Their departures were first reported by the New York Law Journal.

Giuliani will continue to be represented by Pierce Bainbridge, the firm's managing partner, John Pierce, told NBC News. [...] Giuliani, President Donald Trump's personal lawyer, is under scrutiny for his dealings in Ukraine where he led an effort to damage Joe Biden and force out the U.S. ambassador. Giuliani’s conduct is among the threads at the heart of the impeachment proceedings.

[...] just this week, Pierce Bainbridge announced that it also represents Carter Page, the former Trump campaign adviser who filed a defamation suit against the Democratic National Committee and the law firm Perkins Coie related to the Steele dossier. Pierce Bainbridge has another high-profile client in Tulsi Gabbard, a Democratic presidential candidate who is suing Hillary Clinton for defamation after the former secretary of state called her a "Russian asset."

[...] Giuliani, meanwhile, has launched a podcast focused on his discredited claim that Biden forced out a Ukrainian prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, to end an investigation into a state-owned gas company that employed the former vice president’s son Hunter Biden. "In tonight’s episode we will show you the documents that prove there was an attempt to murder Viktor Shokin, our first witness in the Biden-Poroshenko double bribery case," Giuliani tweeted on Wednesday.
posted by katra at 12:28 PM on February 2, 2020 [8 favorites]


Republicans tainted Joe Biden with the Ukraine scandal. It’s what Trump wanted all along. (WaPo Editorial Board)

My cakeworthy prediction is that to whatever degree Trump did want it, it'll be a pyrrhic victory. I've been saying for a long time that Biden is supposed to be a firewall, and all this focus on Joe, who is a problematic Democrat anyway, means that Trump/GOP has not been devoting that energy to candidates who will be running against him. Once Joe falls away, what's the GOP going to have? "Pocahontas?" Yeah I'm not sure that's a strong angle. Does Trump even talk shit about Bernie?

Maybe the GOP knows that and the idea is that the Democratic Party is tarred by the association with him, but that existed anyway. Not only that, but no other Democrat candidate seems to be expressing any overlap with him, so Joe is kind of out on an iceberg every way I look at it.

Lastly, we haven't seen Joe cut loose on Trump and I think he can make some deep cuts once the gates are open. Biden is an all-star US politician and is definitely smarter than Trump and quicker on his feet, post DNC is going to be open season on Trump and I am positively giddy about the possibilities. I expect Joe to weather controversies over it, probably involving ableist rhetoric. Bernie and Joe tag-teaming on Trump in public?
posted by rhizome at 12:35 PM on February 2, 2020 [5 favorites]


With the primaries beginning, I think we need a special post for those, and as a not-American, I don't feel I can do it right. Is anyone up for the task?
That said, today while walking the dog I realized that Biden probably will be the Democratic candidate, and he probably will get elected in spite of the smear campaign. It doesn't make me happy. I don't believe Biden is the right person for the task ahead. I feel that this is the result of the enormous influence the boomers have had on the last 50 years of world politics, for good and bad. I am a boomer, albeit at the very end of the cohort, and I certainly share many boomer values. I like Biden and Warren, and not so much Sanders. But I find it depressing that any person who is firmly anchored in the past should be the person to bring the world's richest nation into the future. I don't feel any of the boomer candidates have any understanding of the reality of climate change, and how we need to change everything because of it. Actually I don't see any candidate really taking this on, but I have the experience from my long life that younger people are better at adapting to change that +70 year olds. Even conservative, stupid young people.
posted by mumimor at 12:56 PM on February 2, 2020 [10 favorites]


The Report: Impeachment, Day 10 (Lawfare) "Lawfare and Goat Rodeo bring you the arguments for and against calling new witnesses and subpoenaing new evidence in one hour and 12 minutes."

The Authoritarian Arguments for Trump’s Acquittal (Quinta Jurecic, Alan Z. Rozenshtein, Lawfare)
The one thing that can be said for Philbin’s argument is that it doesn’t derive from the same l’état c’est moi thinking as does Dershowitz’s. But it’s no less authoritarian in effect. There are just as many noncriminal ways for the president to harm the nation and violate his oath as there are criminal ones. Walling off presidential motive as impenetrable from congressional scrutiny would gut the impeachment power as a check on the presidency.

Without a majority of senators throwing their votes behind calling witnesses, the Senate appears ready to speed toward acquittal of the president. Unless it can somehow manage to acquit Trump while condemning his team’s legal arguments, it will be providing a dangerous grant of approval—not just to Trump, but to his successors—that, when it comes to the presidency, the personal isn’t just political. It’s the only thing that matters.
posted by katra at 2:18 PM on February 2, 2020 [2 favorites]


At Pierce Bainbridge, we hate Clinton as much as you do.
posted by benzenedream at 3:02 PM on February 2, 2020 [3 favorites]


That said, today while walking the dog I realized that Biden probably will be the Democratic candidate, and he probably will get elected in spite of the smear campaign.

That's incredibly not how Iowa is about to go just FYI. Overperformers: Bernie (win), Klobuchar, Yang. Underperformers: Biden, Buttigieg (did I even spell that right), Warren.

Our caucus is a shitshow. It's unlikely Yang really gets anything but he WILL overperform the polls. Klobuchar has a strange hold on so many on the ground local politicians.

I live here in case that's not obvious.
posted by OnTheLastCastle at 10:25 PM on February 2, 2020 [11 favorites]


I have to admit that the Republican efforts to make Biden look bad have been having an affect on my view of Biden. Not because I believe there's any merit to their fabrications but because they've made a complete mockery of the position he's staked out that a big reason to elect him is that through the unspecified power of serious gravitas he will bring "both sides" into working together for the good of the nation.

Wake up and smell the horseshit, Joe, and get ready for your good friends and former colleagues to be slightly less civil than you're counting on: "Lindsey Graham Warns GOP Will Investigate Whistleblower, Biden After Impeachment Trial"

His reaction to Trump's onslaught has been weak, evasive, and unconvincing and the only reason he may survive it is that it's so obviously manufactured and there's enough history of contemporaneous reporting on the affairs of that time that the documentation is all on his side. But for Pete's sake it's time to abandon the "they'll work with beloved Uncle Joe" shtick. I want a nominee who can and will fight back, hard, against Republican bad-faith and dirty tricks. Because I've got a funny feeling we ain't seen nothin' yet..
posted by Nerd of the North at 12:57 AM on February 3, 2020 [44 favorites]


Before the way this trial went down, I thought Bernie was going to flame out somewhere after Super Tuesday. Now I think he has a real shot at getting the nomination. I still would place my money on Biden, but the amount of sheer disgust I’m seeing with Trump and the republicans in general, plus stronger poll numbers, has me thinking that more and more people are deciding they want to go all in on Dem policies. (FWIW, I’m voting Warren, but you bet you sweet ass I’m voting for whoever the nominee is.) This mockery of a trial in the senate has stripped bare the craven nature of the GOP and while that will play perfectly fine with their base, the voters that can be convinced one way or another are sickened by what they see.
posted by azpenguin at 6:13 AM on February 3, 2020 [16 favorites]


Senate Impeachment Trial, Day 12 (C-SPAN) The Senate impeachment trial of President Trump continues with closing arguments. Senators will also debate the articles. February 3, 2020

U.S. Senate: Impeachment Trial (Day 12) (C-SPAN YouTube) The Senate impeachment trial of President Trump continues.
posted by katra at 8:57 AM on February 3, 2020 [3 favorites]


There may be an ITMFA VI reason: as L'affaire Ukraine gets shuffled under the rug, L'affaire Halkbank crawls out. Wyden Presses DOJ For Evidence Of Trump Meddling Described In Bolton Manuscript < TPM

All the usual suspects: Trump, Giuliani, Erdogan, Mnuchin, Halkbank, DOJ and Barr.
posted by Harry Caul at 10:27 AM on February 3, 2020 [7 favorites]


I have the experience from my long life that younger people are better at adapting to change that +70 year olds

I just don't think the White House is a place for aging from your late 70's to your mid-80's. It's notoriously demanding , with a crushing work burden, (well, it was) and really ought to be a job for people who are at most in their 70s. (Note that doing push-ups is not actually relevant to the job).
posted by thelonius at 10:31 AM on February 3, 2020 [6 favorites]


Lamar Alexander's starring role: Why a retiring Tennessee senator took the fall for Trump (Heather Digby Parton, Salon)

Aside from being a close friend of McConnell, he may have thought that history would forgive him the way it did his mentor Howard Baker. Baker in the end managed to help Nixon, but not suffer politically for his association with him.
Everyone acknowledges that impeachment is a political process. If senators can take Trump's so-called record into account as a positive side, then they certainly could have taken into account all the rest of Trump's crimes. From obstruction of justice to epic-scale corruption to an administration rife with cronyism and nepotism, they know what he is. Republicans had a chance to break from him, at least symbolically, and send a message by hearing witnesses even if they weren't going to convict him. They had a chance to make a statement that the Republican Party does not endorse this president's criminality. They didn't do that.

Republicans aren't just covering up for Trump's inept Ukraine plot. They are now full accomplices in everything he has already done and everything he will certainly do in the upcoming presidential campaign.
posted by ZeusHumms at 10:33 AM on February 3, 2020 [3 favorites]


Aside from being a close friend of McConnell, [Lamar Alexander] may have thought that history would forgive him

I want him to live a long life, alone with his cowardice.
posted by Gelatin at 10:44 AM on February 3, 2020 [4 favorites]


Could Cipollone’s Actions Be Cause For A Mistrial? (Mystic54, Daily Kos Community)

And if so, is it worth making the motion to call for a mistrial to get that on the record, knowing that it would be voted down?
posted by ZeusHumms at 10:48 AM on February 3, 2020 [1 favorite]


It would be a serious tactical error to move for a mistrial based on Cipollone's undisclosed conflict. That's the sort of stuff that law nerds take seriously (justifiably!) but to a huge part of the population the only takeaway would be "gee, I guess the Democrats really are sore losers who will do anything to remove the president," which is exactly the narrative the Republicans have worked so hard to push.

Nobody will truly believe that the outcome of the trial was changed by Cipollone's misbehavior (nor should they) and any hypothetical second trial that could be granted if the mistrial motion were somehow upheld would be dismissed even more quickly by the Senate majority, except that this time they would have a much larger chunk of the population agreeing with their rush to make it go away.

Honestly it's hard to think of a tactic which is more likely to squander the only solid benefit that the Democrats have wrested from the impeachment struggle so far.
posted by Nerd of the North at 11:23 AM on February 3, 2020 [5 favorites]


Nobody will truly believe that the outcome of the trial was changed by Cipollone's misbehavior (nor should they)

Ultimately it's not an important point, but I think the outcome totally could have been different if Cipppolone was not involved.

All in all, I know Democrats want to preserve process, comity, and all that, but they need some bite.
posted by rhizome at 11:35 AM on February 3, 2020 [1 favorite]


Wow Schiff. This close is great. He is doing everything he can to make the vote to acquit very uncomfortable. Good.
posted by mazola at 12:00 PM on February 3, 2020 [23 favorites]


'Crimes...remain in progress': Democrats' closing case for why Trump must be removed (NBC News)
Allowing Trump to get away with using the power of his office to try to get Ukraine to interfere in the 2020 election, "putting foreign interference between the voters and their ballots,” would render Trump “above the law," [Rep. Jason] Crow said.

Another of the House managers, Rep. Val Demings, D-Fla., said another reason the Senate needs to take action is because the president has been "unapologetic and unrestrained," and will only be more so if the Senate closes his eyes to his misconduct.

"President Trump's constitutional crimes, his crimes against the American people and the nation, remain in progress," Demings said.

Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., alleged Trump has continued his misconduct despite being impeached for it. "Donald Trump hasn't stopped pressuring Ukraine," Jeffries said, noting Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani recently "returned to the scene of the crime" to continue his efforts to get dirt on former Vice President Joe Biden and his son. And, Jeffries said, Trump "hasn't stopped obstructing Congress."

He "is a clear and present danger to our national security," Jeffries said.
Rep. Schiff quotes late congressman Elijah Cummings (WaPo)
Schiff, the lead impeachment manager, quoted the late congressman Elijah E. Cummings (D-Md.) as the House managers wrapped up the first hour of their presentation.

“When the history books are written about this tumultuous era, I want them to show that I was among those in the House of Representatives who stood up to lawlessness and tyranny,” Schiff quoted Cummings as saying at the outset of the impeachment inquiry.
posted by katra at 12:22 PM on February 3, 2020 [15 favorites]


‘You will not change him,’ Rep. Schiff tells GOP of Trump in closing statement (WaPo)
In a blistering closing argument, Schiff made an appeal to Senate Republicans to stand up for the truth, arguing that even if it matters “little” to Trump, it “matters to you.”

“A man without character or ethical compass will never find his way, even as the most recent and most egregious misconduct was discovered,” Schiff, the lead impeachment manager, said of Trump. “He was unapologetic, unrepentant — and more dangerous.”

Over the weekend, some Senate Republicans have defended Trump by claiming that while the president may have made mistakes in the past, he has learned from them and won’t do the same in the future. Schiff appeared to implicitly rebut those statements Monday, arguing forcefully that the president will not change.

“He has betrayed our national security, and he will do so again,” Schiff said about Trump. “He has compromised our elections, and he will do so again. You will not change him. You cannot constrain him. He is who he is. Truth matters little to him. What’s right matters even less, and decency matters not at all.”

As he closed his remarks, Schiff made a direct appeal to Senate Republicans. “I do not ask you to convict him because truth or right or decency matters nothing to him, but because we have proven our case, and it matters to you,” he said. “Truth matters to you. Right matters to you. You are decent. He is not who you are.”
posted by katra at 12:26 PM on February 3, 2020 [26 favorites]


Has any of the House managers said the word "king," to remind Senators even more pointedly of a core principle of American history?
posted by PhineasGage at 12:27 PM on February 3, 2020


Guardian: Impeachment trial adjourns: 'Is there one among you who will say: enough?'
Schiff is now comparing Trump’s impeachment trial to Nixon’s and Clinton’s, saying the findings which led to the Trump case were more harmful than the other two cases. What has changed since those cases, then, asks Schiff. “We have,” he says. [...]

Schiff says it must have been a “pleasant shock” to Trump to learn “our norms” have shifted so much. “I hope and pray we never have a president like Donald Trump in the Democratic party,” Schiff says. And if we do, “I hope we would impeach him,” he says.

“History will not be kind to Donald Trump – I think we all know that,” Schiff says.

Schiff says this isn’t because “never-Trumpers” will be writing the history books, but because history doesn’t reflect well on people who violate norms. The president’s collective violations of norms, not just the Ukraine business, is a running theme of Schiff’s statement.

“What we do here, in this moment, will affect its course and its correction. Every single vote, even a single vote, by a single member, can change the course of history.”

“Is there one among you who will say: enough?” [...]

In his final sentences, Schiff says: “They gave you a remedy and they meant for you to use it.”

The trial is adjourned.
posted by katra at 12:29 PM on February 3, 2020 [40 favorites]


Has any of the House managers said the word "king," to remind Senators even more pointedly of a core principle of American history?

> Schiff: Vote on trial rules "the most important decision in this case" (CBS)
Schiff: "If a president can obstruct his own investigation...then the president places himself beyond accountability, above the law. Cannot be indicted, cannot be impeached. It makes him a monarch." https://t.co/aQRBEKBWY5 pic.twitter.com/h7zBu4ucXU
— CBS News (@CBSNews) January 21, 2020
posted by katra at 12:46 PM on February 3, 2020 [7 favorites]


> Schiff: Vote on trial rules "the most important decision in this case" (CBS)

Which indicates yet another way Trump is breaking the way the Framers intended the government to work. They presumed the Senate would at least be jealous of its own prerogatives, and check a president that tried to ignore Congressional subpoenas. But Senate Republicans are basically about to vote Trump for king, which will eliminate their power to do anything except function as a rubber stamp at best.

Many people have compared the current situation to the election of Palpatine by the Senate in Star Wars, and they do not seem to be far wrong. (Except, of course, that Palpatine was competent.)
posted by Gelatin at 12:53 PM on February 3, 2020 [8 favorites]


“Truth matters to you. Right matters to you. You are decent. He is not who you are.”

No one tell him about Merrick Garland.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 1:01 PM on February 3, 2020 [19 favorites]


Nationwide protests planned for Trump’s expected acquittal (WaPo)
A coalition of groups, including Public Citizen, the Women’s March, Greenpeace and the Sierra Club, has announced plans to hold rallies on Capitol Hill and across the nation on Wednesday to denounce Trump’s expected acquittal.

Public Citizen, a left-leaning watchdog group, said in a Monday news release that more than 160 “Reject the Cover-up” protests are being planned for Wednesday evening, when the Senate is expected to vote. The protests are aimed at holding Trump and Republican lawmakers “accountable for betraying the American people and the Constitution,” according to Public Citizen.

“Protestors will send a clear message: Any acquittal made after blocking key evidence is not an exoneration — it’s a cover-up,” the group said.
posted by katra at 1:02 PM on February 3, 2020 [6 favorites]


No one tell him about Merrick Garland.

Merrick Garland might well have been confirmed if his nomination had ever come up for a vote, even in the Republican Senate. Which is why McConnell made sure he got not so much as a hearing.

But while the outcome was certainly preferable to Senate Republicans, they can at least pretend it was all McConnell's fault. Schiff's appeal reminds them that this time they have no such cover.
posted by Gelatin at 1:08 PM on February 3, 2020 [10 favorites]




Schiff's appeal will be heard by many Republican Senators but listened to by none. They are all-in for Trump-McConnelism. The primary purpose of Schiff's rhetoric at this point is to preach to the choir and soak up floor time until after the SOTU.
posted by tonycpsu at 1:14 PM on February 3, 2020 [3 favorites]


‘You will not change him,’ Rep. Schiff tells GOP

There's absolutely no evidence they want him to change. None whatsoever. Other than that Schiff's statement sounds good.
posted by JenMarie at 1:14 PM on February 3, 2020 [2 favorites]


‘You will not change him,’ Rep. Schiff tells GOP

There's absolutely no evidence they want him to change. None whatsoever. Other than that Schiff's statement sounds good.


A few Senators have been claiming it, though. Obviously, they're lying, but Schiff isn't really talking to them. He's just making it abundantly clear what the ads are going to look like against those people in particular.
posted by Etrigan at 1:24 PM on February 3, 2020 [8 favorites]


Republicans say Trump has learned his lesson on impeachment. The evidence suggests otherwise. (Aaron Blake, WaPo)
As President Trump’s impeachment trial winds down, the argument from some Senate Republicans is trending in a very specific direction: What he did was perhaps wrong, but it wasn’t impeachable. The message to Trump seems to be: Please don’t do it again.

They sound awfully certain that he won’t, though, despite plenty of reasons to be skeptical Trump will be chastened by this. Appearing on the Sunday news shows this weekend, Sens. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) and Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) indicated that Trump mishandled the Ukraine situation. But they both also said they believed Trump won’t make the same mistake again. [...] But you don’t need to read a Trump biography to see the potential folly of such a prediction; you only need to look at the timeline of the Russia investigation and how it bled into the Ukraine scandal.

It has been noted often that the July 25 call in which Trump asked Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to launch those politically advantageous investigations happened literally the day after former special counsel Robert S. Mueller III testified to Congress. [...] That’s not all: Even after the Mueller report came out in April, Trump suggested in a June ABC News interview that he would accept information from foreign sources in the 2020 election. [...] Trump on Oct. 3 solicited a third country for something that could help in an election, when he urged China to investigate Hunter Biden. This suggestion came just one week after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) launched the impeachment inquiry. [...]

For his part, lead House impeachment manager Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) is predicting the opposite of Alexander and Ernst, and on Monday he warned them against the stance they were taking. [...] Then he warned them even more directly, referring to Alexander’s comments about the House having proved its case. “If you find that the House has proved its case and still vote to acquit,” Schiff said, "your name will be tied to his with a cord of steel and for all of history.”
posted by katra at 1:24 PM on February 3, 2020 [8 favorites]


Schiff's appeal will be heard by many Republican Senators but listened to by none. They are all-in for Trump-McConnelism. The primary purpose of Schiff's rhetoric at this point is to preach to the choir and soak up floor time until after the SOTU.

If "choir," you mean loyal Americans, i agree. The Republicans have worried all along that their inevitable acquittal of Trump would make them look like accessories after the fact, and by laying out the stakes inherent in their betrayal, Schiff is giving them nowhere to hide. He's setting a high bar for their weasely speeches trying to justify their votes, and likely will make many Republicans look worse by contrast.
posted by Gelatin at 1:45 PM on February 3, 2020 [4 favorites]


I still don't get why the House hasn't done anything with [emoluments]. It's specifically mentioned in the Constitution and should be possible to prove conclusively. Also, "The President is taking bribes and stealing from taxpayers" seems clear enough for almost any voter to understand.

To paraphrase the Wire: "You start to follow the money, you don’t know where the fuck it’s gonna take you."
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 1:46 PM on February 3, 2020 [8 favorites]


Finally watched Schiff. Man, that was powerful.
I can see how Republican politicians and voters can invent some reason it wasn't. But Republicans are a minority of the electorate.

I specially like how he was clear that the house has demonstrated that Trump is corrupt. There was (rightly) not a shade of doubt in his presentation. Trump is corrupt. Say it again.
posted by mumimor at 2:19 PM on February 3, 2020 [5 favorites]


Could Cipollone’s Actions Be Cause For A Mistrial?

A suggestion like this ought to be the end of the author's career. It shows an utter unwillingness to engage with the situation at even the most fundamental level. This trial is being conducted by the legislature. It isn't being conducted by the judicial system, in which there are such things as rules of evidence and prohibitions against apprehended bias, breaches of which may lead to an appeal. There is no such thing as a "mistrial", because there is no guarantee of due process except in the most technical sense. It is ultimately just a bunch of senators taking a vote. What does the author think they should do, discharge themselves and appoint new senators?
posted by Joe in Australia at 2:59 PM on February 3, 2020 [12 favorites]


The Most Serious Obstruction of All: The Vote to Block Witnesses and the Public’s Right to Know (Ryan Goodman, Just Security)
Many criticized the Senate’s vote “to deprive itself of information” by blocking John Bolton and other witnesses from testifying in the impeachment trial of President Trump. What makes the matter worse is that the Senate choked off the American public from hearing that information too, and at the time it mattered most.

Democracy is made up of more than just elections. We’ve designed our system of self-government so that citizens can communicate their views to their representatives before enormous decisions are made final. The impeachment of a president is, most certainly, one of those decisions. Open hearings allow the public to form their own views and for their congressional representatives to take those views into account. In both the Nixon and Clinton impeachments, members of Congress were influenced, in part, by the shape and direction of public opinion. Our system of participatory democracy worked.

That’s what makes the Republican-controlled Senate’s trampling on the public’s right to know and to inform their congressional representatives of their views especially offensive. The Republican leadership’s action came at a point when citizens’ exercise of these rights would have counted most. That was no accident. It wasn’t that these Senators personally did not want to hear more before deciding on the final verdict. They apparently didn’t want the public to hear any more either. [...]

What makes the Republican leadership’s actions particularly galling is that they wrapped their rush to acquittal in the cloak of “letting American voters decide.” That was a reference to the November 2020 elections, and a firm back-of-the-hand to the participatory democracy our system was designed to respect. Voters weren’t given the opportunity to reach a truly informed decision on whether Trump was guilty of the most serious allegations against him, and what consequences should then follow if he was. That’s exactly the way President Trump, Sen. McConnell, and vulnerable Senate Republicans like Cory Gardner and Thom Tillis wanted it.
posted by katra at 3:09 PM on February 3, 2020 [10 favorites]


"It's payback time": With acquittal certain, Trump plots revenge on Bolton, impeachment enemies. (Gabriel Sherman, Vanity Fair).
Trump, says a source, wants Bolton to be criminally investigated for possibly mishandling classified information. Romney, Schiff, and Nadler are also in West Wing crosshairs.
posted by adamg at 3:16 PM on February 3, 2020 [6 favorites]


He always doubles down, right up to the moment he declares bankruptcy and leaves everyone else to pick up the pieces while he enjoys his fraudulently acquired gains.
posted by wierdo at 3:39 PM on February 3, 2020 [26 favorites]


This trial is being conducted by the legislature. It isn't being conducted by the judicial system, in which there are such things as rules of evidence and prohibitions against apprehended bias, breaches of which may lead to an appeal. There is no such thing as a "mistrial", because there is no guarantee of due process except in the most technical sense. It is ultimately just a bunch of senators taking a vote. What does the author think they should do, discharge themselves and appoint new senators?

To me it was a significant mistake for the Democrats to adopt the criminal procedure language and logic that Republicans were pushing all through the House process. The Republicans are great at the descriptivist/prescriptivist battle and I'll say again that the Democrats need to learn how to have an edge.
posted by rhizome at 3:44 PM on February 3, 2020 [12 favorites]


He’s not the only one, although she claims she was misquoted.

As always, they say exactly what they mean until you call them out on it.
posted by Big Al 8000 at 3:54 PM on February 3, 2020 [1 favorite]


Trump, says a source, wants Bolton to be criminally investigated...

So, approximately now is when we step into the next phase, where all of the people who like 12 hours ago were defending Trump's acquittal by saying he's learned his lesson and is behaving like an upstanding moral president are going to be asked to defend his reprisals, too. This is the moment where I think we're really teetering on the brink of something truly catastrophic because if the same shrugging rules are applied to the reprisals that we just saw applied to the impeachment defense, Trump can literally do anything he wants.

I mean, obviously, it's in the national interest to silence the people who impeached him, since that transferred self-interest is literally what the United States Senate will have used to acquit him. Why not start disappearing people to gitmo or wherever?
posted by feloniousmonk at 4:27 PM on February 3, 2020 [18 favorites]


Manchin starts his acquittal vote cover story tonight with the word ‘censure’.
posted by Harry Caul at 4:33 PM on February 3, 2020 [2 favorites]


Trump, says a source, wants Bolton to be criminally investigated for possibly mishandling classified information.
Oh, man that would be great. Because unlike the Senate, courtroom trials have witnesses, a discovery process, and other things that would bring a lot of information into public record.
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 4:45 PM on February 3, 2020 [13 favorites]


I would normally agree, but aren't we in the phase where all of the laws have been cut down flat, the devil is turning around on us, and we have nowhere left to hide? They are literally about to acquit him on the basis that his personal self-interest and the national interest are one and the same. I try not to be super alarmist, but why on earth would this be the first instance where Trump wins with class rather than acting out in narcissistic rage? Why would these be normal criminal investigations with the possibility of embarrassing information leaking? His dictator idols knew/know how to run a good show trial. He's been exonerated and the government must get to the bottom of this awful slander, after all.
posted by feloniousmonk at 4:58 PM on February 3, 2020 [10 favorites]


Republicans pray Trump shuns impeachment in SOTU (Marianne Levine, Politico)
Senate Republicans are praying President Donald Trump does something out of character during his State of the Union address — avoid talking about impeachment.
Senate Democrats are pretty sure he won't do that.
posted by ZeusHumms at 7:04 PM on February 3, 2020 [5 favorites]


Senate choked off the American public from hearing that information too, and at the time it mattered most.

Yeah, that was the point. Their inevitable, somewhat delayed, capitulation to Trump would look worse if the process let Americans learn more of the details.
posted by notyou at 7:33 PM on February 3, 2020 [2 favorites]


My quixotic hope is that President Brainworms loses his fucking mind during the SOTU, like, a full on, pounding the table, red faced, wife beater freak out. I mean, if we're lucky, he strokes out, the end. But if not, so many people watch the SOTU, I want them to see behind the mask. I want them to see the man every woman knows is under the toupee that keeps trying to escape.

Will it change how Republicans vote? No. They're riding this tiger.

As to history not being kind to them, remember that the victors write the history books. This glorious democratic experiment is so perilously close to ending. There are but a few ways we can stop this juggernaut trying to return us all to feudalism, vassals and debtor's prisons. Many of those ways would be catastrophic on a level of the civil war. One of the most hopeful ways is that we somehow manage to overcome voter suppression, voter list purges, gerrymandering, and election hacks and win at the ballot box and there's a peaceful transfer of power. I mean, it's a dream, but let's try and make it happen.

I'll be honest though, I'm rooting for the brain worms to explode.
posted by SecretAgentSockpuppet at 7:56 PM on February 3, 2020 [22 favorites]


Maybe he'll go Full Khrushchev and start banging his head on the podium.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 9:00 PM on February 3, 2020 [5 favorites]


The Republicans wanted a show trial intended to find the guilty innocent; somewhere the vile Stalin is spinning in his grave.
All spectacle all the time and the MAGA type folk have a seemlingly endless appetite for it.

And, my god what a contrast between Schiff and the senators across the aisle and the president.
posted by Phlegmco(tm) at 9:06 PM on February 3, 2020 [5 favorites]


My quixotic hope is that President Brainworms loses his fucking mind during the SOTU, like, a full on, pounding the table, red faced, wife beater freak out. I mean, if we're lucky, he strokes out, the end.

Same, honestly.
posted by kirkaracha at 9:14 PM on February 3, 2020 [8 favorites]


My quixotic hope is that President Brainworms loses his fucking mind during the SOTU, like, a full on, pounding the table, red faced, wife beater freak out. I mean, if we're lucky, he strokes out, the end.
That would make him the newest Supreme Court Justice.
posted by Harry Caul at 9:20 PM on February 3, 2020 [7 favorites]


The thing about those brain worms is that they're catching. Trump and his supporters are now all in a state where, like him, they have become literally unable to perceive what's happening in their surroundings; they occupy a cartoon world inside their own minds instead. A cartoon world where Donald Trump really is the smartest man in the world and this is what Those Horrible Democrats are trying to do to their boy.
posted by flabdablet at 9:32 PM on February 3, 2020 [6 favorites]


Pelosi hinting on a contentious SOTU tonight. NYT: Pelosi Says Democrats Have ‘Pulled Back a Veil’ on Trump’s ‘Unacceptable’ Behavior

“Whatever happens, he has been impeached forever. And now these senators, though they don’t have the courage to assign the appropriate penalty, at least are recognizing that he did something wrong.”
posted by Harry Caul at 5:38 AM on February 4, 2020 [7 favorites]


Pelosi needs to trigger Trump multiple times during the SOTU so he goes off script and America can witness his shortcomings in full display.

I am really hoping she instructs someone to yell "You lie!" each time he lies and watch him detonate. She is obviously above such tactics, but you love to see it, especially at the SOTU.
posted by jasondigitized at 6:42 AM on February 4, 2020 [15 favorites]


Can ddale just be there to live fact check on a chryon above Trump's head? like that thing at operas so you know what the heck they're saying.
posted by affectionateborg at 6:46 AM on February 4, 2020 [9 favorites]


I am really hoping she instructs someone to yell "You lie! " each time he lies and watch him detonate.

(Like Clare McCaskill‘s tweet reply -“It’s Missouri you stone cold idiot”. Refreshing!)

I would donate to that Senator‘s re-election campaign. I think I’m not alone in thinking.

Or Presidential campaign.

What would be ... impressive is if after every massive fib all the self-respecting Senators said it in unison, “That’s false.” Or maybe just, “Lie!”

Sigh. The saddest shit-show.
posted by From Bklyn at 7:23 AM on February 4, 2020 [4 favorites]


It's a joint session, the house members can make some noise too.
posted by cmfletcher at 7:34 AM on February 4, 2020 [1 favorite]


While we are dreaming why doesn't the Speaker just have a Democratic member of the house or senate stand for each lie he tells during the SotU? It's likely to be a fairly long speech, I'm sure he could get every one of them standing by the end.
posted by cirhosis at 7:59 AM on February 4, 2020 [1 favorite]


Speaker Pelosi is very much a she/her pronoun user.
posted by bardophile at 8:03 AM on February 4, 2020


I think each of the "he"s there referred to Trump.
posted by Etrigan at 8:06 AM on February 4, 2020 [4 favorites]


Senate Session (C-SPAN) Senators will speak for up to 10 minutes each on the articles of impeachment against President Trump - abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. February 4, 2020

U.S. Senate: Debate on Articles of Impeachment (C-SPAN YouTube) Senators will speak for up to 10 minutes each on the articles of impeachment against President Trump - abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.
posted by katra at 8:11 AM on February 4, 2020 [1 favorite]


My quixotic hope is that President Brainworms loses his fucking mind during the SOTU, like, a full on, pounding the table, red faced, wife beater freak out. I mean, if we're lucky, he strokes out, the end.

I have this deep feeling that that is exactly what his supporters dream of happening (well, except for the stroke, of course.) I think they seriously jones for Trump to go ballistic and scream at Pelosi and the Democrats for an hour. His supporters will lap it up like sweet, sweet librul tears. It would be a solid hour of campaign commercial sound clips.

In reality, I think Trump will be suitably chemically sedated (as he seemingly has been on occasion, when looking "presidential" is of utmost importance.)
posted by Thorzdad at 8:16 AM on February 4, 2020 [11 favorites]


I think each of the "he"s there referred to Trump.

Ah. My bad.
posted by bardophile at 8:45 AM on February 4, 2020


Ah. My bad.

No worries it's not the clearest sentence I've ever written.
posted by cirhosis at 9:07 AM on February 4, 2020 [3 favorites]


Best WaPo comment of the day, describing the “chaos” in Iowa: “Chaos? Debacle? Really? We are in the verge of acquitting a president who everyone knows is guilty, and a delay in reporting the results of the caucus is what gets that kind of adjectives? People in the media, please, help us here, we’re trying to save our democracy. Put the need for instant-gratification news in pause for a second and try to focus on what really matters.”
posted by Melismata at 9:41 AM on February 4, 2020 [32 favorites]


The thing about those brain worms is that they're catching. Trump and his supporters are now all in a state where, like him, they have become literally unable to perceive what's happening in their surroundings; they occupy a cartoon world inside their own minds instead.

Joe Walsh gets a closer look at this as he attempts to campaign against Trump.
posted by a snickering nuthatch at 9:46 AM on February 4, 2020 [8 favorites]


Funny how the tabulation problems are front page news, yet the strongarm tactics and counting irregularities in the Republican caucuses get nary a mention, much less a headline.
posted by wierdo at 9:57 AM on February 4, 2020 [6 favorites]


The Incomprehensibly Weak Case for Acquittal Without Witnesses (Benjamin Wittes, Lawfare)
The contradictions between these positions are so inherent and deep that it becomes convenient at some point for the senators to change the subject. Instead of focusing on the conduct the House investigated, senators choose to focus on the conduct of the House’s investigation instead. This is a time-honored diversionary tactic in defense lawyering. In a criminal proceeding, after all, showing that the police erred in the conduct of a case can lead to suppression of the evidence against the defendant.

But there is no exclusionary rule in impeachment trials. Nor is the nature of the House’s supposed errors the sort that would lead to exclusion of evidence in a criminal proceeding anyway; the failure to call a witness before a grand jury would not preclude calling that person to testify at trial.

Yet the president’s lawyers and many senators argue with apparently straight faces that the House’s failure to call John Bolton and others before impeachment—and to litigate the matter to exhaustion—should preclude the Senate’s calling them now. Why? [...]

When smart people, capable people, advance arguments so resoundingly and pervasively terrible—when they advance a proposal for a trial that offends the very idea of a trial—you have to ask what role the argument is playing other than seeking to persuade people. That these arguments persuade nobody is clear from the poll data, in which support for hearing from witnesses reached as high as 75 percent and did not decline over the period in which the president’s lawyers made their case.

But persuasion, I think, is not the point. The point, rather, is tribal affiliation. This is a credo of sorts, a public affirmation of the party line designed to ensure that one is not Romneyed—that the leader’s tyrannical rage is directed elsewhere, that his self-appointed enforcers do not deprive one of the benefits of being in the herd.

Yes, inside the herd, life is abusive. But outside, it is very very cold and one is very exposed.
posted by katra at 10:04 AM on February 4, 2020 [17 favorites]


The Report: Impeachment, Day 11 (Lawfare)
"On the eleventh day of the impeachment trial of President Donald J. Trump, the House Managers and the president’s defense team presented their closing arguments. [...] Lawfare and Goat Rodeo bring you the most essential one hour and 32 minutes of those final arguments."
posted by katra at 10:10 AM on February 4, 2020


William Barr: A Failed Attorney General Unfit to Serve (Fred Wertheimer, Just Security)
On January 17, Democracy 21 filed a complaint with the Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility and the Departmental Ethics Office that detailed Barr’s pattern of biased actions and his failure to comply with Justice Department norms, rules and standards of conduct. The complaint requested these offices to investigate and take appropriate action regarding Barr’s improprieties. (You can read the most recent complaint as well as previous complaints filed by Democracy 21 against Barr here, here and here).

Similar concerns about Barr were raised by the New York City Bar Association in a Jan. 8 letter to the Republican and Democratic leaders of the House and Senate. [...]

In sum, Barr, as attorney general, engaged in a pattern of biased actions to support and validate repeated false claims and improper actions by Trump, and Barr failed to comply with the norms, rules and standards of conduct of the Justice Department.

Barr’s actions have been in stark conflict with his duty to administer the “impartial administration of justice on behalf of all Americans.” He has seriously and repeatedly undermined the integrity and credibility of the Justice Department.

William Barr has failed the American people and is unfit to serve as attorney general.
posted by katra at 10:17 AM on February 4, 2020 [23 favorites]


Rand Paul had his question revealing his suspected name of the whistleblower rejected twice by the Chief Justice.

So today he gave his little 10-minute allotted speech with a giant poster behind him with the suspected whistleblower's name printed on it. Live on CSPAN.

Republicans. They are all awful.
posted by JackFlash at 10:59 AM on February 4, 2020 [35 favorites]


I'm sure Ludwig von Mises or Murray Rothbard or some other great libertarian thinker devoted a chapter of one of their books to the idea that when a citizen goes against the wishes of the state, it is the duty of all good libertarians to make sure that the full force of the state's power is brought down upon that citizen.
posted by tonycpsu at 11:27 AM on February 4, 2020 [22 favorites]


The most libertarian-y thing about Paul's dick move is that he knows that unlike a private citizen, he's protected by the Constitution's speech and debate clause.
posted by Gelatin at 11:35 AM on February 4, 2020 [7 favorites]


The most libertarian-y thing about Paul's dick move is that he knows that unlike a private citizen, he's protected by the Constitution's speech and debate clause.

In a just world the Department of Justice would pursue a case against Paul and argue that the Framers meant literal speech and debate. If you're too much of a coward to say it yourself, then it's not covered.
posted by jedicus at 11:41 AM on February 4, 2020 [8 favorites]


I would love for Pelosi to greet Trump with something like "good evening, Mr. Impeached President" right before his speech.
posted by kirkaracha at 11:45 AM on February 4, 2020 [2 favorites]


I'd love for Pelosi and co. to boycott the SOTU altogether as the sham that it is, not giving Republicans the Leni Riefenstahl-esque victory parade they want. But Dems can't even caucus properly without fucking it up, much less get a conviction of a brazen criminal like Trump — someone who brags openly about breaking the law while the trial is going on. As Michelle Wolf said a few years ago, no matter what Dems do, they'll manage to find some way to "lose by 12 points to a guy named Jeff Pedophile Nazi Doctor."
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 12:45 PM on February 4, 2020 [2 favorites]


Unfair. Jeff Pedophile Nazi Doctor was elected because we neglected the feelings of rural Nazi Pedophiles.
posted by benzenedream at 12:51 PM on February 4, 2020 [8 favorites]


Dems can't even caucus properly without fucking it up, much less get a conviction of a brazen criminal like Trump

I'm upset about these things too, but seriously, what else could the House Democrats have done to get 20 GOP Senators to flip and vote to convict? Making a statement like this implies that there was something they overlooked. If you know what what that is/was, please share. Lots of people would like to know the answer, and you probably could get booked on a lot of cable news shows to talk about it.

Did Michelle Wolf have any comments on the 2018 election? Seems like Democrats did OK there, retaking the House. Also, didn't they beat pedophile Roy Moore in the Alabama Senate election?

The Democratic Party has plenty of problems & shortcomings, but exaggerating them and/or ignoring positive things that don't fit the catastrophe narrative doesn't seem like a path to victory.
posted by Nat "King" Cole Porter Wagoner at 1:06 PM on February 4, 2020 [26 favorites]


But Dems can't even caucus properly without fucking it up, much less get a conviction of a brazen criminal like Trump — someone who brags openly about breaking the law while the trial is going on.

Blaming the Democrats only works if the Republicans are acting in good faith and there's something that would make them vote to convict. They are not acting in good faith and there is no such thing, no argument, no evidence the Democrats could present that would make the Republican Senate remove Trump.

And the Democrats did as good a job as possible of making that fact abundantly clear. Even NPR noticed, for crying out loud. The object of impeachment was not to convict Trump, because that goal was impossible, but rather to impeach the reputation of the entire Republican Party by shining a light on their willful participation in Trump's cover-up.

It worked.
posted by Gelatin at 1:07 PM on February 4, 2020 [42 favorites]


Jeff Pedophile Nazi Doctor was elected because we neglected the feelings of rural Nazi Pedophiles.

Hah! Fair enough. To his credit, Schiff seemed to work hard in his speech to reach out to the other side. I suspect we'll see a very sore winner at the SOTU, but maybe Schiff's words will have made a little impact on the Republicans in the audience.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 1:20 PM on February 4, 2020 [2 favorites]


Collins now announcing she will vote to acquit - "hes learned from this"

I hope there is a 10,000 foot tall stack of requests that she speak on behalf of incarcerated people seeking clemency waiting at her office doorstep tomorrow. Surely if the president can be rehabilitated without even being convicted then anyone whose served even a minute of time must be good to go, right?
posted by Exceptional_Hubris at 1:33 PM on February 4, 2020 [27 favorites]


Collins now announcing she will vote to acquit - "hes learned from this"

He has learned that he can do anything he wants and nothing will happen! Nobody is going to whistleblow again after this travesty. God I think i hate Susan Collins more than any other contemporary politician. Can we finally stop treating her like she might do something courageous?
posted by dis_integration at 1:41 PM on February 4, 2020 [28 favorites]


Collins now announcing she will vote to acquit - "he's learned from this"

Recall that Collins also announced she would vote for Bret Kavanaugh because he personally promised her that he would respect judicial precedent -- shortly before he overturned 40 years of judicial precedent for labor unions.

I don't think Collins' personal evaluations are worth a bucket of warm spit.
posted by JackFlash at 1:43 PM on February 4, 2020 [34 favorites]


Nobody is going to whistleblow again after this travesty.

The Money Behind Trump’s Money (David Enrich, NYT)
Last April, congressional Democrats subpoenaed ­Deutsche Bank for its records on Trump, his family members and his businesses. The Trump family sued to block the bank from complying; after two federal courts ruled against the Trumps, the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case, with oral arguments expected in the spring. State prosecutors, meanwhile, are investigating the bank’s ties with Trump, too. The F.B.I. has been conducting its own wide-­ranging investigation of ­Deutsche Bank, and people connected to the bank told me they have been interviewed by special agents about aspects of the Trump relationship.

If they ever become public, the bank’s Trump records could serve as a Rosetta Stone to decode the president’s finances. [...] And it has records about internal deliberations over whether and how to do business with Trump — a paper trail that most likely reflects some bank employees’ concerns about potentially suspicious transactions that they detected in the family’s accounts. [...]

If Trump cheated on his taxes, ­Deutsche Bank would probably know. If his net worth is measured in millions, not billions, ­Deutsche Bank would probably know. If he secretly got money from the Kremlin, ­Deutsche Bank would probably know. [...]

I have spent the past two years interviewing dozens of ­Deutsche Bank executives about the Trump relationship, among other subjects. Quite a few look back at the relationship with a mixture of anger and regret. They blame a small group of bad bankers for blundering into a trap that would further damage ­Deutsche Bank’s name and guarantee years of political and prosecutorial scrutiny. But that isn’t quite right; in fact, the Trump relationship was repeatedly blessed by executives up and down the bank’s organizational ladder. The cumulative effect of those decisions is that a German company — one that most Americans have probably never heard of — played a large role in positioning a strapped businessman to become president of the United States.
posted by katra at 2:05 PM on February 4, 2020 [16 favorites]


At least seven House Democrats will boycott State of the Union (WaPo)
The group includes several lawmakers who have skipped Trump’s annual speech to Congress in previous years. The two “Squad” members — Democratic Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (N.Y.) and Ayanna Pressley (Mass.) — cited Trump’s conduct as their reason for staying away from the House chamber Tuesday night.

“After much deliberation, I have decided that I will not use my presence at a state ceremony to normalize Trump’s lawless conduct & subversion of the Constitution,” Ocasio-Cortez said in a tweet. “None of this is normal, and I will not legitimize it.”

Pressley pointed to Trump’s rhetoric and policies, which she said stoke “fear in people of color, women, healthcare providers, LGBTQ+ communities, low-income families, and many more.”

“On the eve of Senate Republicans covering up transgressions and spreading misinformation, I cannot in good conscience attend a sham State of the Union when I have seen firsthand the damage Donald J. Trump’s rhetoric and policies have inflicted on those I love and those I represent,” she said in a statement.

Another member of “the Squad,” Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), said she will attend “on behalf of all of those targeted by this President to say, ‘We are greater than hate.’ ”

“My presence tonight is resistance,” she said in a tweet.

[...] Others boycotting Tuesday’s proceedings include Democratic Reps. Al Green (Tex.), Steve Cohen (Tenn.), Earl Blumenauer (Ore.), Hank Johnson (Ga.) and Frederica S. Wilson (Fla.).
posted by katra at 2:55 PM on February 4, 2020 [12 favorites]


Tracking The Main Excuses GOP Senators Are Offering Trump Ahead Of Acquittal
  • Trump did nothing wrong
  • House didn’t prove allegations
  • Inappropriate, but not impeachable
  • Bash the House
posted by kirkaracha at 3:12 PM on February 4, 2020 [3 favorites]


At least seven House Democrats will boycott State of the Union (WaPo)

That's awesome. It's too bad that they include Dems who have been occasionally marginalized by their own party!
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 4:21 PM on February 4, 2020 [3 favorites]


Pelosi extended a hand to president brainworms. He pointedly ignored her. Because he’s a toddler.
posted by SecretAgentSockpuppet at 6:18 PM on February 4, 2020 [7 favorites]


Given the GOP's chosen framing, I wonder how Collins would feel about a bill authorizing jury nullification for every accused criminal defendant who can show they have "learned from" their very liberty being jeopardized by their prosecution, rather than just their job.
posted by snuffleupagus at 6:21 PM on February 4, 2020 [8 favorites]


Proceed at your own peril, brainwormed toddler.
posted by Rykey at 6:22 PM on February 4, 2020


Hey! Rush Limbaugh got a freedom medal for being one of the biggest voices of lies, hate and divisiveness for the past 30 years!
posted by valkane at 7:14 PM on February 4, 2020 [8 favorites]


That's when anyone with a sense of history was supposed to get up and leave.
posted by snuffleupagus at 7:22 PM on February 4, 2020 [10 favorites]


and he wept. not the only tough looking patriot (or grieving family member) to weep on camera in that room tonight. also a number of improbable coincidences: that scholarship, that guy's deployment ending...
what a horrific spectacle.
posted by 20 year lurk at 7:23 PM on February 4, 2020


And Nancy tore the speech.
posted by HyperBlue at 7:25 PM on February 4, 2020 [13 favorites]


Guardian: Pelosi rips up copy of Trump's speech after he finishes
Right after Trump concluded his speech, House speaker Nancy Pelosi appeared to rip up the paper copy of his speech.

CSPAN (@cspan) .@SpeakerPelosi tears up of State of the Union speech.#SOTU #SOTU2020 pic.twitter.com/sIpi4G7KsL February 5, 2020

The State of the Union was bookended by Trump appearing to reject a handshake from the speaker and then Pelosi literally tearing apart his remarks.
posted by katra at 7:44 PM on February 4, 2020 [17 favorites]


Too little too late, when the Dems could have denied him the forum and the ability to do his despicable victory lap, replete with the Rush Freedom Medal. Trump literally can't afford that kind of advertising at this point.

Kudos to Nancy for figuring out something performative to do before the broadcast terminated, but this is one more Democratic own-goal.

There is no Constitutionally mandated interval for SOTU, and Trump would have had no remedy had the House declined to invite him pending the election, so the Garland-McConnell rule should have been applied.
posted by snuffleupagus at 7:58 PM on February 4, 2020 [13 favorites]


Yeah, but the local news here is leading with Pelosi tearing up the speech, which suggests that a lot of other media outlets will be following suit. "Trump says Trumpy things" isn't newsworthy, while the imagery of her coldly tearing up his speech is.

Individual 1 is going to be livid that she's getting attention instead of him, so this could end up being even better for Democrats' messaging efforts than boycotting.
posted by tonycpsu at 8:13 PM on February 4, 2020 [26 favorites]


I hope so.

I feel like Pelosi's reaction will be digested and forgotten with the 24 hour news cycle, whereas Trump bought and paid for votes in states that mattered last time around with that Rush medal.
posted by snuffleupagus at 8:17 PM on February 4, 2020 [2 favorites]


When asked about why she ripped up the speech, Pelosi responded, "Because it was the courteous thing to do, considering the alternatives."

That was a perfect answer in my books.
posted by bcd at 8:38 PM on February 4, 2020 [53 favorites]


I mean, I hate to say it, but this is the best political theater, ever.
posted by valkane at 8:43 PM on February 4, 2020 [4 favorites]


Interestingly, the NBC News YouTube channel led with a headline about Trump blaming Obama for something. Nearly four years later, still blaming Obama isn't a great look to anyone but the full throated racist MAGAhats.
posted by wierdo at 8:54 PM on February 4, 2020 [1 favorite]


I don't normally start screaming at the TV but that Rush Limbaugh moment caused me to emit a very verbal reaction, followed up by a quick jump into the chat room to rant at anybody who would listen.

As bad and partisan and infuriating as that speech was, presenting that honour to that talk show hack was a thumbing of the nose to Pelosi and the House to a degree I could never imagine. Here Trump is on Pelosi's turf, the place where she is in control and where her party has the majority, and he pulls a stunt that brings him and Melania (since when does the First Lady hand out that medal?) and Rush international attention--Rush who has spent his entire career attempting to dump garbage on the heads of anybody who isn't a Republican.

Yes, Trump has ego and will do anything for ratings, and I know this, but every once in a while the sheer, unmitigated gall of that man still throws me into a loop of disbelief. This was one of those times and probably one of the worst.
posted by sardonyx at 8:56 PM on February 4, 2020 [10 favorites]


Trump awards Rush Limbaugh the Presidential Medal of Freedom (WaPo)
Oddly enough, Limbaugh used to be considered the bane of congressional GOP leadership’s existence, blasting bipartisan bills and even Republican policy proposals he did not find conservative enough.

But in a sign of how Trump has united the party — and the new camaraderie among House Republicans in the minority — on Tuesday night, even moderate GOP lawmakers stood.
posted by katra at 9:01 PM on February 4, 2020


even moderate GOP lawmakers stood


Those are all retired or dead.

So, that would've been quite the feat.
posted by snuffleupagus at 9:05 PM on February 4, 2020 [17 favorites]


Book reveals Trump effort to persuade Justice Kennedy to step aside for Kavanaugh
Dark Towers will be published on 18 February. The Guardian obtained a copy.

Justin Kennedy was part of the US branch of Deutsche Bank from 1998 to 2009. Drawn to Trump’s risk-taking and glamour, he became a Trump confidant, sitting with the real estate impresario at the US Open tennis or in Manhattan nightclubs, and chaperoning huge loans to finance Trump’s real estate spending sprees.

Kennedy, who ran the bank’s commercial real-estate team, continued to lend to Trump even though Deutsche clients had suffered severe losses when Trump’s casino business collapsed and he declared bankruptcy.

After Kennedy set up his own finance and property firm in Florida, Enrich writes, he continued to help other members of the Trump family – Ivanka, Kushner and Donald Trump Jr – arrange financing for projects in New York. The New York Observer, which was owned by Kushner, put Kennedy on a list of the 100 most powerful people in New York real estate.

Once Trump was in office, he went out of his way to congratulate Justice Kennedy on his son, calling him a “special guy” and saying how much his own children loved him.

“Trump’s flattery,” Enrich writes, “was part of a coordinated White House charm offensive designed to persuade the ageing justice – for years, the court’s pivotal swing vote – that it was safe to retire, even with an unpredictable man in the Oval Office.”

Dark Towers describes how Ivanka Trump befriended the judge, sitting next to him at an inaugural lunch, regaling him with accounts of her close friendship with his son, then visiting the elder Kennedy at the supreme court, bringing her five year-old daughter to hear a case about arbitration agreements.

When Anthony Kennedy announced his retirement in June 2018, it gave Trump an opportunity to tip the court right with his nomination of Kavanaugh, in turn solidifying support among conservatives otherwise sceptical about Trump’s character.
posted by mumimor at 9:24 PM on February 4, 2020 [16 favorites]


Interestingly, the NBC News YouTube channel led with a headline about Trump blaming Obama for something. Nearly four years later, still blaming Obama isn't a great look to anyone but the full throated racist MAGAhats.

His main selling point was "Nobody knows the system better than me, which is why I alone can fix it." Why hasn't he fixed it yet?
posted by kirkaracha at 9:25 PM on February 4, 2020 [3 favorites]


every once in a while the sheer, unmitigated gall of that man still throws me into a loop of disbelief

Sheer unmitigated gall is President Manbaby's stock in trade. It's his only stock in trade, but he has it in quantities not seen in normal human beings; so much so that it functions as a kind of superpower.

The part I find the scariest is watching how many people are wholly and genuinely impressed by that and consider it worthy of both praise and attempted emulation.

Why hasn't he fixed it yet?

The fix has been in since before he got elected.
posted by flabdablet at 9:29 PM on February 4, 2020 [4 favorites]


Trump awards Rush Limbaugh the Presidential Medal of Freedom

Next up: Congressional Medal of Honor for Tom Cruise for his gallantry in the face of the Hollywood enemy in the Battles of Top Gun I and II.
posted by rhizome at 9:43 PM on February 4, 2020 [2 favorites]


I wonder how much bribing a Presidential Medal of Freedom costs these days? Perhaps it is denominated in Oxycontin or Desoxyn. Limbaugh was whining about Trump less than two weeks ago, so you can be sure that the man child didn't do it without some external pressure.
posted by wierdo at 10:45 PM on February 4, 2020 [2 favorites]


I mean, I hate to say it, but this is the best political theater, ever.

While Rome the world burns. No, it's literal, this time around! And a pill-popping scrap of human garbage got a Medal of Freedom! Humanity has never been more awesome.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 11:04 PM on February 4, 2020 [1 favorite]



Trump awards Rush Limbaugh the Presidential Medal of Freedom

The hate filled thrice divorced junkie should be buried face down, so at least he can see where he's going when he dies.

What a disgrace; Cheeto seems determined to shit all over anything that might be construed as good in America. My gosh I hope he's a single term president and he and his offspring rot in prison.
posted by Phlegmco(tm) at 12:05 AM on February 5, 2020 [9 favorites]


It’s like he thought about what would make liberals the incoherently most angry and did that.

He could have launched missiles on any country in the world, he could have declared martial law, he could have done any number of things we’re afraid he will.

But he is a troll. And he tv personality. He goes for effect.

He doesn’t think Rush deserves that. But he knows it will makes liberals angry. I bet he has been laughing about this.
posted by affectionateborg at 12:34 AM on February 5, 2020 [6 favorites]


Dark Towers describes how Ivanka Trump befriended the judge, sitting next to him at an inaugural lunch, regaling him with accounts of her close friendship with his son, then visiting the elder Kennedy at the supreme court, bringing her five year-old daughter to hear a case about arbitration agreements


There's no fool like an old fool.
posted by TWinbrook8 at 1:24 AM on February 5, 2020 [12 favorites]


Can we just abolish the entire "Medal of Freedom" bullshit? It's never really been a great idea, and the Republicans have always given it to their favorite scumbags.

Is there some law or something we can pass revoking the power of the President to hand them out?
posted by sotonohito at 3:40 AM on February 5, 2020 [3 favorites]


Rush Limbaugh recently announced that he has advanced lung cancer.

Given that the whole talk-radio-sphere feels like Rush is their godfather (not inaccurately), this is a big deal. Between now and... you know, expect to hear a lot more hagiography about excellence in broadcasting, and very little about the First Dog, 'take the bone out of your nose,' pills, sex tourism, etc.
posted by box at 5:07 AM on February 5, 2020 [4 favorites]


Given that the whole talk-radio-sphere feels like Rush is their godfather (not inaccurately)

When in fact, Limbaugh was merely ripping off Morton Downey Jr.
posted by mikelieman at 5:31 AM on February 5, 2020 [15 favorites]


Is there some law or something we can pass revoking the power of the President to hand them out?

The medal is an executive order. There is no legislation, it's basically the President's opinion and the prestige is because it comes from the President. Congress could try to make a law preventing the President giving out awards but they'd have to overcome a veto and they would then get dragged straight into court because of separation of powers. Congress holds the purse strings not a leash.

They could try prohibiting the President from using his discretionary funding towards the awards in their appropriations bills but should the President then ignore Congress, what then? The remedy for a President acting out of line is impeachment. For a medal? They can't even get the current one convicted for massive, open corruption because of a craven Senate.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 6:16 AM on February 5, 2020 [11 favorites]


the prestige is because it comes from the President.

was
posted by Etrigan at 6:28 AM on February 5, 2020 [32 favorites]


Let's not forget that Rush Limbaugh obtained a prescription for Viagra under an assumed name and then went to the Dominican Republic, child sex slavery capital of the western hemisphere, with a couple hundred boner pills.

Did he go there to rape children? We dont know for sure, but if he'd wanted to fuck adults there is legal prostitution in Nevada. Instead he elected to go to a place where rich white men like him go to rape children.

That's the founder of right wing hate radio.
posted by sotonohito at 6:31 AM on February 5, 2020 [48 favorites]


Let's not forget that Rush Limbaugh obtained a prescription for Viagra under an assumed name and then went to the Dominican Republic, child sex slavery capital of the western hemisphere, with a couple hundred boner pills.

Even without the creepy child sex parts, the juxtaposition of a man who screams the abandonment of law and order and the decline of family values taking a sex drug that was obtained illegally to his stag party. How the fuck do people look at that and unironically say "well that makes perfect sense".

I hate this country sometimes.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 7:43 AM on February 5, 2020 [13 favorites]


Senate Impeachment Trial Vote (C-SPAN) The impeachement trial of President Trump concludes with votes on the articles. Legislative work is also possible. February 05, 2020

U.S. Senate: Debate on Articles of Impeachment & FINAL VOTE (C-SPAN YouTube) Senators will speak for up to 10 minutes each on the articles of impeachment against President Trump - abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.
posted by katra at 8:34 AM on February 5, 2020 [1 favorite]


> How the fuck do people look at that and unironically say "well that makes perfect sense".

Limbaugh was a pioneer of hypocrisy being a feature, not a bug. We call it "owning the libs" now, and back in the GWB/Karl Rove days it was referred to as accusing your opponent of your own weakness, but it started with Rush. "Feminazi" as a slur from a Nazi sympathizer. Deficits mattered when Democrats were in power, but not for Trump (cw: reason.com). Sandra Fluke was a "prostitute" for advocating for contraception coverage, but he was curiously silent about paying for boner pills.

His greatest trick was showing that the media could be bullied and intimidated into not crossing the rabid right, which means there was no penalty for dishonesty. With that, the dishonesty became a weapon. And here we are. Rush was Trump before Trump.
posted by tonycpsu at 8:38 AM on February 5, 2020 [39 favorites]


That's the founder of right wing hate radio.

Then-Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert went on the Limbaugh show to decry calls for his resignation after the Mark Foley Senate page scandal of October 2006, saying Foley's victims were "out to get him" and it was a "liberal conspiracy:"

Limbaugh, taking Hastert's call early in the afternoon, got right down to business. "The Washington Times' admittedly conservative editorial page has asked for you to step down," he pointed out.

"Well, yeah, I'm not going to do that," Hastert said casually, as if the Washington Times had suggested he order grapefruit for breakfast.

Limbaugh set about making the case for Hastert. Democrats and the media, he said, are making the speaker look more "interested in holding the House rather than protecting children."

"Yeah" was the entirety of Hastert's reply.

"I like what you said yesterday," Limbaugh continued, when Hastert "asked for an investigation into who knew what when."


Media Matters: Limbaugh and Hastert baselessly suggested that Democrats orchestrated Foley scandal. (Audio embedded in the story.)

Rush's reaction: "Nancy Pelosi should resign" over "planted emails" and the "deep IMs," and the entire matter was somehow "the Democrats' fault."

In 2016, Hastert was sentenced as a "serial child molester" and for illegally structuring withdrawals to make hush payments to a former student of his who he victimized.
posted by snuffleupagus at 8:39 AM on February 5, 2020 [22 favorites]


Trump Goes On Twitter Tear Over Pelosi Ripping Up His Speech (Matt Shuham, TPM)
He appears to have been deeply affected by the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), ripping up his State of the Union speech after he delivered it.

Trump expressed his frustration in his native tongue — retweets.
To the exclusion of any other topic, apparently.
posted by ZeusHumms at 8:51 AM on February 5, 2020 [9 favorites]


Your Childhood Pet Rock right wing people look at that, and his drug addiction while simultaneously calling for harsh penalties for other drug addicts, as fine because they fundamentally do not believe in equality and equal treatment for all.

The right is literally defined by the belief that society is, should he, or inevitably is, hierarchical and that those closer to the top should be protected by the law but not bound by it, and that those further from the top should be bound by the law but not protected by it.

You aren't witnessesing hypocracy. You are seeing a belief in aristocracy. They truly believe that people like Limbaugh are better than them and deserve differential treatment by the authorities. Lesser people need harshness to keep them on the righteous path, greater people deserve mercy and exceptions because they are superior.

That's why they're fine with Trump's utter immorality and are baffled by our insistence that this means they arent moral. To them morality is for little people. The great and powerful are held to different standards.
posted by sotonohito at 8:52 AM on February 5, 2020 [33 favorites]




You aren't witnessesing hypocracy. You are seeing a belief in aristocracy.
And a good deal of mindless rah rah team, their team sucks, our team rules classic american political tribalism. What the GOP have mastered is the concentrated constant stoking of the base's hatred of their enemy . . .while dogwhistling, eye-rolling, defaming and straight up pointing out who they want the base's enemy to be.
It's the bullying power gestures that count to them. Not reason, logic, ethics or rules.
posted by Harry Caul at 9:22 AM on February 5, 2020 [5 favorites]


How do we know Limbaugh really has cancer? Have we seen the medical reports? He's probably just faking it for sympathy, like he accused Michael J. Fox of doing with his Parkinson's.
posted by Faint of Butt at 9:29 AM on February 5, 2020 [14 favorites]


I seem to remember from the Bush years that hypocracy would literally mean "government from below".

I don't offer that as pedantry, but rather to invoke Brian Eno's aphorism "honour thy mistake as a hidden intention".
posted by Grangousier at 9:41 AM on February 5, 2020 [5 favorites]


The State of the Union Was an Elaborate Troll (Peter Nicholas, Atlantic)
"Trump’s speech turned what’s typically a unifying civic ritual into a glorified campaign rally."

After a wrenching national trauma like impeachment, a president might use a State of the Union speech to deliver a healing message. Perhaps he would express contrition for what got him impeached in the first place. Maybe even pledge not to repeat the same behavior that got him into the mess. Then again, nah.
posted by ZeusHumms at 9:45 AM on February 5, 2020 [4 favorites]


WATCH: Sen. Doug Jones says he will vote to convict Trump (PBS / YouTube)
“After many sleepless nights, I have reluctantly concluded that the evidence is sufficient to convict the president for both abuse of power and obstruction of Congress,” Jones said in a written statement.

Jones’ announcement was significant for Democrats, who are hoping their party will present a united front by unanimously voting to remove Trump from office. That would deny Trump and his GOP allies a campaign season talking point that the Senate’s virtually certain acquittal of Trump was bipartisan. [...]

Jones said the impeachment article accusing Trump of obstructing Congress’ investigation of his behavior gave him the most trouble. He said Wednesday that while he wished House investigators had pushed harder for more documents and witnesses, “I believe the president deliberately and unconstitutionally obstructed Congress by refusing to cooperate with the investigation in any way.”

He said he believes “the evidence clearly proves” that Trump was guilty of the first count of abusing his power.
posted by katra at 9:47 AM on February 5, 2020 [14 favorites]


It's a sad indictment of our media that Trump can get up and lie, troll and shamelessly posture knowing all the while that the most stinging rebuke to his malfeasance will be for his lies to be repeated in most places as "Trump claims..." with no additional pushback or attempt to point out his dishonesty. It's an even sadder indictment that the only way for Democrats to combat this in th heir clickbait world is to engage in the danger behavior he does knowing that they'll be held to a different standard. See all the Republicans so concerned about norms and decorum come scurrying out from under Trump like roaches from a particularly filthy refrigerator!

Good for Pelosi. I'm glad she wrecked his big night. I'm just sad that the truth isn't enough of a weapon to smack him down.
posted by Joey Michaels at 9:49 AM on February 5, 2020 [19 favorites]


It's a sad indictment of our media that Trump can get up and lie, troll and shamelessly posture knowing all the while that the most stinging rebuke to his malfeasance will be for his lies to be repeated in most places as "Trump claims..." with no additional pushback or attempt to point out his dishonesty.

Even worse, some media outlets -- I'm looking at you, NPR -- feel the need to frame assertions of objective, verifiable facts with "critics say...", implying that the dispute is a matter of opinion in which neither side has claim to the truth.
posted by Gelatin at 9:53 AM on February 5, 2020 [14 favorites]


The best response to Limbaugh's award would have been to have people tear up with laughter, point, and bray at the 2nd grade turd joke level of the trolling.
posted by benzenedream at 9:59 AM on February 5, 2020 [8 favorites]


Parkland dad thanks Pelosi, apologizes for letting Trump’s lies get to him at State of the Union (Lauren Floyd, Daily Kos)

He was a guest of Pelosi's at the SotU.
posted by ZeusHumms at 10:08 AM on February 5, 2020 [10 favorites]


Guardian: "There might still be room to hear from former national security adviser, John Bolton, in the halls of Congress.
[...] Manu Raju (@mkraju) House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler tells us that House Dems will “likely” subpoena John Bolton and continue with investigations to follow after today. “I think it’s likely yes,” he told me of issuing a Bolton subpoena. February 5, 2020

When asked the same question on Sunday, House Intelligence chairman Adam Schiff was more circumspect and would not confirm or deny a plan to subpoena Bolton. “I don’t want to comment to this point on what our plans may or may not be with respect to John Bolton, but I will say this: whether it’s before -- in testimony before the House – or it’s in his (forthcoming) book or it’s in one form or another, the truth will come out (and) will continue to come out,” Schiff told CBS.
posted by katra at 10:28 AM on February 5, 2020 [4 favorites]


After being denied his opportunity to get Justice Roberts to say the name of the suspected whistleblower Senator Rand Paul has used his 10 minute commentary period to read the name into the public record.

What effect this will have on future whistleblowers or on the life and health of this one is unknown. Senate Republicans did not condemn or even criticize Paul for his attempt to provoke stochastic terrorism against the whistleblower.
posted by sotonohito at 10:30 AM on February 5, 2020 [22 favorites]


Rand Paul reads alleged whistleblower's name and Republicans 'fine' with it (Politico)
“I was glad we didn’t put the chief justice in a bad situation,” said Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), a member of the GOP leadership. “I have some sympathy for [Paul’s] view on this. The whistleblower law should protect the whistleblower’s job and future opportunity and not necessarily hide who the whistleblower is.”

“It’s fine,” said Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.). “Had there been a vote on it, I probably would have voted to override the chief justice.”

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), who has long touted his reputation protecting whistleblowers, said simply: “If it’s the same name everybody else used, then it’s kind of out there.” [...]

But some Republicans did seek to gently put distance between themselves and Paul, a longtime troublemaker within the Senate GOP who has single handedly caused brief shutdowns of the government and the Patriot Act in his two terms in the Senate.

“I still believe in whistleblower protection. I think the fact that the chief justice wouldn’t read it is an indicator of the sensitivity of it,” said Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.). “So I probably wouldn’t have done that.”

“I wouldn’t have done it,” agreed Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.), who said he would have voted down Paul if he had contested Roberts on the Senate floor. “I would have said that we’ve asked the chief justice by constitutional directive to oversee this and I’m going to respect his wishes.”
posted by katra at 10:36 AM on February 5, 2020 [3 favorites]


When in fact, Limbaugh was merely ripping off Morton Downey Jr.

You misspelled "Wally George". Rebecca de Mornay's dad was the pioneer in conservative shitposting!
posted by rhizome at 10:48 AM on February 5, 2020 [3 favorites]


Romney's talking like he might do the right thing.
posted by mazola at 11:07 AM on February 5, 2020


Republican talk of doing the right thing is worthless (see Collins, Susan). Romney deserves credit if he does the right thing and not before.
posted by Gelatin at 11:09 AM on February 5, 2020 [5 favorites]


On lack of preview, if Romney does break the solid Republican vote to acquit, kudos to him, genuinely.
posted by Gelatin at 11:10 AM on February 5, 2020 [11 favorites]


Guardian: Romney says he will vote to convict
In an emotional speech on the Senate floor, Republican senator Mitt Romney announced he would vote to convict Trump in the impeachment trial.

ABC News (@ABC) Romney: "The president's insistence that [the Bidens] be investigated by the Ukrainians is hard to explain other than as a political pursuit." "There's no question in my mind that were their names not Biden, the president would never have what he did." https://t.co/pZ46hjTyU1 pic.twitter.com/UONT1TpWlw February 5, 2020

“My faith is at the heart of who I am,” Romney said, choking up for several seconds. “I take an oath before God as consequential.”

Romney said this was “the most difficult decision I have ever faced” but had concluded that Trump was “guilty of an appalling abuse of public trust.”

“The grave question the Constitution tasks senators to answer is whether the President committed an act so extreme and egregious that it rises to the level of a ‘high crime and misdemeanor,’” Romney said. “Yes, he did.”

Romney’s decision robs Trump of a key talking point -- that every Republican senator supported his acquittal. Instead, Democrats will be able to claim the push to convict Trump was (barely) bipartisan.
posted by katra at 11:13 AM on February 5, 2020 [32 favorites]


Let's not forget that Trump publicly humiliated Romney with that 'recruiting dinner' where he dangled the Secretary of State post in front of him, just to prove that Romney's 'never trumper' comments would be repudiated as soon as there was a major post potentially available. This is payback as much as principle.
posted by PhineasGage at 11:26 AM on February 5, 2020 [9 favorites]


Romney to vote to convict Trump on charge of abuse of power, becoming the first Republican to break ranks (WaPo)
Romney said he will vote against the second article of impeachment, which accused the president of obstruction of Congress. But on the first article, the Utah senator said in a telephone interview that he found the evidence against Trump overwhelming and the arguments by the president’s defense ultimately unconvincing.

“There’s no question that the president asked a foreign power to investigate his political foe,” Romney said ahead of the floor statement he delivered Wednesday. “That he did so for a political purpose, and that he pressured Ukraine to get them to do help or to lead in this effort. My own view is that there’s not much I can think of that would be a more egregious assault on our Constitution than trying to corrupt an election to maintain power. And that’s what the president did.”
posted by katra at 11:28 AM on February 5, 2020 [8 favorites]


Among other benefits, Romney voting convict will also somewhat reduce the harmful impact of a possible Manchin vote the other way, because the story won't be as simple as bipartisan acquittal with partisan conviction.

Note also that no senator in history has ever voted to convict a president of their own party -- Romney is going to be the first. At the same time, all impeached presidents have had at least some opposing senators choose acquittal, and this time that "some" is not going to be more than one or two. The partisanship of the process (combined with a bias toward acquittal on that basis that it's extreme) isn't exactly new. The breaking of that precedent tells us a little something about the severity of the man's unfitness.

And even if impeachment becomes more frequent in future years, I don't think it's ever going to happen that a political party's previous presidential nominee votes to remove the same party's president. Lots of people will claim that he's not a "true" Republican or something, but that's obviously preposterous.
posted by InTheYear2017 at 11:32 AM on February 5, 2020 [9 favorites]


This is payback as much as principle.

Any basis for that other than just disliking Romney? It doesn't appear that way to me, bad people can make good decisions for the right reasons, Romney does this sort of thing now and again.
posted by skewed at 11:34 AM on February 5, 2020 [4 favorites]


This is payback as much as principle.

Based on my hatefollows on Twitter, this is Republican talking point A in response to Romney's vote (seeing lots of variations on "Romney did this because he hates Trump so bad"). Talking point B is that Romney wanted the "liberal media" to give him love.

Anyway.
posted by prefpara at 11:37 AM on February 5, 2020 [1 favorite]


To be clear:
- No, I have no access to the inner workings of Romney's mind. Metafilter would be a much less trafficked site if we weren't allowed sarcastic speculation about the motives of public figures.
- I would be delighted if Romney were 100% motivated by payback. I hear it's a bitch.
posted by PhineasGage at 11:42 AM on February 5, 2020 [4 favorites]


Hell, more R senators should be seeking payback. Get with the program, former presidential candidates Cruz and Rubio!
posted by Huffy Puffy at 11:43 AM on February 5, 2020 [18 favorites]


Gentle reminder that Trump did not win a majority of votes in Utah in 2016 and the general animosity between Utah culture and Trumpian culture and Romney's decision to represent his constituents should not be discounted.
posted by hydropsyche at 11:44 AM on February 5, 2020 [25 favorites]


Hell, more R senators should be seeking payback. Get with the program, former presidential candidates Cruz and Rubio!

I truly do not understand patriarchal authoritarian culture, because it is bazonkers to me that Cruz' support didn't just wither and die when he rolled over after what Trump said about him and his wife. It's pathetic how easy it is to keep your cred in that culture as long as there's someone for you to punch down at.
posted by jason_steakums at 11:48 AM on February 5, 2020 [12 favorites]


The political calculus is definitely different for Romney because of Utah (congrats mormons at not being as craven as evangelicals), but Romney voting to convict on an article is a good thing, period. It's a bit b.s. that he thinks obstruction of congress is a whatever, but...whatever.
posted by mcstayinskool at 11:50 AM on February 5, 2020 [9 favorites]


...the pioneer in conservative shitposting!

WRT electronic mass media, that (dis)honor likely belongs to radio broadcaster Father Charles Coughlin, who had a large U.S. audience in the 1930s. The media may change, but the mindset won't: who will take up Rush's mantle?
posted by cenoxo at 11:54 AM on February 5, 2020 [7 favorites]


Before the vote I can still enjoy some last-minute fantasies:

1) All the Republicans who claim in private that they hate Trump actually vote him out.

2) Since the president can be convicted by "two thirds of the Members present," enough Republicans no-show that the Democrats and some Republicans can vote him out.

Hey, I said they were fantasies.
posted by kirkaracha at 11:54 AM on February 5, 2020 [26 favorites]


Got to get back!
Need some get back! Revenge!
I'm Mitt!

You got down on my Bain fees, and that ain't right!
Hollerin', cussin', all your Twitter fights
LDS -- that's what Utah's gotta be, hey
So that ol' Mitch, he can't do any damn thing to me

You sold me out, for a scallop plate (yes you did!)
Told me that the Cabinet, it was all arranged
You had me down, and that's a fact
Now you punk, You gotta get ready
For the Biblical payback!

posted by snuffleupagus at 12:05 PM on February 5, 2020 [3 favorites]


Mitt's more of a 'Living in America' kind of James Brown fan.
posted by box at 12:24 PM on February 5, 2020 [2 favorites]


Call me naive, but I think Romney’s vote here is sincere and based in his ethics (which for him stem from his religion). Anyone who watched 2012 knows he’s not much of an actor. Organized religion has its extensive drawbacks, but one of its pluses is knowing that even if everyone else abandons you and condemns you, God will always be there beside you. For someone as devout as Romney, that can lend you all the courage you need to do the tough but right thing.
posted by sallybrown at 12:27 PM on February 5, 2020 [21 favorites]




Yes, with all the craven prosperity gospel hypocrites getting all the attention these days, it can be hard to remember that there do exist people who take their religion seriously rather than using it to try to hide their shameful amorality.
posted by wierdo at 12:35 PM on February 5, 2020 [9 favorites]


It would be great if Romney's statement shamed a few more Republican senators who purport to be Christian into doing the right thing. Unlikely, but it would be great.
posted by Sublimity at 12:37 PM on February 5, 2020 [4 favorites]


Guardian: Sinema to reportedly vote to convict
Democratic senator Kyrsten Sinema will reportedly vote to convict Trump on both articles of impeachment, abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. The Arizona Republic reports:

The decision by Sinema, a moderate Arizona Democrat who was seen as a swing vote, was one of the last remaining questions hanging over Trump’s impeachment trial. [...]

The last remaining Democratic senator whose stance remains unknown is Joe Manchin of West Virginia, who has declined to say how he will vote.
posted by katra at 12:42 PM on February 5, 2020 [7 favorites]


The important thing about impeachment is we all had fun and learned a lesson (Alexandra Petri, Washington Post Opinion)
posted by ZeusHumms at 12:46 PM on February 5, 2020 [3 favorites]


I think Romney will face a deluge of mean tweets and maybe some cold shoulders in the Senate gym for a few weeks but honestly that's it. His seat is safe if he wants to stay in the Senate and if he wants to leave he has millions of dollars to coast on. He can probably get another book deal based on this one vote and a permanent TV or think tank/consulting/lobbying gig if that's what he would prefer. Once the election race heats up that's where all the focus will be along with whatever craziness happens in the next few months.
posted by mikepop at 12:51 PM on February 5, 2020 [4 favorites]


If Manchin votes to acquit, I will pee on my desk.
posted by delfin at 12:53 PM on February 5, 2020 [6 favorites]


McConnell doing the gloating and trolling thing to full effect. Ugh.
posted by Harry Caul at 12:54 PM on February 5, 2020 [1 favorite]


Manchin will vote to convict. (Delfin's desk is safe.)
posted by PhineasGage at 12:59 PM on February 5, 2020 [18 favorites]


Guardian: Republican senator Susan Collins, who has said she will vote to acquit Trump, walked back her comment yesterday, “I believe that the president has learned from this case.”
The Maine Republican told a reporter that it was more accurate to say she “hopes” Trump has learned from the impeachment trial. [...] During an off-the-record luncheon with news anchors yesterday, Trump reportedly dismissed the notion that any of his actions toward Ukraine were inappropriate.

“It was a perfect call,” Trump told the anchors of his July conversation with the Ukrainian president, during which he asked for a “favor” from the foreign leader and went on to discuss potential corruption investigations.
posted by katra at 1:00 PM on February 5, 2020 [3 favorites]


sallybrown > ...I think Romney’s vote here is sincere and based in his ethics (which for him stem from his religion)....

From The Conversation, Luke Perry, March 26, 2019; Romney’s Mormon religion helps explain his criticism of Trump:
Mitt Romney has been one of few prominent Republicans to criticize Donald Trump, beginning with the 2016 presidential campaign. He did so again recently in response to Trump’s critical comments about John McCain.

“I can’t understand why the President would, once again, disparage a man as exemplary as my friend John McCain,” Romney tweeted.

Why is Romney staking out a lonely position as a Republican Trump critic?

Among the answers floated by observers are that he still wants to be president or he fundamentally misunderstands how to influence Trump’s political behavior, or both.Why is Romney staking out a lonely position as a Republican Trump critic?

Among the answers floated by observers are that he still wants to be president or he fundamentally misunderstands how to influence Trump’s political behavior, or both.

To date, though, there has been little mention of Romney’s religion. I’m a scholar who has studied the role of religion in U.S. politics, and I believe Romney’s Mormon faith is central to understanding his concerns about Trump’s character and leadership.

Donald Trump is arguably the least religious president in U.S. history and has displayed a penchant for moral relativism over bedrock beliefs.

Had he won the 2012 presidential campaign, Romney would have arguably been the most religious president ever.

Of course, Romney is personally motivated, politically calculating and pragmatic, like most national political figures. But he is also immensely devout. You cannot fully understand Mitt Romney without recognizing this.
...
Links and examples in the article above, and more about Trump's [ongoing] Mormon problem, Salt Lake Tribune, Jana Riess, 2/4/2020.
posted by cenoxo at 1:03 PM on February 5, 2020 [7 favorites]


Every other Senate GoPinhead who has even had a _hint_ of "centrism" or "moderate politics" associated with them could have voted with Romney on this without changing the end result at all.

Every one of them could have sent a message to Trump that, no, they are not going to actually remove him but they are also not blind.

And every one of them knows that.

Up yours, Sen. Collins.
posted by delfin at 1:04 PM on February 5, 2020 [26 favorites]


“I believe that the president has learned from this case.”

*chokes on lunch* I'm guessing that even the MAGAest of MAGAs do not believe this.
posted by Melismata at 1:07 PM on February 5, 2020 [4 favorites]


Honestly shocked that Manchin didn't cave.
posted by Lentrohamsanin at 1:07 PM on February 5, 2020 [12 favorites]


Guardian: McConnell criticizes Pelosi in final speech before impeachment vote
McConnell criticized Democrats like House speaker Nancy Pelosi, who have said Trump’s expected acquittal will be illegitimate because there was no “fair trial.”

“Perhaps she’ll tear up the verdict like she tore up the State of the Union address,” McConnell said.
posted by katra at 1:12 PM on February 5, 2020 [2 favorites]


Organized religion has its extensive drawbacks, but one of its pluses is knowing that even if everyone else abandons you and condemns you, God will always be there beside you. For someone as devout as Romney, that can lend you all the courage you need to do the tough but right thing

Whether that's a plus or a minus is entirely contingent on the individual's beliefs. This is the same sentiment that gives rise to religious violence.
posted by snuffleupagus at 1:13 PM on February 5, 2020 [2 favorites]


It would be great if Romney's statement shamed a few more Republican senators who purport to be Christian into doing the right thing.

That would be Mitt Romney, serial liar? Please proceed. Pretty sure Mitt's decision is based on political calculation rather than his "ethics."
posted by SPrintF at 1:15 PM on February 5, 2020 [4 favorites]


with Romney, Sinema, and Manchin does that make it 49 for impeachment? Getting to 51 I think would have been a big deal, even though obviously just symbolic.
posted by skewed at 1:17 PM on February 5, 2020




Guardian: Trump is acquitted of abuse of power
It’s official: Trump has been acquitted on the first article of impeachment, abuse of power.

The final vote, as expected, was 52-48, with all Democrats and Mitt Romney supporting conviction.
posted by katra at 1:21 PM on February 5, 2020 [2 favorites]


Bipartisanship!
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 1:23 PM on February 5, 2020 [3 favorites]


Damn, we're a divided country.
posted by Melismata at 1:23 PM on February 5, 2020


With the additional problem that the division of the government does not accurately reflect the division of the electorate.
posted by snuffleupagus at 1:25 PM on February 5, 2020 [15 favorites]


Monday's Iowa caucus was an embarrassing moment for the Democratic Party; today's unity among Democratic senators is a moment to be proud of.
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 1:28 PM on February 5, 2020 [11 favorites]


All 47 Democratic caucus senators voted for conviction on BOTH counts. Romney voted only for Article I, abuse of power.
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 1:33 PM on February 5, 2020 [6 favorites]


Guardian: Trump acquitted of obstruction of Congress
Trump has officially been acquitted of both articles of impeachment, abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.

The votes -- 52-48 and 53-47 -- fell well short of the two-thirds majority needed to remove the president from office.
posted by katra at 1:33 PM on February 5, 2020 [2 favorites]


Obstruction of Congress went 53-47 to acquit--the only person to change their vote from the first charge was Mitt Romney.
posted by box at 1:33 PM on February 5, 2020 [1 favorite]


Tonight, 5:30 local time, Reject the Cover Up rallies

posted by Sublimity at 1:35 PM on February 5, 2020 [3 favorites]


That would be Mitt Romney, serial liar? Please proceed. Pretty sure Mitt's decision is based on political calculation rather than his "ethics."

I DON'T FUCKING CARE! Just like I don't care what your motivations are if you're doing something racist, it's racist and needs to stop. On the flip-side, I don't care what your motivations are for doing the right thing, just keep on doing the right thing.

Here is your cookie Mitt, good boy. Keep it up and I will give you more cookies. Do bad things and it's still the can full of pennies for you.
posted by VTX at 1:36 PM on February 5, 2020 [24 favorites]


If nothing else, this impeachment process got a leading currently-serving Republican to admit that Donald Trump should be removed from office. That is something that has been rather difficult to achieve.
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 1:37 PM on February 5, 2020 [11 favorites]


came here expecting to find perfidy from manchin, am both surprised and relieved that manchin was in fact not perfidious.

good job manchin!

also though romney can eat a bag even though he voted to convict on one charge. like whatever he took a “stand” but nevertheless i have never seen anyone so thoroughly fail to fulfill the white horse prophecy as mitt romney has.
posted by Reclusive Novelist Thomas Pynchon at 1:39 PM on February 5, 2020 [2 favorites]


Romney, ever the weasel, can safely claim that he both voted for impeachment and voted against impeachment.
posted by JackFlash at 1:40 PM on February 5, 2020 [8 favorites]


so now can roberts go back to his seat at the head of the highest court in the land, and, as he comes to consider those executive privilege cases that may arise on the docket, carry with him the understanding that a majority of the senate of the united states have blessed inchoate assertions of absolute privilege by the chief executive?
posted by 20 year lurk at 1:42 PM on February 5, 2020 [2 favorites]


Plus he gets to be the first senator in US history to vote to convict a president from the same party in an impeachment trial. So he gets a medal I suppose.
posted by inflatablekiwi at 1:42 PM on February 5, 2020 [7 favorites]


So he gets a medal I suppose.

Nope, that went to Rush.
posted by Big Al 8000 at 1:44 PM on February 5, 2020 [4 favorites]


So he gets a medal I suppose.

I'd say along with a presidential run or two and a by-now almost thoroughly-erased gubernatorial stint, as far as history goes Mitt has at most achieved footnote status. So, y'know...huzzah.
posted by rhizome at 2:10 PM on February 5, 2020 [3 favorites]


I owe Manchin an apology, I'd been sure that he'd vote to acquit and I was wrong.

Sorry about that Sen Manchin.
posted by sotonohito at 2:25 PM on February 5, 2020 [8 favorites]


Man, there was one principled republican and it turned out to be Mitt Romney


How sad is that
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 2:27 PM on February 5, 2020 [22 favorites]


I'm guessing that even the MAGAest of MAGAs do not believe this.

Only because, in MAGAland, it is impossible for Trump to do wrong. There's nothing to learn.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 2:45 PM on February 5, 2020 [2 favorites]


Man, there was one principled republican and it turned out to be Mitt Romney
Before we get all carried away, let's at least remember that two weeks ago Romney voted in lockstep with every other member of his party to reject every amendment to the impeachment procedures proposed by the House impeachment managers in an effort to introduce more evidence.

Once the outcome was a foregone conclusion he made a politically expedient vote to hear witnesses and was the beneficiary of a national pity party after the meanies at CPAC chose to disinvite him from their convention.. but at any juncture where his vote might have mattered Mitt Romney voted in lockstep with his party.

The bar is so low now that I'm seeing people and pundits all over the internet try to bestow the "last honorable Republican" title upon him. But boy, let me tell you.. that's not what we're looking at here.
posted by Nerd of the North at 2:46 PM on February 5, 2020 [29 favorites]


I'm not sure what, exactly, it says about the whole situation but it appears noteworthy that the two most significant (well Mittens vote today is arguably not very significant) anti-Trump votes cast in the Senate . . . were cast by the 2008 and 2012 GOP presidential nominees, respectively.

GOP is clearly party of trump, its moderately interesting that the people who last carried that mantle dont want it to appear to be that way.
posted by Exceptional_Hubris at 2:47 PM on February 5, 2020 [5 favorites]




DOJ reviews allegation that Erik Prince misled Congress in Russia probe (Politico)
The Justice Department has begun reviewing a 10-month-old allegation by the House Intelligence Committee chairman, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), that Erik Prince, an ally of President Donald Trump, repeatedly misled lawmakers during the panel’s investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election.

In a Feb. 4 letter to Schiff from Assistant Attorney General Stephen Boyd, obtained on Tuesday by POLITICO, Boyd expressed regret for the lengthy delay in responding to the chairman’s April 30, 2019, request. [...] Schiff initially referred Prince to the Justice Department and sought “prompt” action for what he described as a series of “manifest and substantial falsehoods.” In that letter, delivered to Attorney General William Barr, Schiff said that Prince, the billionaire founder of a military contracting firm, intentionally misled the House Intelligence Committee and impaired its investigation of Russian links to the 2016 Trump campaign.

It’s unclear what led the Justice Department to return to Schiff’s request 10 months later on the eve of the Senate’s decision to acquit Trump on two impeachment charges. The department and a Prince attorney did not immediately respond to requests for comment. [...] In his April 30 letter, Schiff highlighted six instances in which information revealed about Prince in Mueller’s report diverged from his testimony in November 2017 before the committee. He homed in on Prince’s meeting, in the Seychelles in January 2017, with a Russian banker who is reportedly close to President Vladimir Putin of Russia, an encounter Prince later told congressional officials took place purely by chance.

Prince told Schiff’s committee in late 2017 that he had no “official or, really, unofficial role” with the Trump campaign. [...] But a succession of news reports indicated that Prince’s relationship with the campaign was deeper than he let on. According to a New York Times report last May, Prince helped facilitate meetings for high-level Trump campaign staff.
posted by katra at 2:52 PM on February 5, 2020 [7 favorites]


So, what happens now?
posted by dreamling at 2:58 PM on February 5, 2020


In Private, Republicans Admit they Acquitted Trump Out of Fear by Sherrod Brown (D-OH)

Well, thank fuck that at least one of my senators penned an op-ed for the NYT today that wasn't a handjob-in-print for the fuckface-in-chief.

(I'm really looking forward to throwing some energy and money into backing any viable opponents for Rob Portman in 2022.)
posted by palomar at 2:59 PM on February 5, 2020 [5 favorites]


So, what happens now?

Well, Trump responded to the Mueller hearings by waiting one day to extort Ukraine.

Don't forget to duck tomorrow.
posted by delfin at 3:03 PM on February 5, 2020 [7 favorites]


I'm looking forward to a fresh round of articles of impeachment!
posted by ButteryMales at 3:09 PM on February 5, 2020 [8 favorites]


So, what happens now?
The "A" in "ITMFA" changes so that it represents the word "Again"
posted by Nerd of the North at 3:16 PM on February 5, 2020 [38 favorites]


Fuck this. From now on Republicans pay double.
posted by Catblack at 3:29 PM on February 5, 2020 [2 favorites]


I guess this also means the end of the impeachment threads. Thanks, katra, for keeping them going.
posted by ZeusHumms at 3:53 PM on February 5, 2020 [25 favorites]


Every single miserable piece of spineless filth that voted to acquit should never be allowed to forget that they did so. Just my 2¢.
posted by caution live frogs at 4:10 PM on February 5, 2020 [11 favorites]


In Private, Republicans Admit they Acquitted Trump Out of Fear by Sherrod Brown (D-OH)

Sherrod, my man! (And he quotes Lizzo.)

Well, thank fuck that at least one of my senators penned an op-ed for the NYT today that wasn't a handjob-in-print for the fuckface-in-chief.

Yeah, not gonna waste a (an?) NYT click on whatever mealy-mouthed bullshit Portman is churning out. I will definitely take your word for it that it was a stroke-job of the highest order.
posted by soundguy99 at 4:23 PM on February 5, 2020 [2 favorites]


I guess this also means the end of the impeachment threads. Thanks, katra, for keeping them going.

Ongoing House Investigations Of Trump Will Outlast Impeachment Trial (WBUR, Jan. 30, 2020)
“That is everything from Oversight in terms of taxes, to Financial Services and Trump’s relationship with Deutsche Bank,” said Rep. Ayanna Pressley, referring to the two House committees she serves on.

“So yes, our work continues regarding the corruption and abuse of power of this administration,” Pressley said, referring to charges against the president outlined in the two impeachment articles the Senate is currently weighing. [...] “It’s a signal to the next president and future presidents that this type of activity will lead to your impeachment,” [Rep. Stephen Lynch, who also serves on both the Oversight and Financial Services committees] said. “We have the hope that the rule of law will prevail here.”

Lynch acknowledged that some may believe it better to let the voters decide Trump’s fate with their ballots rather than engage in prolonged investigations. But there is more at stake than who should be president in 2021, he said.
Donald Trump Still Faces Dozens of Ongoing Lawsuits, Investigations After His Impeachment Trial (Newsweek, Jan. 24, 2020)
Last year, House Democrats sent letters to 81 Trump-connected individuals and entities seeking records and testimony from the White House, as well as Trump's businesses, charity and family, as part of a broad inquiry into potential obstruction of justice and corruption.

"Over the last several years, President Trump has evaded accountability for his near-daily attacks on our basic legal, ethical, and constitutional rules and norms," Democratic Representative Jerry Nadler said at the time. "Investigating these threats to the rule of law is an obligation of Congress."

There's also the issue of the Trump administration's apparent violation of the emoluments clause, which prohibits federal officials from receiving gifts from foreign or state governments without the consent of Congress. There are several lawsuits circulating in the lower courts that accuse Trump of failing to comply with the clause by profiting from domestic and foreign officials who visit his hotels and restaurants.

Other noteworthy congressional investigations include Trump's communication with Russian President Vladimir Putin, alleged abuses with the White House security clearance system, and the president's tax returns.
I do like the idea of changing the "A" in "ITMFA" so that it represents the word "Again"...
posted by katra at 4:25 PM on February 5, 2020 [14 favorites]


And if you were waiting for the worst possible take on all of this... it's here.

David Brooks: "Instead of spending the past 3 years on Mueller and impeachment suppose Trump opponents had spent the time on an infrastructure bill or early childhood education? More good would have been done."
posted by delfin at 4:33 PM on February 5, 2020 [15 favorites]


And seriously, thank you all for participating and contributing in these threads, and many, many thanks to the moderators who help us keep our discussions focused, and thanks to Nancy Pelosi, for so expertly getting under the GOP's skin:
House Republicans have introduced legislation to register disapproval of Speaker Nancy Pelosi after she ripped up a copy of Donald Trump’s State of the Union speech.

“Whereas, the conduct of Speaker Pelosi was a breach of decorum and degraded the proceedings of the joint session to the discredit of the House,” the resolution reads. “Resolved, That the House of Representatives disapproves of the behavior of Speaker Pelosi during the joint session of Congress held on February 4, 2020.”

The resolution, introduced by Texas Representative Kay Granger is unlikely to get anywhere — Representatives are expected to vote to table it tomorrow.
posted by katra at 4:34 PM on February 5, 2020 [12 favorites]


Yes, that was classic David Brooks. As Matt Yglesias points out, "House Democrats released their infrastructure plan less than a week ago."
posted by PhineasGage at 4:39 PM on February 5, 2020 [17 favorites]


So, what happens now?

Well, that didn't take long. Minutes after the acquittal, Senators Grassley and Johnson have requested Hunter Biden's travel records from the Secret Service.

You see, Republicans have given a free pass to Trump to decide which documents he wants to produce and which he wants to obstruct (Article 2 of impeachment). Using the power of his office to investigate his political rivals is perfectly okay (Article 1 of impeachment).

As Collins said, Trump has learned his lesson. And he has learned it very, very well and taking full advantage of it.
posted by JackFlash at 4:42 PM on February 5, 2020 [41 favorites]


The thing is they have nothing on Hunter Biden. If they did it’d be out already. They’re just going to make noise noise noise and try to Benghazi the shit out of this. All depends on how the media covers it. Hopefully they give it the legitimacy it deserves, which is zero. Not holding my breath though.
posted by azpenguin at 5:47 PM on February 5, 2020 [7 favorites]


Is there any place I can go to see what my Senators said to justify their abdication and cowardice? I’m sure it won’t be a pleasant 20 minutes but I feel it’s my responsibility as a citizen to view their malfeasance for myself.
posted by Big Al 8000 at 5:53 PM on February 5, 2020 [1 favorite]


Grassley and Johnson only have until February 29th to make those fantasy molehills into rumors of a mountain. After SC, harassing Bidens to please Trumps will be pointless.
posted by Harry Caul at 6:03 PM on February 5, 2020 [2 favorites]


Is there any place I can go to see what my Senators said to justify their abdication and cowardice?

Which senators support removing Trump (WaPo, Updated Feb. 5 at 4:51 p.m.)
You can read more of what each senator has said and how they are expected to vote on Trump’s removal below.
posted by katra at 6:06 PM on February 5, 2020


“I believe that the president has learned from this case.”

Sure, that he actually IS above the law and can literally do anything he wants without anyone stopping him.

I saw the impeachment rally in my town on the way home, but I was just too tired to join them. I can't even feel anything any more.
posted by jenfullmoon at 6:24 PM on February 5, 2020 [8 favorites]


After SC, harassing Bidens to please Trumps will be pointless.

Don't count on it. It's not about proving Biden wrong so much as proving Trump right, that Trump was persecuted by corrupt Democrats for his perfect Biden investigation.

Trump is still running against the 2016 DNC server. He's certainly not going to drop the Hunter Biden thing, ever.

Plan on hearing about Hunter Biden every day right up to the election.
posted by JackFlash at 6:53 PM on February 5, 2020 [15 favorites]


Trump wins acquittal, but Ukraine saga far from over (AP)
A full accounting of Trump’s dealings with Ukraine, stemming in large part from the foreign policy entanglements pursued by personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani, remains unfinished despite Trump’s acquittal Wednesday in the Senate.

As the president launches into his reelection campaign, pushing past the charges that threatened his legacy, it’s only a matter of time before fresh details, documents and eyewitnesses emerge, including revelations in a new book from John Bolton, the former national security adviser.

The result could be the start of a prolonged investigation with no clear endpoint, keeping questions about the president’s conduct alive through the election in November. It’s the kind of prolonged fallout that Trump and his GOP allies sought to avoid as they rejected a lengthy impeachment trial.

“More is going to come out every day, indeed it has come out every day and every week,” said House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff in an interview Wednesday with The Associated Press. [...]

And it’s not just Bolton. Giuliani associate Lev Parnas, a Florida businessman who claims to have been working for Trump on Ukraine, has said he is eager to testify before Congress and tell his side of the story. Indicted on campaign finance charges last year, he has been providing documents and messages to impeachment investigators.

Meanwhile, thousands of pages of Ukraine-related documents are slowly emerging in response to Freedom of Information Act lawsuits filed by watchdog groups. The Justice Department disclosed in a court filing last weekend that it has 24 emails related to Ukraine that it has not produced.
posted by katra at 7:03 PM on February 5, 2020 [8 favorites]


Trump's done with impeachment. Here are his next legal challenges. (Politico)
The next nine months before the 2020 presidential election are packed with landmines that can cause all manner of embarrassing headlines, adverse legal rulings and other politically risky decisions for Trump and his administration.

Watch for more House Democratic subpoenas. Watch for several big Supreme Court rulings on Trump’s power to ignore subpoenas for his financial records. And watch for growing pressure on the president to pardon former aides and advisers caught up in special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia probe.
posted by katra at 7:06 PM on February 5, 2020 [3 favorites]




Schiff: Bolton refused to give sworn statement on Ukraine to House Democrats (Axios)
Former national security adviser John Bolton "refused" to submit a sworn affidavit "describing what he observed in terms of the president's Ukraine misconduct" to House Democrats after the Senate voted not to hear witnesses in President Trump's impeachment trial, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) told MSNBC on Wednesday. [...]

""For whatever reason, [Bolton] apparently was willing to testify before the Senate, but apart from that, seems intent on saving it for his book," Schiff told host Rachel Maddow. "He'll have to answer for that, but at this point we have not made a decision about whether or not to move forward with a subpoena, but it is certainly something that we will be discussing."
posted by katra at 10:04 PM on February 5, 2020 [6 favorites]


Well, that didn't take long. Minutes after the acquittal, Senators Grassley and Johnson have requested Hunter Biden's travel records from the Secret Service.

Why would the Secret Service have Hunter Biden's travel records? What are "travel records?"
posted by rhizome at 12:27 AM on February 6, 2020 [5 favorites]


TPM: Republican Senators Laugh Off Trump Jr.’s Cry To Boot Romney From The Party
posted by ZeusHumms at 7:13 PM on February 5 [3 favorites +] [!]


I didn't notice before now that what Jr posted was:
He’s now officially a member of the resistance

By now the "are we the baddies?" sketch has been through so much that it has given up. There was an article in my feed this morning with the desperate title: Are Americans (Really) So Dumb They Don’t Know Fascism When They See It? I think most people are that dumb, Americans and non-Americans alike. It's impressive that the majority of Americans disapprove of Trump at this point.
posted by mumimor at 12:37 AM on February 6, 2020 [8 favorites]


Presumably he would have had Secret Service protection while his father was vice president.
posted by bardophile at 1:00 AM on February 6, 2020 [4 favorites]


*
posted by HyperBlue at 5:51 AM on February 6, 2020 [3 favorites]


Trump has learned his lesson much in the same way velociraptors learned to open doors.
posted by emelenjr at 6:07 AM on February 6, 2020 [38 favorites]


"Trump has learned his lesson much in the same way velociraptors learned to open doors."

If I may steal this comment, I'll illustrate it with a Trump/velociraptor hybrid tonight.
posted by mikepop at 6:30 AM on February 6, 2020 [15 favorites]


Romney said this was “the most difficult decision I have ever faced”

For fuck's sake. Difficult? It really shouldn't be.

I believe that the president has learned from this case.

For fuck's sake. She "believes" this. Government by the unqualified and uninformed. What could go wrong?
posted by juiceCake at 6:33 AM on February 6, 2020 [2 favorites]


Collins is neither unqualified (in the classic sense) nor uninformed.

She’s a blood-red Republican and completely in the tank, and politically shrewd enough to frame her behavior in just enough plausible deniability to provide a fig leaf for her behavior to allow conservative Democrats in her state to keep voting for her.

It’s worked to keep her in power for decades.
posted by darkstar at 6:41 AM on February 6, 2020 [14 favorites]


Sen. Sherrod Brown: In private, Republicans admit they acquitted Trump out of fear (Sherrod Brown, OpEd - NYT via Salt Lake Tribune)
Of course, the Republican senators who have covered for Mr. Trump love what he delivers for them. But Vice President Mike Pence would give them the same judges, the same tax cuts, the same attacks on workers’ rights and the environment. So that’s not really the reason for their united chorus of “not guilty.”

For the stay-in-office-at-all-cost representatives and senators, fear is the motivator. They are afraid that Mr. Trump might give them a nickname like “Low Energy Jeb” and “Lyin’ Ted,” or that he might tweet about their disloyalty. Or — worst of all — that he might come to their state to campaign against them in the Republican primary. They worry:

“Will the hosts on Fox attack me?”

“Will the mouthpieces on talk radio go after me?”

“Will the Twitter trolls turn their followers against me?”

[…]

I have asked some of them, “If the Senate votes to acquit, what will you do to keep this president from getting worse?” Their responses have been shrugs and sheepish looks.

They will not say that they are afraid. We all want to think that we always stand up for right and fight against wrong. But history does not look kindly on politicians who cannot fathom a fate worse than losing an upcoming election. They might claim fealty to their cause — those tax cuts — but often it’s a simple attachment to power that keeps them captured by fear.
posted by ZeusHumms at 6:49 AM on February 6, 2020 [14 favorites]


Impeachment Witnesses Who Testified Publicly Are Angry with John Bolton (Colin Kalmbacher, Law & Crime blog)
[One witness] singled out Bolton and his decidedly theatrical role throughout the messy impeachment imbroglio, saying the forever war hawk was “trying to have it both ways” by dishing on Trump while ignoring Democratic Party requests to step forward and testify—like 17 witnesses who weren’t selling books actually had the courage to do.
posted by ZeusHumms at 6:55 AM on February 6, 2020 [19 favorites]


But history does not look kindly on politicians who cannot fathom a fate worse than losing an upcoming election.

And when "history" funds their re-elections and bankrolls their post-election consulting and media careers, they'll give a shit about its unkind looks.
posted by Rykey at 6:58 AM on February 6, 2020 [8 favorites]


"Like each member of this deliberative body, I love our country. I believe that our Constitution was inspired by Providence". Full Transcript

This part of Romney's speech makes me despair for the future of the US. The system is broken. It needs to be fixed. And if you think your 230+ year old Constitution was inspired by God, there's little to no chance it will be substantially overhauled. You can't change a word in the Bible. The US has become a very strange theocracy indeed.
posted by Omon Ra at 7:57 AM on February 6, 2020 [29 favorites]


And when "history" funds their re-elections and bankrolls their post-election consulting and media careers, they'll give a shit about its unkind looks.

I believe that this is covered by 'attachment to power'.
posted by ZeusHumms at 8:03 AM on February 6, 2020


Trump appears to swipe at Romney and Pelosi at the National Prayer Breakfast (Michelle Boorstein and Sarah Pulliam Bailey, WaPo)
posted by ZeusHumms at 8:06 AM on February 6, 2020 [1 favorite]


Romney said this was “the most difficult decision I have ever faced”

For fuck's sake. Difficult? It really shouldn't be.


Not unlike you or me, Romney views himself as a good person. By extension, he joined the GOP because it shares his “good guy” values. I’m sure the idea that the party isn’t therefore comprised of all good guys or that the guy who is helping you deliver so much good for the American people is actually a petty crook is extraordinarily difficult to accept.
posted by Big Al 8000 at 8:11 AM on February 6, 2020 [4 favorites]


If you've ever stood up to friends (or as it were, former friends) against anything, you know it is hard.

He just went against very long term friends and colleagues. Yes it was for only one charge and not all. But he is facing quite a bit of censure.

I'd rather have someone who grapples internally with what is right and in line with his values than someone who only thinks in terms of votes and has no inner conscience. He's 77, he's probably not gonna run again. So maybe it was safe. But he stood up when no other Rs would.

I'm not going to vote for him ever, but I can respect what he's done. Craven is all that comes to mind about the rest of the Rs who heard what he said and still voted to acquit.
posted by affectionateborg at 8:26 AM on February 6, 2020 [16 favorites]


Or less charitably, it also means he has to give up forever on his dream of being president (however distant that possibility was up until this point). So he had to sacrifice his ego for his values, which can be a hard choice.
posted by Candleman at 8:26 AM on February 6, 2020 [3 favorites]


Trump appears to swipe at Romney and Pelosi at the National Prayer Breakfast

"A man’s discretion makes him slow to anger, and it is his glory to overlook a transgression." – Proverbs 19:11
posted by kirkaracha at 8:40 AM on February 6, 2020 [7 favorites]


I don't know whether it's ironic or not that the one class that really, really understands class solidarity in the very fibre of their being is the upper class.
posted by Grangousier at 9:01 AM on February 6, 2020 [24 favorites]


Trump appears to swipe at Romney and Pelosi at the National Prayer Breakfast

Pelosi has been standing up to much worse from Trump, right to his face, for three straight years. Threats. Name calling. Belittling. Demeaning.
Yet they say it's Romney who is the courageous one.
posted by JackFlash at 9:39 AM on February 6, 2020 [39 favorites]


Guardian: Trump on Russia probe: 'It was all bullshit'
Trump’s remarks after his Senate acquittal is turning into a screed against all of the probes into his administration, starting with special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian election interference.

“We first went through Russia, Russia, Russia,” Trump said. “It was all bullshit.”

That last comment will likely rankle the television networks who are carrying Trump’s remarks live.
Guardian: "For comparison, when Bill Clinton addressed the public after his Senate acquittal in 1999, he began by expressing how “profoundly sorry” he was for actions.
Alana Abramson (@aabramson) For comparative purposes, Clinton began his speech this way after acquittal:
"Now that the Senate has fulfilled its constitutional responsibility, bringing this process to a conclusion, I want to say again to the American people how profoundly sorry I am...." pic.twitter.com/hymlSJECi8 February 6, 2020
posted by katra at 9:45 AM on February 6, 2020 [6 favorites]


“It was all bullshit.”

That last comment will likely rankle the television networks who are carrying Trump’s remarks live.


Yes, the worst thing this President has done was to use a mild profanity on live television. The horror.
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:49 AM on February 6, 2020 [15 favorites]


Guardian: Trump attacks Romney in his impeachment remarks
The Utah Republican said of his decision yesterday, “As a senator-juror, I swore an oath before God to exercise impartial justice. I am profoundly religious. My faith is at the heart of who I am. I take an oath before God as enormously consequential.”

But Trump was completely dismissive of that rationale. “Then you have some who used religion as a crutch,” Trump said at the White House. “They never used it before. Never heard him use it before. ... But you know it’s a failed presidential candidate, but things can happen when you fail so badly.”

The president’s allies were silent as Trump criticized Romney and only cheered when he turned his attention to other Republican senators.
Guardian: Trump attacks Pelosi and Schiff as 'horrible' people
“Adam Schiff is a vicious, horrible person,” Trump said. “Nancy Pelosi is a horrible person.”

Trump also once again scoffed at Pelosi’s repeated comments about praying for the president.

“I doubt she prays at all,” Trump said.
posted by katra at 9:54 AM on February 6, 2020 [1 favorite]


That gathering in the White House looks like a gathering of minor pathetic demons in the Bad Place.
posted by riverlife at 9:55 AM on February 6, 2020 [16 favorites]


‘It’s been a very unfair situation,’ Trump says, opening White House remarks (WaPo)
The crowd in the East Room of the White House gave Trump a standing ovation as he entered the room.

“We’ve all been through a lot together, and we probably deserve that hand for all of us, because it’s been a very unfair situation,” Trump said.

The president’s legal team members, too, received a standing ovation as they entered shortly before Trump did.

“This should never, ever happen to another president, ever,” Trump said of his impeachment by the House.

Many Republican lawmakers were in the crowd, including Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.), House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (Calif.), Sen. Charles E. Grassley (Iowa), Reps. Devin Nunes (Calif.), Mark Meadows (N.C.), Matt Gaetz (Fla.), Jim Jordan (Ohio) and others.

Trump’s Cabinet members were also present. There were lots of smiles and backslapping as guests milled around ahead of Trump’s remarks, with scores of journalists herded toward the sides and back of the room.
posted by katra at 9:59 AM on February 6, 2020 [1 favorite]


fullfash.gif
posted by Rykey at 10:05 AM on February 6, 2020 [6 favorites]


“This should never, ever happen to another president, ever,” Trump said of his impeachment by the House.

The House should just pick another of the many crimes and start new a new impeachment process today. Clearly, this is one thing they can do that actually seems to get to him.
posted by mikepop at 10:07 AM on February 6, 2020 [37 favorites]


Guardian: "While speaking at the White House, Trump appeared to raise the possibility that he could be impeached again.
“We’ll probably have to do it again,” Trump said, claiming that his critics “have gone stone cold crazy.”
posted by katra at 10:08 AM on February 6, 2020 [2 favorites]


Trump raises possibility he will be impeached again (WaPo)
As his remarks continued, Trump raised the spectre that he could be impeached again by Democrats and equated his conduct toward Ukraine with jaywalking.

“Because if they find that I happen to walk across the street and maybe go against the light or something, let’s impeach him,” Trump said. “So we’ll probably have to do it again, because these people have gone stone cold crazy. But I’ve beaten them all my life, and I’ll beat them again if I have to. But what they’re doing is very unfair, very unfair.”
posted by katra at 10:10 AM on February 6, 2020 [2 favorites]


But I’ve beaten them all my life, and I’ll beat them again if I have to.

Says the first-time president, who used to claim he was a Democrat.
posted by Harry Caul at 10:27 AM on February 6, 2020 [14 favorites]


The "go against the light" comment is so revealing, and reminds me a lot of when he said "I don’t think in my whole life I’ve ever called the FBI" in response to George Stephanopoulos asking about what to do when a foreign agent says they have dirt on an opponent. Or when Don Jr said in a Fox interview: "There are no actual crimes. There’s only things that people did in past lives, in 2006 before we even thought we ever get into this crazy world."

It's a world where following rules or laws is for lesser people, and supposed infractions are "just business". And most significantly, that this is obvious to everyone else, and hence anyone who objects is just manufacturing their outrage (something Trump of course has experience with, but with no internal distinction from non-manufactured outrage), or virtue-signaling.
posted by InTheYear2017 at 10:34 AM on February 6, 2020 [11 favorites]


Trump's acquittal offers glimpse of America's imploding empire (David Smith, Guardian), Impeachment didn't remove Trump. But what if elections won't either? (Lawrence Douglas, Guardian Opinion), Impeachment was a health-check for American democracy. It is not well (Andrew Gawthorpe, Guardian Opinion)

Marie Yovanovitch: These are turbulent times. But we will persist and prevail. (WaPo Opinion)
I have seen dictatorships around the world, where blind obedience is the norm and truth-tellers are threatened with punishment or death. We must not allow the United States to become a country where standing up to our government is a dangerous act. It has been shocking to experience the storm of criticism, lies and malicious conspiracies that have preceded and followed my public testimony, but I have no regrets. I did — we did — what our conscience called us to do. We did what the gift of U.S. citizenship requires us to do.

Unfortunately, the last year has shown that we need to fight for our democracy. “Freedom is not free” is a pithy phrase that usually refers to the sacrifices of our military against external threats. It turns out that same slogan can be applied to challenges which are closer to home. We need to stand up for our values, defend our institutions, participate in civil society and support a free press. Every citizen doesn’t need to do everything, but each one of us can do one thing. And every day, I see American citizens around me doing just that: reanimating the Constitution and the values it represents. We do this even when the odds seem against us, even when wrongdoers seem to be rewarded, because it is the right thing to do.

[...] These are turbulent times, perhaps the most challenging that I have witnessed. But I still intend to find ways to engage on foreign policy issues and to encourage those who want to take part in the important work of the Foreign Service. Like my parents before me, I remain optimistic about our future. The events of the past year, while deeply disturbing, show that even though our institutions and our fellow citizens are being challenged in ways that few of us ever expected, we will endure, we will persist and we will prevail.
posted by katra at 10:45 AM on February 6, 2020 [27 favorites]


What really amazes me: "Dr. Arthur Brooks, the conservative religious leader in charge, made the mistake of referring to the obscure Christian concept of loving your enemies, the president* had a ready response to that heretical notion. [Trump replied, ]'Arthur, I don't know if I agree with you.'"

I mean, say what you will about false Christians, but denying the central tenet given by Jesus of Nazareth is...wow.
posted by notsnot at 10:58 AM on February 6, 2020 [41 favorites]


For The First Time, An Impeached President Is Running For Reelection. What Happens Now? (Perry Bacon Jr., Five Thirty Eight)
5. The impeachment process put on full display deeper problems with America’s democracy.

There’s an active debate among scholars and journalists about whether to describe American politics by focusing on polarization (the two sides are really divided) or by focusing on the radicalization of the Republican Party (so one side is really causing the division). Another disagreement is whether American voters are really divided or if the division exists mainly among political elites.

The impeachment process shows how these ideas are all interconnected — and how it’s hard to tell a simple story about what’s wrong with America’s democracy and who is to blame.
posted by ZeusHumms at 10:59 AM on February 6, 2020 [15 favorites]


“This should never, ever happen to another president, ever,” Trump said of his impeachment by the House.

And that's why we'll never, ever have another president ever, he continued.
posted by kirkaracha at 11:22 AM on February 6, 2020 [7 favorites]


Stephen Colbert monologue: "Thank you for taking your oath seriously Mitt Romney.
posted by PhineasGage at 11:31 AM on February 6, 2020 [9 favorites]


Pelosi laces into Trump, defends tearing up his State of the Union speech (WaPo)
An indignant House Speaker Nancy Pelosi signaled Thursday she was in no mood to reconcile with President Trump and his congressional Republican allies a day after the Senate voted to acquit him of impeachment charges.

Instead, Pelosi launched into a fierce attack on Trump’s State of the Union address, his economic and health care record, his response to the months-long impeachment process, and the swipes he leveled Thursday morning at the National Prayer Breakfast at the faith of his political enemies.

And she defended her own decision to publicly tear up a copy of Trump’s speech Tuesday night in the moments after he concluded his speech, saying she did not “need any lessons from anybody, especially the president of the United States, about dignity.”

“It’s appalling the things that he says. And then you say to me: ‘Tearing up his falsehoods, isn’t that the wrong message?’ No, it isn’t,” she said, adding: “I feel very liberated. I feel that I’ve extended every possible courtesy. I’ve shown every level of respect.”

Those remarks came as the GOP continued using Pelosi’s shredding of the speech to fuel political attacks. House Republicans forced a vote Thursday afternoon reprimanding Pelosi for her conduct; the resolution failed on a 224-193 votes. One Republican congressman, Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida, said he would file an ethics complaint.

[...] “I don’t like people who use their faith as justification for doing what they know is wrong. Nor do I like people who say, ‘I pray for you,’ when they know that that’s not so,” Trump said.

Speaking to reporters, Pelosi bristled at the remarks: “He’s talking about things that he knows little about, faith and prayer.”
posted by katra at 11:46 AM on February 6, 2020 [20 favorites]


Hey, we can all look forward to a push to repeal the 22nd Amendment when he's re-elected so he can keep on being POTUS forever (and avoid all statutes of limitations).

Possibly. But he's 73 with an atrocious diet, very poor health, never exercises (or ever did), and has substantial signs of dementia. He isn't the one we have to worry about being president in a putin-style eternal string of electoral "successes". Given his history, he's probably at substantial risk of a heart attack, stroke, or some other health issue that renders him unable to function as president. His failsons won't succeed him, because they suck at what he does.

The person we have to worry about is the next version, the person who takes the groundwork trump is laying and runs with it, but is young and competent instead of a stupid orange carnival barker. I don't know who that is, but I'm keeping an eye out.
posted by mrgoat at 11:55 AM on February 6, 2020 [10 favorites]


Please consider using "Impeached President Donald Trump" to refer to the president in the future.
posted by kirkaracha at 11:56 AM on February 6, 2020 [10 favorites]


Please consider using "Impeached President Donald Trump" to refer to the president in the future.

Alternatively: “Impeached President Donald Trump*
posted by thedward at 12:00 PM on February 6, 2020 [2 favorites]


The person we have to worry about is the next version, the person who takes the groundwork trump is laying and runs with it

Well in context, Trump is the one who pushes through the repeal. Then he eventually dies or is incapacitated, Pence takes over, and so on through "hand-picked successors" we see so often in other failed states. Trump is only an agent of tyranny, he's not smart enough to do any of this himself except act like a child or a goon, nor does he have to persist for long after the repeal's sucess.
posted by rhizome at 12:06 PM on February 6, 2020 [1 favorite]


Or even impeachedpresidentdonaldtrump.com
posted by kirkaracha at 12:08 PM on February 6, 2020 [2 favorites]


Quoting Yovanovitch above:

“Freedom is not free” is a pithy phrase that usually refers to the sacrifices of our military against external threats. It turns out that same slogan can be applied to challenges which are closer to home. We need to stand up for our values, defend our institutions, participate in civil society and support a free press.

This. So much this, fuck yes.
posted by Rykey at 12:24 PM on February 6, 2020 [24 favorites]


Or even impeachedpresidentdonaldtrump.com

While this is cute and I approve in principle, if I thought the tech folks working for the Orange Menace were a bit more competent, I'd be worried that ending up on his official webpage with that URL as a referrer might count against you for little things like crossing the border.
posted by bcd at 1:33 PM on February 6, 2020 [1 favorite]


Collins is neither unqualified (in the classic sense) nor uninformed.

Her statement makes that entirely irrelevant at the moment. Calculated or not, her statement is entirely inline with the "base" mentality. If you're going to pander and present yourself as fucking idiot you're going to be thought of as fucking idiot. Her statement and refusal to convict Trump shows she has similar principles to him even if she hasn't in the past.

If you've ever stood up to friends (or as it were, former friends) against anything, you know it is hard.

Sure. I understand that reasoning but that sort of reasoning doesn't belong in government. Of course we're humans and we struggle with these sort of things but Trump is so clearly not only guilty, but extremely dangerous. Romney is not doing the country or any of his friends a favour. He certainly hasn't done the country's citizens any favour. One could say this statement was calculated too. He doesn't have any sympathy from me for this. He can go fuck himself just as he has many people in his business and political career. Look what he's done in his life. Deeply religious? Who gives a shit? Deeply exploitative and condescending:

There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that’s an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what…These are people who pay no income tax.

My job is is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.”

posted by juiceCake at 1:49 PM on February 6, 2020 [3 favorites]


Stephen Colbert monologue: "Thank you for taking your oath seriously Mitt Romney.

When Stephen Colbert testified before congress he did it in character and made a big self-promoting joke out of it. Fuck Stephen Colbert's opinions about congress forever.
posted by ActingTheGoat at 1:58 PM on February 6, 2020 [2 favorites]


> When Stephen Colbert testified before congress he did it in character and made a big self-promoting joke out of it. Fuck Stephen Colbert's opinions about congress forever.

To be fair, that was ten years ago, which includes 3+ years of Trump time distortion. A lot has happened since 2010, and that's a lot of time for people to change their ways.
posted by tonycpsu at 2:08 PM on February 6, 2020 [5 favorites]


If you've ever stood up to friends (or as it were, former friends) against anything, you know it is hard.

Maybe he shouldn't choose such shitty friends. We're supposed to feel sorry for him for his poor choices?
posted by JackFlash at 2:19 PM on February 6, 2020 [6 favorites]


What really amazes me: "Dr. Arthur Brooks, the conservative religious leader in charge, made the mistake of referring to the obscure Christian concept of loving your enemies, the president* had a ready response to that heretical notion. [Trump replied, ]'Arthur, I don't know if I agree with you.'"

I mean, say what you will about false Christians, but denying the central tenet given by Jesus of Nazareth is...wow.


Here is a Bible quote about loving thy neighbor:
God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them. This is how love is made complete among us ... Whoever claims to love God yet hates a brother or sister is a liar. For whoever does not love their brother and sister, whom they have seen, cannot love God, whom they have not seen. —1 John 4:16-20 (NIV)
Now here is a recent tweet from Donald Trump about some of his neighbors:
The Never Trumper Republicans ... are human scum!
And here is what The Satanic Bible, the central text of LaVeyan Satanism, has to say about loving thy neighbor:
Satanism represents kindness to those who deserve it instead of love wasted on ingrates ... The Satanist believes you should love strongly and completely those who deserve your love, but never turn the other cheek to your enemy!
That concept of love can be interpreted as a specific application of a central tenant of LaVeyan Satanism: Do unto others as they have done unto you. (Examining these beliefs at an even broader scope, it's informative to note that Church of Satan founder Anton LeVay described his religion as "just Ayn Rand's philosophy with ceremony and ritual added.")

At the Prayer Breakfast today, at around 43:25 in the linked video, Arthur Brooks asks the following: "How many of you love someone with whom you disagree politically?"

Many hands go up — "I'm going to round that off to a hundred percent," says Brooks — but the president's hands remain down while he briefly smirks. Brooks, who glanced at the president when he asked for a show of hands, adds, "The rest of you are on your phones."

Who does the president love, and why? Who does the president hate, and why? Are the president's feelings and rationales a source of pride or shame for him?

In other words: Does the president fail to embody his values, or does he excel?
posted by compartment at 2:21 PM on February 6, 2020 [10 favorites]


The person we have to worry about is the next version, the person who takes the groundwork trump is laying and runs with it, but is young and competent instead of a stupid orange carnival barker. I don't know who that is, but I'm keeping an eye out.

Ben Sasse terrifies me for this reason.
posted by winna at 2:22 PM on February 6, 2020 [5 favorites]


Tom Cotton, Josh Hawley and Ben Crenshaw all want to be that person, but who knows if they can pull it off.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 2:33 PM on February 6, 2020 [3 favorites]


Reading Between the Votes: 53 Senators Say Trump Guilty on the Facts (Ryan Goodman, Just Security)
Remember this: A bipartisan majority found that the factual allegations for Trump’s impeachment were proven. That includes: Senators Lamar Alexander, Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, Rob Portman, Mitt Romney, and Ben Sasse.

We collected the statements of the six Republican senators in the chart below. Contact us if we are missing anything or anyone (e.g., if you think Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fl.) or others should be added).

But what about the fact that a majority of the Senate voted to acquit? Is that not a “win” for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) as so many commentators will say? There is good reason to see it otherwise. As I commented before the Senate trial began, McConnell faced a no-win situation. If the Senate held a fair trial, it would be devastating for Trump. If the Senate held a sham trial, it would mean that the acquittal would be best understood as illegitimate, and no rightful claim could be made for “exoneration.”
posted by katra at 2:44 PM on February 6, 2020 [9 favorites]


The phrase "rightful claim" is doing a lot of work there.
posted by PhineasGage at 3:23 PM on February 6, 2020 [1 favorite]


Don't forget about the De Vos - Prince family. Theocracy will come to the US as an unholy alliance of reactionary Evangelicals, Catholics and Calvinists.
posted by tivalasvegas at 3:39 PM on February 6, 2020 [7 favorites]


Who does the president love, and why?

Don't assume a psychology of the president that isn't in evidence. You're talking about a creature with a very obviously different semantic referent of the term "love" than most of us would recognize. You can't deal with a sociopathic malignant narcissist the same way you'd deal with most other people.

It's a whole different model to work with. Ask anyone who's dealt with a malignant narcissist as a parent, child, relative - there's a whole other thing going on here. Most of the American public doesn't really know what they're looking at yet. Or they're falling prey to it.
posted by mrgoat at 3:48 PM on February 6, 2020 [9 favorites]


Wrongfully acquitted.
posted by bz at 3:53 PM on February 6, 2020 [11 favorites]


Trump unleashed: what's next for a president who feels invincible? (Tom McCarthy, Guardian)
In the wake of that acquittal, Democrat impeachment managers warned, the country may learn the true meaning of Trump unleashed.

“A man without character or ethical compass will never find his way. He has done it before and he will do it again,” the House intelligence committee chair, Adam Schiff, told the Senate. “What are the odds if he is left in office that he will continue to try to cheat? I will tell you: 100%.”

Warnings during the impeachment trial about how and where Trump might “cheat” focused on the upcoming 2020 presidential election. Any sense that those warnings were misplaced curdled about one hour after the acquittal vote, with an announcement by Senate Republicans that they would open an investigation of Hunter Biden, the son of Trump’s perceived 2020 rival Joe Biden.

[...] An announcement by Barr this week of new restrictions on any politically sensitive investigations including into presidential campaigns was either reassuring, because it could narrow the possibility of such investigations, or alarming, because it raised the possibility of such investigations and because it was a reaction to an investigation widely seen as entirely appropriate, of the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia.
Sen. Murphy requests GAO to check Trump administration's classification of documents (Politico)
In an interview, Murphy, a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, said that the Trump administration’s classification of a letter from Vice President Mike Pence’s aide Jennifer Williams centered on the vice president’s call with Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky was the “last straw.”

“There was absolutely nothing in that document that should have been classified,” Murphy said. “It was only classified because it was politically hurtful to the president in the middle of an impeachment proceeding and you are not allowed as president of the United States to keep information from the public simply because it’s going to hurt you politically.”
posted by katra at 3:54 PM on February 6, 2020 [9 favorites]


Of course, it’s only in theory that the president is not allowed to keep such information from the public. In practice, that guy and his administration have kept boatloads of information not only from the public but also from Congress. But whatever, glad Murphy finally hit her breaking point. Most of us hit ours long ago.
posted by Bella Donna at 4:47 PM on February 6, 2020 [7 favorites]


Emboldened, Trump allies may already be targeting his enemies in new ways (Greg Sargent, WaPo Opinion)
For nearly three years, the Treasury Department, in violation of the law, has refused to turn over President Trump’s tax returns to a House committee that demanded them. A court battle over those returns continues to rage, with an uncertain outcome.

[...] But it turns out there is a case that is very important to the president in which the administration has been more than happy to turn over private financial records in response to a congressional request — without fuss or delay.

By a shocking coincidence, in this case, the records relate to an individual named Hunter Biden, and the congressional lawmakers making the request are Republicans. The Treasury Department has turned over financial records about Hunter Biden in response to requests from GOP senators who are running an investigation that appears designed to validate Trump’s alternate-reality version of the Ukraine scandal.

Yahoo News reports that Senate Democrats are raising alarms about the administration’s sudden willingness to turn over these documents, and contrasting this with the years of stonewalling of requests from Democrats. [...] These senators have demanded that Treasury turn over any SARs relating to Hunter Biden and the Ukraine tall tale that Trump has been telling. This story alleges that Joe Biden, Hunter’s father, withheld loan guarantees from Ukraine to pressure it to oust a prosecutor, supposedly to protect Ukrainian company Burisma, on whose board Hunter Biden sat.

As Yahoo News reports, GOP senators have cast a wider net than this, requesting documents from numerous other agencies, all apparently designed, at least in part, to fortify that narrative and to dig into Hunter Biden’s business activities in Ukraine more broadly.

[...] There’s a lot of talk about how Trump will be newly emboldened by his acquittal to use the government in all kinds of corrupt ways to target his political enemies and cheat his way through the next election.

It may already be underway. This is the post-impeachment world we live in now.
posted by katra at 4:55 PM on February 6, 2020 [10 favorites]


Bella Donna: Of course, it’s only in theory that the president is not allowed to keep such information from the public.

There's also the exciting new theory that, because all politicians naturally consider their personal political interest from time to time, it would be completely acceptable for him to use his power this way!

And unlike some of the more extreme examples some people posed (Dersh's later Twitter clarification about his argument would probably preclude, say, murder), abuse of classification powers seems right up that alley. It is normally a basic presidential prerogative to classify and declassify information, and the assumption that this won't be abused is basically implicit, and is contingent on subjective understandings of things like personal political interest.
posted by InTheYear2017 at 4:58 PM on February 6, 2020 [4 favorites]


‘Extortion’: N.Y. Assails Trump Administration Over Traveler Programs (NYT)
It was a sharp and sudden escalation of tension between President Trump and his former home state: a decision by Department of Homeland Security officials to bar tens of thousands of New Yorkers from enrolling in programs that allow travelers to speed through airport lines and borders.

But the justification, unveiled late on Wednesday, may have been even more jarring. Federal authorities suggested that the state had endangered national security with a new law allowing undocumented immigrants to obtain driver’s licenses.

“This is unbounded arrogance, disrespect of the rule of law, hyper-political government, and this is another form of extortion,” Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo, a third-term Democrat, said of the move by Homeland Security. “This is what Trump did with Ukraine. This is the ethos of his federal government.” [...] The move escalated the Trump administration’s battle with cities and states over immigration enforcement, and it took New York officials by surprise. There were no negotiations between Mr. Cuomo and federal authorities; state officials only learned of the ban on Wednesday night. “They never called, they never had a conversation,” Mr. Cuomo said.

[...] Bennie Thompson, Democrat of Mississippi and chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security, said those travelers already send substantial personal information to the federal government, and submit to a background check, when applying for the expedited travel programs, making the D.M.V. databases unnecessary. “It is clearly a blatant attempt by the White House to score political points and perpetuate a partisan fight with New York elected officials,” Mr. Thompson said.

[...] Mr. Cuomo’s office said he was considering a legal challenge to the Trump administration’s action; the state attorney general, Letitia James, also vowed to “vigorously defend” the green-light law. “Despite President Trump’s attempt to punish New Yorkers for passing its own laws and standing up to his xenophobic policies, New York will not back down,” Ms. James said.
posted by katra at 5:10 PM on February 6, 2020 [6 favorites]


[...] An announcement by Barr this week of new restrictions on any politically sensitive investigations including into presidential campaigns was either reassuring, because it could narrow the possibility of such investigations, or alarming, because it raised the possibility of such investigations and because it was a reaction to an investigation widely seen as entirely appropriate, of the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia.

I'm going to go with really, really, really alarming, thank you.

No investigation into a presidential or vice-presidential candidate — or their senior campaign staff or advisers — can begin without written notification to the Justice Department and the written approval of Mr. Barr.

So... Donald Trump, Mike Pence, and their senior campaign staff and advisers can do whatever the hell they want between now and the election, and the FBI and Justice Department are to stand by and do nothing unless Barr says "go ahead." Which, I am sure, he would not hesitate to say if something juicy popped up on one of Trump's opponents, but for now, it's not just figuratively; the law literally does not apply to Team Trump for the balance of this year.

The requirements in the memo are to remain in effect through the 2020 elections. After that, the department will study whether the changes were necessary.

I bet they will.
posted by delfin at 6:02 PM on February 6, 2020 [14 favorites]


Republican congressman Matt Gaetz has filed an ethics complaint, for real, against Pelosi saying that she violated federal law against destruction of government records by ripping up her copy of Trump's speech.

I wonder if that also applies to unplugging Trump's Teleprompter at the end of the night?
posted by JackFlash at 6:24 PM on February 6, 2020 [4 favorites]


PolitiFact: Did Nancy Pelosi break the law by ripping Trump’s State of the Union speech? (Tampa Bay Times)
[...] when we asked a number of legal experts about what Kirk said, we found that their answer was unanimous: Kirk’s claim is wrong.

"I take it that this is a printout of the Trump speech, in which case it is absurd to suggest that Pelosi can be prosecuted for doing with it whatever she pleases," said Heidi Kitrosser, a law professor at the University of Minnesota.

[...] Pelosi is in the clear, experts said, because her copy of Trump’s speech wasn’t a government record. The State of the Union text was never "filed or deposited" with her, nor did she have "custody" of it in the legal sense.
posted by katra at 6:42 PM on February 6, 2020 [4 favorites]


Pelosi is in the clear, experts said, because her copy of Trump’s speech wasn’t a government record. The State of the Union text was never "filed or deposited" with her, nor did she have "custody" of it in the legal sense

The torn pages should however be sent to the Smithsonian and made a part of the historical record.
posted by srboisvert at 6:48 PM on February 6, 2020 [43 favorites]


It was a sharp and sudden escalation of tension between President Trump and his former home state: a decision by Department of Homeland Security officials to bar tens of thousands of New Yorkers from enrolling in programs that allow travelers to speed through airport lines and borders.

This is actually a kind of hilarious own goal. Frequent fliers and business travelers are probably far more likely to be Republicans than any other sample of New Yorker. If you don't do what I say about hurting immigrants why I'll .... inconvenience the rich!
posted by srboisvert at 6:57 PM on February 6, 2020 [6 favorites]


Isn't the Impeached President known to be an inveterate paper-tearer-upper himself?
posted by bink at 7:16 PM on February 6, 2020 [5 favorites]


Heh, I like the idea of the torn pages sent to the Smithsonian, they could be joined eventually in an exhibit along with a small sample of some of Trump's ripped up papers with some explanatory plaques about why each was torn. "Torn Paper in Early 21st Century American Politics, contrasts in purpose and meaning".
posted by sotonohito at 7:23 PM on February 6, 2020 [8 favorites]


Jesus, I hate the twisted incentives of the major news outlets. The headlines could be "Craven party who acquits a corrupt traitor is suddenly concerned about torn paper," but no, it's gotta be "Republicans say Pelosi's stunt is illegal; others say otherwise. Who's right?"
posted by Rykey at 7:45 PM on February 6, 2020 [19 favorites]


"GOP sends thoughts and prayers to torn paper immediately after shredding Constitution."
posted by sexyrobot at 7:53 PM on February 6, 2020 [11 favorites]


Republican congressman Matt Gaetz has filed an ethics complaint, for real, against Pelosi saying that she violated federal law against destruction of government records by ripping up her copy of Trump's speech.

It's going nowhere because it was a copy. Gaetz is on Trump's shitlist and isn't being invited anywhere because of his support for limiting Trump's power via the War Powers Act, so this is the story as I see it: Nancy tears up speech, Nancy steals Trump's thunder, Gaetz thinks this is a good way to steal the news cycle from Nancy while signaling to Trump that he can still be his kind of asshole, then Gaetz' resolution fails on its face, but the cycle will have died down by then.

In bicycle racing there is a trope where people who have no way of winning the race, much less a stage, but they'll break away from the pack and get out front in the lead (or a relative lead) and get a bunch of TV time for their sponsors, whose logos are printed all over their jerseys. That's the strategy, Gaetz is begging for some attention from just about anybody, and nothing will come of it. Frankly I can't imagine anything Gaetz doing in the entire legislative process that could be a point on his side, he's such an Uncle Rico tryhard.
posted by rhizome at 8:06 PM on February 6, 2020 [8 favorites]


Did Nancy Pelosi Just Dry Snitch on Trump's Alleged Drug Use? (The Root, Feb. 6, 2020) On Thursday, Pelosi suggested that her handshake was to “extend a hand of friendship,” before Trump’s State of the Union address on Monday. And then the California Democrat suggested that Trump might have been high as a giraffe’s ass.

“It was also an act of kindness because he looked to me like he was a little sedated,” Pelosi told reporters. She added, “He looked that way last year, too.”

[Terrible Idea No. 1,471: Hunter Biden, for president? The pitch, to most people: He's been unfairly persecuted by the current administration, when he's (insert workshopped, somewhat-flattering bio which manages to include the unsavory stuff), who has turned his life around. Specifically to Trump supporters: He's never been caught, unlike your problematic pick. (Let's prove there's no such thing as bad publicity, with a not-at-all "sleepy" Biden who, once dragged into the spotlight, has decided to fight for American democracy.)]
posted by Iris Gambol at 8:29 PM on February 6, 2020 [2 favorites]


Meet the guys who tape Trump's papers back together
[Solomon] Lartey, who earned an annual salary of $65,969 as a records management analyst, was a career government official with close to 30 years under his belt. But he had never seen anything like this in any previous administration he had worked for. He had never had to tape the president’s papers back together again.

Armed with rolls of clear Scotch tape, Lartey and his colleagues would sift through large piles of shredded paper and put them back together, he said, “like a jigsaw puzzle.” Sometimes the papers would just be split down the middle, but other times they would be torn into pieces so small they looked like confetti.

It was a painstaking process that was the result of a clash between legal requirements to preserve White House records and President Donald Trump’s odd and enduring habit of ripping up papers when he’s done with them — what some people described as his unofficial “filing system.”

Under the Presidential Records Act, the White House must preserve all memos, letters, emails and papers that the president touches, sending them to the National Archives for safekeeping as historical records.

But White House aides realized early on that they were unable to stop Trump from ripping up paper after he was done with it and throwing it in the trash or on the floor, according to people familiar with the practice. Instead, they chose to clean it up for him, in order to make sure that the president wasn’t violating the law.
posted by kirkaracha at 8:56 PM on February 6, 2020 [21 favorites]


Christ, what a manbaby.
posted by bardophile at 9:11 PM on February 6, 2020 [4 favorites]


Oh, that's not his inner toddler, it's his inner criminal. Even if every single paper that crosses his desk is legitimate, he's going to tear it up by force of habit.
posted by InTheYear2017 at 9:19 PM on February 6, 2020 [7 favorites]


Watchdogs, scholars say Trump breaking law by ripping up papers (Palm Beach Daily News)
Presidential historians say they are deeply concerned about published reports that Trump routinely rips up and throws away documents, including while at Mar-a-Lago, saying the practice is a clear violation of a federal law that mandates the preservation of all presidential papers.

“He’s absolutely breaking the law,” said Earl Lewis, President of the Organization of American Historians. [...] “Without question, the president’s actions depart significantly from accepted archival preservation practices and risk the loss of critically important papers,” according to two-page letter signed by the executive director of the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, CREW, and Austin R. Evers, the Executive Director of American Oversight. “President Trump’s actions place the records of his presidency and that history at risk and, indeed, may violate the law.”
posted by katra at 9:43 PM on February 6, 2020 [11 favorites]


That should read, Meet the guys who taped, past tense; from the Politico story:

Lartey, 54, and Young, 48, were career government officials who worked together in records management until this spring, when both were abruptly terminated from their jobs. Both are now unemployed and still full of questions about why they were stripped of their badges with no explanation and marched off of the White House grounds by Secret Service.

Both men originally agreed to speak to POLITICO for a story about why they believe they were unfairly terminated from jobs they expected to hold onto until they retired. Both said they were forced to sign resignation letters without being given any explanation for why they were being dismissed.


Ex-WH aide says he was tasked with taping together Trump's torn-up papers (CNN, June 12, 2018)

Lartey said he was never given an explanation for his firing, which he said came at the end of the day on March 23. He said he was escorted off the White House grounds by a Secret Service officer.

"When she walked me out and took my badge and the gate close behind me -- it was like, damn, that's 20 years of White House service, gone," Lartey said. "Some nights, I cried and I was mad because I got comfortable."

Lartey said he was just a few years away from his retiring with full benefits when the Trump administration fired him. He said he has not yet found another job.


I wonder if the practice of preserving these papers was discontinued. [On preview - that's a mid-2018 article, too.]
posted by Iris Gambol at 9:50 PM on February 6, 2020 [25 favorites]


Almost certainly with the firing of those people the practice of trying to preserve Trump's papers is gone, and the administration is in violation of the Presidential Records Act.

Add it to the stack of illegal actions that the Republicans endorse.
posted by sotonohito at 4:03 AM on February 7, 2020 [18 favorites]


With any luck, we'll call the period after Lartey was fired "the forgotten years." I'm hoping we don't look back at them as the beginning of the end of the republic.

Anyway, I'm enjoying reading this bit from Trump, quoted by katra as more of Trump's Mirror:
Trump was completely dismissive of that rationale. “Then you have some who used religion as a crutch,” Trump said at the White House. “They never used it before. Never heard him use it before. ... But you know it’s a failed presidential candidate, but things can happen when you fail so badly.”
(Not what most would call particularly religious (The Week, July 11, 2016), and failed in that he lost the popular vote by 3 million. Hugging myself in a blanket of "technically, the majority of the country didn't support him from the start." Of course, we knew he failed up.)

Trump Blasts Romney Over Impeachment Vote (NPR, February 6, 2020)
In two separate speeches on Thursday, President Trump, buoyed by his acquittal in the Senate impeachment trial a day earlier, continued to lash out at the lone Republican who voted to convict and remove him from office.
Even when he won, he's sore and lashing out.

Transcript: Trump Impeachment Process Was 'Absolutely Worth It,' Schiff Says (NPR, February 6, 2020)
"It was absolutely worth it. And we felt very strongly and I think history will bear us out on this, that we needed to place a constraint on this president who was acting unethically, who was sacrificing our national security, who was jeopardizing the integrity of our elections. And whatever the result was going to be in the Senate, we couldn't sit still. We had a constitutional obligation to make the case."
Again, I'll cite a summary from Huffington Post on June 29, 2016: after spending more than two years and $7 million, the House Select Committee on Benghazi released a report Tuesday that found — like eight investigations before it — no evidence of wrongdoing by then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton or other members of the Obama administration.

With that, a few months and how ever much this cost to get, as katra again quoted: a bipartisan majority found that the factual allegations for Trump’s impeachment were proven, this was completely worth it. Because to do nothing mean the Dems have given up on trying to hold Trump and the Republicans in check.

(I now realize the current attempts to balance power is not from the three separate branches of the U.S. government, but the Democrats trying to keep the Republicans from absolutely ruining the country when they're in power.)
posted by filthy light thief at 7:51 AM on February 7, 2020 [9 favorites]


Oh that would be fabulous for Pelosi to file another impeachment article about his ripping up papers.
posted by MtDewd at 7:55 AM on February 7, 2020 [14 favorites]


If she can get her hands on one of the taped-back-together documents, emphasizing that it was Donald who tore it up, that would be a fantastic optic. But it's probably impossible to get such a request granted.
posted by InTheYear2017 at 8:43 AM on February 7, 2020 [1 favorite]


I just got back from a business trip to the gulf coast The Florida panhandle is just about the reddest part of the country. It’s what counterbalances the South Florida Democrats in the national elections. I saw no Trump signs, no bumper stickers, no MAGA hats. I saw exactly one Trump shirt for sale at a closed t-shirt shop on the beach. It was a generic Trump 2020 shirt—and it was right next to a Bernie 2020 shirt. Yesterday, I had breakfast in the hotel where I stayed before driving home. The first two days I was there, they were watching Good Morning America, but yesterday, they had Fox News on for the National Prayer Breakfast speech. I took one look at it, and asked if I could take my meal outside. The chef said the patio was closed, because a giant storm was blowing in from the gulf. The surf was as high as I had ever seen it in that area. I said, “Yeah, but I’m not going to sit in a room with Fox News on.” I found one table outside that was sheltered from the gale. The chef personally set the table up for me and brought me a crab omelet. Inside, I saw Trump on the TV, but no one was watching. Everyone looked much more miserable than they should have looked at a beachside resort. I've been going to that area all my life. During the Bush years, it was wall to wall Freedom Fries and "Why do you hate America?" This time, nothing. I know this is anecdote and not data, but I'm familiar with the area, and this time it just felt different.
posted by vibrotronica at 8:54 AM on February 7, 2020 [27 favorites]


So at work, some of the mechanics have a "Trump 2020 - make liberals cry again" stickers on their toolboxes. It's a union shop.

Anyone got any ideas on a pithy rejoinder, or a short phrase I could print with the office label maker to subtitle the stickers?
posted by notsnot at 9:02 AM on February 7, 2020 [2 favorites]


So at work, some of the mechanics have a "Trump 2020 - make liberals cry again" stickers on their toolboxes. It's a union shop.

And the hardhat mentality refuses to die, I see.

If you're wondering why unions collapsed in the US, consider this Exhibit A.
posted by NoxAeternum at 9:07 AM on February 7, 2020 [10 favorites]


Fox News guests spread 'disinformation' – says leaked internal memo (Guardian)
An internal research briefing obtained by the Daily Beast names four regular contributors to the network for peddling “disinformation”, particularly when it comes to the Ukraine scandal which lead to Donald Trump’s impeachment.

Among those named in the lengthy document titled Ukraine, Disinformation, & the Trump Administration, put together by Fox News senior political affairs specialist Bryan S Murphy, are frequent guests Rudy Giuliani, John Solomon, Victoria Toensing and Joe diGenova.

Solomon, a disgraced former writer for the Hill and a regular guest of Sean Hannity’s, comes under particular scrutiny. “John Solomon played an indispensable role in the collection and domestic publication of elements of this disinformation campaign,” the document explains. Among the allegations against Solomon noted are “non-disclosure of conflicts, use of unreliable sources, publishing false and misleading stories, misrepresentation of sources, and opaque coordination with involved parties”.

Elsewhere in the file obtained by the Beast are details of Giuliani and his back-channel dealings to investigate former vice-president Joe Biden and his son Hunter, as well as his connections to now indicted figures Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman. Giuliani has a “high susceptibility to disinformation”, Murphy writes.

[...] Hannity, the popular primetime host and Trump confidant, is also criticized for laundering the reputations and trumpeting the trustworthiness of the guests in question.
posted by katra at 9:11 AM on February 7, 2020 [6 favorites]


"Trump 2020 - make liberals cry again"

..."Even If It Kills Us Too!"
posted by Rykey at 9:17 AM on February 7, 2020 [5 favorites]


Trump 2020 - make liberals cry workers die again
posted by snuffleupagus at 9:19 AM on February 7, 2020 [3 favorites]


Trump Impeachment Fury Sows Fear of Payback Among Diplomats (Bloomberg / Yahoo)
President Donald Trump mostly stifled his fury toward the impeachment witnesses who detailed, over hundreds of hours of testimony, the turmoil wrought by his handling of Ukraine policy. Now that he’s been acquitted of two impeachment charges, they’re bracing for payback.

It may be about to begin. The White House is weighing a plan to dismiss Alexander Vindman from the National Security Council after he offered damning testimony in the House impeachment inquiry, positioning the move as part of a broader effort to shrink the foreign policy bureaucracy, two people familiar with the matter said.

“I’m not happy with him,” Trump told reporters Friday when asked about Vindman. [...] The retaliation could come in any number of forms, according to numerous State Department staff who discussed their concerns about what comes next on condition of anonymity: firings or transfers, or the slashing of staff or budgets. Some fret that Secretary of State Michael Pompeo -- who throughout the impeachment process repeatedly declined to defend beleaguered department officials publicly -- won’t shield them.
posted by katra at 9:21 AM on February 7, 2020 [3 favorites]


Trump lambastes his critics as he moves to target perceived enemies over impeachment (Josh Dawsey, Robert Costa and Greg Miller; WaPo)
President Trump is preparing to push out a national security official who testified against him during the impeachment inquiry after he expressed deep anger on Thursday over the attempt to remove him from office because of his actions toward Ukraine.

Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman — a National Security Council aide who testified during House Democrats’ impeachment hearings — will be informed in the coming days, likely on Friday, by administration officials that he is being reassigned to a position at the Defense Department, taking a key figure from the investigation out of the White House, according to two people familiar with the move who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss personnel decisions.

Vindman had already informed senior officials at the NSC that he intended to take an early exit from his assignment and leave his post by the end of the month, according to people familiar with his decision, but Trump is eager to make a symbol of the Army officer soon after the Senate acquitted him of the impeachment charges approved by House Democrats.


Trump and his allies are considering doing more than just launching verbal fusillades at his perceived enemies over impeachment as the decision regarding Vindman shows. Some of the president’s aides are discussing whether to remove or reassign several administration officials who testified during the impeachment inquiry, according to aides and advisers who like others spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the plans. Meanwhile, Senate committee chairmen are ramping up their investigation into Hunter Biden’s work in Ukraine while his father, Joe, was vice president.
posted by ZeusHumms at 9:27 AM on February 7, 2020 [3 favorites]


On January 27, 2020, JackFlash wrote: Bolton has absolutely nothing to fear from an NDA. Dragging it into the discussion is just a distraction.

Further, Bolton has nothing to fear from Trump's orders not to testify. The House has already heard testimony from Fiona Hill, Ambassador Yovanovich, and Colonel Vindman. All of who Trump ordered not to testify.

Absolutely nothing happened to them. Trump's threats are toothless. Bolton is just using excuses not to testify until now.


Updates:

White House Set To Remove Army Officer From NSC Who Testified In Impeachment Inquiry -- Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman will be reassigned to a role at the Pentagon and leave his job at the White House, according to reports. (Nick Visser for HuffPost, Feb. 7, 2020)
The White House is reportedly preparing to remove a national security official who testified about his knowledge of a July call with the Ukrainian president that set off the recently concluded impeachment trial of President Donald Trump, who, apparently emboldened by his acquittal, is beginning to punish those he perceives as enemies.

The White House will, likely on Friday, inform Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, a decorated Army officer who served as the Ukraine expert on the National Security Council, that he will be moving into a role at the Pentagon effective immediately, The Washington Post reported, citing two people familiar with the move. Bloomberg also reported on the plan.
Treasury Department Hands Over Hunter Biden Info After Withholding Trump’s Tax Records -- The impeachment trial is over, but Senate Republicans are pressing forward with an investigation into the Bidens. (Arthur Delaney for HuffPost, Feb. 6, 2020)
WASHINGTON ― The Treasury Department has given congressional Republicans sensitive financial information related to Hunter Biden after having refused to give Democrats President Donald Trump’s tax returns.

Yahoo News Reuters first reported Thursday that the Treasury Department handed over highly confidential information in response to a November request from Senate Finance Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Homeland Security Committee Chairman Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) for suspicious activity reports filed with the department by financial institutions.
Everyone in Trump's path and orbit should be concerned for payback. He has been emboldened, and with a the next election on the horizon, he's looking for material to boost himself, more than before.
posted by filthy light thief at 9:28 AM on February 7, 2020 [11 favorites]


Change it to "make liberals dry again." It'll just take a quick stroke of a pen, it'll render the message incomprehensible, and if you're careful to use the right color ink, they might carry the toolboxes around that way for days without noticing the change.
posted by mabelstreet at 9:32 AM on February 7, 2020 [9 favorites]


Also, this is how we get Bengazi 2: Biden Boogaloo (no reference to the gun nuts' fever dream, but the original Breaking 2 riff).

Or maybe it's more like "But Her Emails: Round 2".
posted by filthy light thief at 9:37 AM on February 7, 2020


Sen. Paul draws ethics complaint for naming alleged whistleblower (WaPo)
An expert on whistleblowers is filing a complaint against Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) with the Senate Ethics Committee, due to the senator publicizing the name of the alleged whistleblower whose complaint sparked the impeachment inquiry.

In a letter to Sens. James Lankford (R-Okla.) and Christopher A. Coons (D-Del.), the chairman and vice chairman of the committee, Tom Mueller, the author of a book on the history of whistleblowing, alleges that Paul “engaged in improper conduct that is unethical and unbecoming of a Senator.”

During the Senate trial last week, Paul submitted a question that included the name of the alleged whistleblower. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. refused to read it, saying, “The presiding officer declines to read the question.”

Paul subsequently publicized the name to the media and later read his question on the Senate floor during a period reserved for speeches on impeachment from senators. Paul said he was not seeking to out the whistleblower but was naming someone whose actions were key to understanding the origins of the inquiry.

“Senator Paul’s conduct was especially corrosive because it occurred during one of the most solemn of the constitutional tasks bestowed upon the upper chamber, a time when the Senate was sitting as a court of presidential impeachment for only the third time in this nation’s history,” Mueller says in his complaint. “But even if this had been an ordinary trial in a conventional court, the behavior would have been contemptuous.”
posted by katra at 9:42 AM on February 7, 2020 [6 favorites]


Trump's core philosophy: Get even. It's going to be really ugly, folks (Heather Digby Parton, Salon)
Trump has now turned the entire Republican Party into the MAGA tribe — and they'll go after his enemies with gusto
Helpfully points out that Trump has been increasingly unhinged in his public appearances this week, and highlights how central vengeance is to him. (The Wrath of Don?)
posted by ZeusHumms at 9:42 AM on February 7, 2020 [4 favorites]


Trump fans flooded hotline to disrupt Iowa caucus process, Democrats say (Guardian)
Donald Trump’s legion of followers flooded a vital telephone hotline used to share Iowa Democratic caucus results after the number was shared online. [...] “The unexplained, and at times hostile, calls contributed to the delay in the Iowa Democratic party’s collection of results, but in no way affected the integrity of information gathered or the accuracy of data sets reported,” said Mandy McClure, the communications director for the Iowa Democratic party.

In a statement, McClure added that calls to the hotline reached “an unusually high volume” and included some “supporters of President Trump”.

On Wednesday night’s call, the committee member Ken Sagar called the disruption deliberate. The incident was first reported to Bloomberg News. [...] Officials say the hotline’s phone number went public after photos of caucus paperwork were posted online. Users on the popular fringe internet message board, 4chan, then shared the phone number along with instructions on how to disrupt the caucus process.

[...] Rick Hasen, a professor of election law at the University of California at Irvine, said any evidence of a coordinated attempt to thwart the hotline’s election reporting “could well be a crime”.
posted by katra at 9:48 AM on February 7, 2020 [9 favorites]


his appearance at the National Prayer Breakfast thing was extra weird even for him

If it helps, apparently Pelosi and Romney were there.
posted by ZeusHumms at 9:51 AM on February 7, 2020


Well, here we are. Trump says the House should ‘expunge’ his impeachment
posted by Harry Caul at 9:53 AM on February 7, 2020 [3 favorites]


Well, here we are. Trump says the House should ‘expunge’ his impeachment

The obvious response to this is, "You were acquitted, but you're not innocent"
posted by mikelieman at 9:55 AM on February 7, 2020 [9 favorites]


Bolton has absolutely nothing to fear from an NDA. Dragging it into the discussion is just a distraction.

This is still true. Has any witness been hit with an NDA suit? Has any witness been hit with an executive privilege penalty? No, because there is no such penalty.

Some witnesses were claiming that they would not testify because of legal restrictions. There is absolutely no legal consequences preventing anyone from testifying. That was true before and it is still true now.
posted by JackFlash at 10:03 AM on February 7, 2020 [5 favorites]


Trumpists are threatening to have Bolton locked up. Not technically a legal consequence but we seem a whole hell of a lot closer than we were a week ago.
posted by Lyme Drop at 10:16 AM on February 7, 2020


Locked up for what? What crime? They threatened to "lock up" Clinton and still are today.

It's typical Trump bluff and bluster. And for anyone to use it as a legal excuse not to testify is ridiculous and cowardly.
posted by JackFlash at 10:19 AM on February 7, 2020 [5 favorites]


There is absolutely no legal consequences preventing anyone from testifying.

In McGahn Case, an Epic Constitutional Showdown (NYT, Jan. 13, 2020)
posted by katra at 10:20 AM on February 7, 2020 [1 favorite]


McGahn could testify tomorrow if he wanted to. There is absolutely no legal consequence preventing him from doing so. He doesn't even work at the White House anymore, so Trump can't fire him. He could go on Fox News and tell his story and there is nothing Trump could do to him.

The only thing keeping him from testifying is the fact that he doesn't want to and is hiding behind a claim of executive privilege that has no teeth.
posted by JackFlash at 10:30 AM on February 7, 2020 [11 favorites]


JackFlash, we have previously discussed the unresolved legal issues related to executive privilege at length in these threads, and I have a headcold today and don't have a lot of energy to throw a lot of fish, but one thing to keep in mind, at least with regard to McGahn (AP, Aug. 7, 2019), is this:
McGahn’s lawyer, William A. Burck, in a statement said “McGahn is a lawyer and has an ethical obligation to protect client confidences” and does not believe he witnessed any violation of law.

“When faced with competing demands from co-equal branches of government, Don will follow his former client’s instruction, absent a contrary decision from the federal judiciary,” Burck said.
posted by katra at 10:46 AM on February 7, 2020 [4 favorites]


And I'm sorry if I sound grumpy about what reads like an oversimplification of the constitutional stakes and the underlying institutional clash that is currently unfolding. There is an extraordinary amount of bad faith stonewalling from the Trump administration, but it also appears to be at least somewhat based on real legal protections that otherwise have a legitimate purpose in a democracy. That's what seems like the true horror to me, because it doesn't appear possible to simply assert that 'there are no legal consequences,' because we haven't been here before and don't know how these challenges will be resolved. There are a variety of upcoming cases that will provide more guidance about whether there are consequences, and my ultimate point is that we've got a constitutional crisis unfolding with an outcome that isn't so easy to predict.

In the meantime, Appeals court rejects Democrats' emoluments suit against Trump (Politico)
A federal appeals court has rejected a lawsuit from Congressional Democrats who accused President Donald Trump of violating the Constitution by receiving profits from foreign governments' spending at his luxury Washington hotel and other businesses.

The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals decision did not address the legality of Trump's business dealings, but held that the more than 200 Democratic senators and House members who banded together in 2017 to bring the suit against the president lacked legal standing to do so. [...]

The lawmakers could seek review by the full bench of the D.C. Circuit or the Supreme Court, but it seems more likely that the battle over Trump's private businesses' receipts from foreign sources will continue through other cases currently pending at two other federal appeals courts. Lawyers for the Congressional Democrats signaled they may continue the fight beyond Friday's ruling.

[...] There was no sign from the D.C. Circuit Friday of opinions in two other closely-watched cases involving the Trump administration. One involves a House subpoena for testimony from former White House Counsel Don McGahn. The other relates to a House request for access to grand jury secrets and underlying evidence in Special Counsel Robert Mueller's report.
posted by katra at 11:06 AM on February 7, 2020 [6 favorites]


Also, even if there are no legal threats that Trump could really levy against someone, 1) there's still the threat of legal fees, and 2) procedural and bureaucratic hell to unleash on anyone who is deemed not sufficiently supportive of Dictator Don, as seen by people being re-assigned and fired, particularly for those who are very close to retirement and getting federal retirement benefits.


And because it's never done, Exclusive photos of Giuliani in Spain show Lev Parnas has lots more to share (Vicky Ward for CNN, Feb. 7, 2020)
The videos and photographs of Giuliani's trip to Spain, obtained exclusively by CNN, show the efforts Parnas went through to document and save a trove of information. They have aided a slow-drip campaign by Parnas' legal team to keep the indicted Giuliani associate in the limelight as he builds a defense for his indictment, and could plague Giuliani—and ultimately the President—well after impeachment has passed.
Anyone want to bet cake(s) on Giuliani being the one to finally unseat Trump? (Really, I just want to bake and/or eat a cake now.)
posted by filthy light thief at 11:08 AM on February 7, 2020 [8 favorites]


held that the more than 200 Democratic senators and House members who banded together in 2017 to bring the suit against the president lacked legal standing to do so.

Maybe I missed this part in Civics: who has standing to sue for Constitutional violations if not Congress, if not "any citizen?"
posted by rhizome at 11:12 AM on February 7, 2020 [11 favorites]


From Vox's transcript:

A woman who became — we have a couple women that became stars, you two, and I like the name Lesko. I liked it. That’s why I picked it, I liked the name. I saw the face, I saw the name. She had like seven opponents, right? You have no idea how much the public appreciates how smart, how sharp you are.


From C-SPAN

A woman who became a star - we have a couple of women that became stars. You two. And I always liked the name of her - you know, I liked the name, "Lesko." I liked it. That's how I picked it. I liked the name. I saw that face. I saw that everything. They gave me cards. She had like seven opponents, right?

Just glossing over how he has to pick his sycophants in a game of Guess Who. WTG, media.
posted by fluttering hellfire at 11:37 AM on February 7, 2020 [4 favorites]


Maybe I missed this part in Civics: who has standing to sue for Constitutional violations if not Congress, if not "any citizen?"

A plaintiff suing for a Constitutional violation must show that they were personally harmed by the violation. For example, someone who is subject to an illegal search and seizure is directly harmed by a violation of the Fourth Amendment.

The emoluments clause is tricky because it's difficult to say who is directly harmed by a violation. Yes, we're all harmed because our president is an immoral dickhead, but that's not enough.

I thought the suit brought by the AGs of Maryland, DC, and Virginia was clever, because they argued that their states were harmed because they were losing business at their hotels as a result of foreign governments using the Trump Hotel to curry favor. Even then, the Fourth Circuit dismissed the suit for lack of standing.
posted by Ben Trismegistus at 11:43 AM on February 7, 2020 [2 favorites]


Locked up for what? What crime?

Whatever crime Bill Barr says? Post-impeachment acquittal, IMO it's a mistake to assume that Trump opponents must be suspected of an actual crime to be worried about legal consequences. We may not be there yet but that is where we're headed and what's at stake in the 2020 election.
posted by Lyme Drop at 11:47 AM on February 7, 2020 [7 favorites]


Well, here we are. Trump says the House should ‘expunge’ his impeachment

One good thing to come of impeachment it how much it bothers him.
posted by kirkaracha at 11:53 AM on February 7, 2020 [15 favorites]


Re McGahn and others who failed to comply with subpoenas or requests, it seems that some of them are arguing that they could be in legal peril* if they were to testify. It's worth addressing whether this is a realistic claim. None of the current lawsuits that I am aware of request relief that would bar such testimony. If they're not requesting it, it's not a threat. Even if they were requesting such relief, they'd need to request a preliminary injunction in order to prevent the testimony while the case was pending. No one has done so, so that's not a risk of testifying. So much for civil law sanctions. What about criminal? So far, there haven't been any threats of criminal prosecution for those who testified. I'm sure they could gin something up for Bolton on the theory that his testimony would necessarily include classified information (sounds like they'd be wrong) but not for the other potential witnesses.

I don't think there are even any lawsuits against the witnesses where such claims could be presented. Rather than any lawsuits against or prosecutions of the witnesses or potential witnesses, what we have are lawsuits brought by the potential witnesses, trying to get out of having to testify. Losing that argument doesn't put them in legal peril.

If no one is actually threatening you with a legal consequence for testifying, and if you can't articulate how you'd run afoul of an actual law that could be used against you if you testified, then you're not really at risk of a legal sanction.

*I'm not including litigation costs here, and I acknowledge that Trump can use frivolous lawsuits to punish people. Because the claim is that some legal sanction would be imposed, I'm sticking with that.
posted by mabelstreet at 12:39 PM on February 7, 2020 [1 favorite]


A chastened president addresses a healing nation (Alexandra Petri, WaPo Opinion)

Content Warning/Summary: Sarcasm, 'Opposite Day', 'Good Mirror Universe'
posted by ZeusHumms at 12:43 PM on February 7, 2020 [2 favorites]


McGahn is a lawyer and has an ethical obligation to protect client confidences” and does not believe he witnessed any violation of law.

We are not talking about client attorney privilege. Client attorney privilege does not apply to discussions involving third parties like Mulvaney regarding Ukraine. It only applies to private conversations between Trump and McGahn.

When faced with competing demands from co-equal branches of government, Don will follow his former client’s instruction, absent a contrary decision from the federal judiciary,” Burck said.

McGahn, as he states here, is choosing to take Trump's side on a separate issue of executive privilege. There is nothing compelling him to do so. There is no law or restriction or penalty that would apply for executive privilege.

McGahn is choosing to obstruct.
posted by JackFlash at 12:59 PM on February 7, 2020 [8 favorites]


Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump made at least $82 million in outside income last year while serving in the White House, filings show

But I'd love to hear more about how Hunter Biden is corrupt for cashing in on his family name.
posted by kirkaracha at 1:06 PM on February 7, 2020 [35 favorites]


Guardian: White House fires Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman
Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, an adviser on the national security counsel who testified in the impeachment trial, was fired from his post.

“Today, Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman was escorted out of the White House where he has dutifully served his country and his President,” said his attorney, David Pressman in a statement. “LTC Vindman was asked to leave for telling the truth.”
posted by katra at 1:20 PM on February 7, 2020 [10 favorites]


Guardian: "Congressional Democrats are on Twitter expressing their shock at the news that Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman was fired from his post on the national security counsel. [...]
Rep. Ed Perlmutter (@RepPerlmutter) This is appalling. Lt. Col. Vindman, a Purple Heart recipient, has honorably served our country and is a true hero. @realDonaldTrump will do anything to hide the truth and retaliate against truth-tellers, which should alarm all Americans. #VindmanisaPatriot https://t.co/Qqehs1yhWL
February 7, 2020
posted by katra at 1:24 PM on February 7, 2020 [11 favorites]


Shock? In the Captain Renault sense?
posted by tonycpsu at 1:52 PM on February 7, 2020 [3 favorites]


Being fired by Donald Trump is the highest civilian honor awarded by the Federal Government. Congratulations to Lt. Col. Vindman! Your country is proud. 😍🇺🇸
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 2:10 PM on February 7, 2020 [46 favorites]


Yeah, you know how Rush Limbaugh just got the obviously specious medal of Glorygloryhalleluia? Well, Vindman just got the universally accepted medal of proven decency and honor for all time forever the end.
posted by Don Pepino at 2:13 PM on February 7, 2020 [10 favorites]


His brother, who had nothing to do with the impeachment proceedings, was also fired and escorted out.

"We need to go after their families, too."
posted by dirigibleman at 2:18 PM on February 7, 2020 [36 favorites]


Being fired by Donald Trump is the highest civilian honor / universally accepted medal of proven decency and honor for all time forever the end

offer may not be applicable if john kelly, steve bannon, michael flynn, h.r. mcmaster, john bolton, k.t. mcfarland, tom bossert, anthony scaramucci, hope hicks, omarosa manigault newman, don mcgahn, rex tillerson, james comey, james mattis, kirstjen nielsen, jeff sessions, david shulkin, etc.
posted by 20 year lurk at 2:52 PM on February 7, 2020 [10 favorites]


he's handing out these awards like candy smh
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 3:12 PM on February 7, 2020 [1 favorite]


OK, I just watched a bit of the Prayer Breakfast thing. If Trump is not on some type of drugs, I am not a real adult lady who has known a ton of addicts. My dad, and one of my sisters' father in law suffered from dementia, and they were nothing like that. My mum is in a nursery home full of people with dementia, and they are nothing like that. But all the addicts I've ever known are/were exactly like that.
posted by mumimor at 3:34 PM on February 7, 2020 [20 favorites]


Vindman brothers ousted from White House amid fears of Trump ‘payback’ campaign (Politico)
Vindman's attorney indicated that the Iraq War veteran's twin brother Yevgeny, who serves as a senior lawyer on the NSC, was also removed from his post and exited the White House alongside his brother.

Yevgeny Vindman was not a witness in the impeachment process, and his removal prompted acute worries that their removal was an act of political revenge by Trump. Pressman said Yevgeny's ouster came with "no explanation" and that he is "deeply disappointed that he will not be able to continue his service at the White House.” [...]

There are also rising concerns that a whistleblower who initially raised allegations that Trump may have abused his power — an intelligence community employee who reported his concerns to an internal watchdog — could find himself vulnerable. An attorney for the whistleblower, Mark Zaid, would not comment on any threats to his client’s current employment, but Trump and his allies have been calling to publicly identity the whistleblower, and some allies have floated the name of the person they believe it to be. [...]

Vindman's removal from his post came amid three months of relentless attacks by Trump's allies in Congress, the White House and on Fox News, questioning the Iraq War veteran's patriotism and honesty. Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) launched a multi-day string of Twitter attacks on Vindman during the impeachment trial. GOP lawmaker Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.) tweeted on Friday "Good Riddance" and linked to a story about the ouster. [...] Trump on Thursday also called out Vindman directly, as well as his twin brother, during a lengthy celebration of his impeachment trial acquittal.
posted by katra at 3:53 PM on February 7, 2020 [3 favorites]


Sondland is out too.
posted by gucci mane at 4:14 PM on February 7, 2020 [2 favorites]


Historically similar to the Saturday Night Massacre during the Nixon Administration, though here, people are being fired as retribution, rather than quitting.
posted by ZeusHumms at 4:26 PM on February 7, 2020 [3 favorites]


Trump fires a second witness in the impeachment inquiry (WaPo)
President Trump fired Gordon D. Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the European Union, on Friday evening — the second time he dismissed a prominent witness in the impeachment inquiry in a matter of hours.

“I was advised today that the president intends to recall me effective immediately as United States Ambassador to the European Union,” Sondland said in a statement. “I am grateful to President Trump for having given me the opportunity to serve.”

Sondland testified during the House impeachment inquiry that he had come to believe the administration was tying almost $400 million of security assistance for Ukraine to Trump’s push to have the country investigate his political rivals. It added up, Sondland said, like “two plus two equals four.”
posted by katra at 4:30 PM on February 7, 2020 [2 favorites]


Thank you Susan Collings he sure did learn his lesson! /sarcasm
posted by Joey Michaels at 4:30 PM on February 7, 2020 [13 favorites]


Whoa, whoa, whoa, Joey Michaels: Susan Collins walks back her claim that Trump learned his “lesson” following her vote to acquit him "I may not be correct on that," Collins tells Fox News. "It's more aspirational on my part" (Salon, Feb. 6, 2020)

How unexpected.
posted by Iris Gambol at 4:36 PM on February 7, 2020 [16 favorites]


Nancy Pelosi's All Outta Faith, This Is How She Feels
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Donald Trump, a criminal who would be even more dangerous if he was remotely competent, performed another installment in their long-running production of Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? last night at the State of the Union. Mike Pence was also there, miscast and underwhelming as Honey.
...
In a pre-recycling bin action heard round the internet, Pelosi—who had been snubbed when offering Trump a handshake prior to his speech—rose at the end of the State of the Union and tore a text copy of the president's remarks in half. Nancy Pelosi saw Little Women and came away thinking "Amy March made some points!" In a gesture so theatrical I can't believe it's not being performed by Patti LuPone at Royal Albert Hall in front of a French children's chorus dressed as mimes who keep making Brechtian interjections, Pelosi gripped the computer-printed pages, stared at them menacingly, and then obliterated them, to the delight of millions.
...
Sure, it's rude, but anyone who is offended on behalf of bloviating troll Donald J. Trump can't possibly be serious. This is a move that speaks Trump's language flawlessly. And sure, it's dramatic, a final gesture in an evening that is long on gestures and short of substance. What else, if not a theatrical gesture, is all the hand-shaking, the standing up and applauding, the presenting known bigots with Medals of Freedom in the audience like it's an episode of Oprah's Least Favorite Things? This is all theater; it's all for the cameras. Pelosi's performance was appropriate for the occasion and the feckless monsters in Trump's thrall.
posted by kirkaracha at 4:36 PM on February 7, 2020 [8 favorites]


I wonder if Sondland finished the $1 million dollar renovation to the embassy?
posted by misterpatrick at 4:36 PM on February 7, 2020


Trump hasn’t offered any reason beyond the obvious for punishing Alexander Vindman (Philip Bump, WaPo)
Instead, we’re encouraged to assume that the obvious is the case
Trump’s vagueness wasn’t matched by his press secretary, Stephanie Grisham. Speaking to reporters, she was pointed in declaring that those involved in the impeachment effort would face punishment.
WH Press Sec Stephanie Grisham previews the President's 12pm ET impeachment remarks:

"I think he's also going to talk about just how horribly he was treated and, you know, that maybe people should pay for that."

— Karen Travers (@karentravers) February 6, 2020
posted by katra at 4:41 PM on February 7, 2020 [4 favorites]




Ousting and jailing your opponents is Strongman 101 stuff. Surprised the Vindmans and Sondland didn't get themselves to a non-extradition country as soon as he was acquitted.
posted by tonycpsu at 4:54 PM on February 7, 2020 [2 favorites]


I mean, active duty? That's not really fair.
posted by fluttering hellfire at 4:57 PM on February 7, 2020


Pelosi, in her own words. An Op/Ed in WaPo.

"Our Founders put safeguards in the Constitution to protect against a rogue president. They never imagined that they would at the same time have a rogue leader in the Senate who would cowardly abandon his duty to uphold the Constitution."
posted by OHenryPacey at 5:03 PM on February 7, 2020 [23 favorites]


Christine Pelosi says mother's shredding of State of the Union speech was 'an Italian grandma move' (Yael Halon, Fox News)
"In watching that, her reaction to that speech, I thought to myself, that's an 'Italian grandma move,'" Pelosi continued. "I saw my grandmother do that years ago in her kitchen when there was a guest at my grandfather's house ... who was rude. She picked up the person's plate without comment, we heard a crashing sound. She threw the plate away, sat down and didn't say another word."
posted by ZeusHumms at 6:01 PM on February 7, 2020 [13 favorites]


Being fired by Donald Trump is the highest civilian honor / universally accepted medal of proven decency and honor for all time forever the end

offer may not be applicable if john kelly, steve bannon, michael flynn, h.r. mcmaster, john bolton, k.t. mcfarland, tom bossert, anthony scaramucci, hope hicks, omarosa manigault newman, don mcgahn, rex tillerson, james comey, james mattis, kirstjen nielsen, jeff sessions, david shulkin, etc.


No honors for anyone who took a cabinet position with him in the first place. James Comey is a special case.
posted by ZeusHumms at 6:07 PM on February 7, 2020 [1 favorite]


Trump celebrates, Pelosi fumes as Facebook and Twitter refuse to take down altered video (Jessica Guynn, USA Today)
Facebook and Twitter have refused to take down a video posted by President Donald Trump that was edited to make it appear that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ripped up his speech when the president was saluting a Tuskegee airman during the State of the Union rather than at the end of his address.

Pelosi's office had demanded the video, titled “Powerful American stories ripped to shreds by Nancy Pelosi,” be removed from both platforms. Trump tweeted the video Thursday evening to his more than 72 million followers.
posted by ZeusHumms at 6:30 PM on February 7, 2020 [13 favorites]


Why "amid fears of"? Why not just "as part of"?

Payback: Trump ousts officials who testified on impeachment (AP)
Exacting swift punishment against those who crossed him, an emboldened President Donald Trump on Friday ousted two government officials who had delivered damaging testimony against him during his impeachment hearings. The president took retribution just two days after his acquittal by the Senate.

[...] Rep. Jackie Speier, D-Calif., called it “the Friday Night Massacre,” likening the situation to President Richard Nixon’s so-called Saturday night massacre, when top Justice Department officials resigned after refusing to do his bidding by firing a special prosecutor investigating the Watergate scandal.

[...] Senate Republicans, who just two days prior acquitted Trump of charges he abused his office, were silent Friday evening. Many of them had reacted with indignation during the Senate trial when Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff, the lead prosecutor, suggested Trump would be out for revenge against the lawmakers who crossed him during impeachment.

Since his acquittal, Trump has held nothing back in lashing out at his critics, including Sen. Mitt Romney of Utah, the only Republican to vote against him. On Friday, he also took after Sen. Joe Manchin, a moderate Democrat from West Virginia whom Trump had hoped would vote with the Republicans for his acquittal but who ended up voting to convict.
posted by katra at 6:51 PM on February 7, 2020 [5 favorites]


god, all this because she ripped up a speech

come on little man, show me where the mean lady hurt you
posted by pyramid termite at 6:55 PM on February 7, 2020 [8 favorites]


Trump has learned his lesson much in the same way velociraptors learned to open doors.
posted by emelenjr


Sorry for the delay, but I did finally illustrate this comment.
posted by mikepop at 6:57 PM on February 7, 2020 [24 favorites]


Trump ousts Vindman and Sondland, punishing key impeachment witnesses in post-acquittal campaign of retribution (WaPo)
There was little resistance from within the Republican Party to the idea of punishing Vindman, a Purple Heart recipient and Ukraine expert, after The Washington Post reported Thursday night that he could soon be removed from his White House job. Some GOP lawmakers egged the president on — a sign of how much Trump has asserted his influence on the party.

Many lawmakers appeared to take it as a given that a president who fired an FBI director during a federal investigation into his campaign and who attacked the religious sincerity of his perceived enemies during a prayer breakfast this week would set out for revenge in the wake of an effort to end his presidency. [...]

More firings are possible.

The president and his advisers have also discussed removing Michael Atkinson, the inspector general of the intelligence community, though no final decision has been made, officials said. Trump has expressed frustration that Atkinson allowed a whistleblower report documenting Trump’s alleged misconduct toward Ukraine to be transmitted to Congress.

Some advisers have also counseled the president to remove Victoria Coates, the deputy national security adviser, who has told others in the White House that she fears her job is in jeopardy.
posted by katra at 7:21 PM on February 7, 2020 [5 favorites]


A bit earlier a chyron on CNN read, “Trump advisor: Firing impeachment witnesses ‘necessary’ to send message that breaking with Trump is not tolerated.” I stopped listening to Gaslit Nation because it was too depressing. And apparently, entirely too accurate in predicting this kind of shit. I’m not surprised, just outraged and exhausted. Not more outraged about this than about children in cages. It’s just more bruising on top of the fractures in the body politic, I suppose.
posted by Bella Donna at 7:25 PM on February 7, 2020 [19 favorites]


Right. What needs to happen next is that someone uploads Bolton's book to the internet so anyone/everyone can read it and he doesn't make a dime more than the advance and no NY Times best seller lists. Not TOR, regular internet. (Sorry publisher, it's in the national interest)
posted by TWinbrook8 at 12:16 AM on February 8, 2020 [5 favorites]


Yes, surely that will be the straw that breaks the GOP's back.

With these retribution firings and the recent thread on the GOP's amount of funding for their disinformation campaign, highlighted here in the comment noting that Facebook and Twitter are refusing to take down a a disinfo video, there's nothing to do for Dems but out-vote the GOP later this year. There is only one "conscious objector" to the GOP party line in the senate, and that's not enough.

Maybe, maybe, if Trump feels threatened and lashes out at the GOP in the senate, there might be a few more, but we could compile a very long list of "surely this" moments that came and went, without anything more than statements of concern, followed by voting in lockstep with the GOP. They're all cowards and traitors, destroying democracy to keep their team winning and doubling down on hyper-capitalist priorities and racist policies.
posted by filthy light thief at 6:25 AM on February 8, 2020 [22 favorites]


I think it's time to retire the idea that the GOP are cowards--disapproving but too afraid to confront--especially in the face of the ebullient celebration of his acquittal in the Senate.

This is who they have been all along, and have been too fearful to fully express. The lionize Trump because he's fearless and shameless about his cruelty, brutality, and naked lust for power. Any rumors on the fringes about disapproving behind closed doors is only the vestiges of whatever facade they used to think they needed to maintain.
posted by Sublimity at 7:05 AM on February 8, 2020 [22 favorites]


At this point the modern Republican party is a mob operation mixed with a cult of personality. The media still thinks they're a political party and assumes they will behave as such. They will not leave power willingly any more than the mafia would. Assuming we can get someone in power who is willing to enforce existing laws (and figures out how to turn law enforcement against them), that would be enough to put 70% of them in jail.

Which is the only way to break the back of the mafia.
posted by benzenedream at 7:59 AM on February 8, 2020 [21 favorites]


This is who they have been all along

Yes, and all you have to do is list all of their associations and the commercials/memes/clapbacks write themselves. Who are Republicans? Racists are Republicans, family separators are Republicans, mass shooters are Republicans. Republicans are required to think Trump is the best possible president, so start pinning it on them.

Everything Republican politicians do is because they can't cross Trump, they only think about what he wants, not their constituents. All questions should be asked in those terms, "When did Trump tell you to vote that way, did he have to tell you personally?" Obviously I'm not a skilled reporter like Mehdi Hasan or Isaac Chotiner, but at the end of the day we should all see that if Republicans don't go Trump's way they'll be banished, if not fired, and the terms of that complicity should be used to define them until proven otherwise.
posted by rhizome at 11:40 AM on February 8, 2020 [5 favorites]


Trump’s quest for revenge could mean the end of whistleblowing (Walter M. Shaub Jr., WaPo Opinion)
In a speech on Thursday, Trump condemned “leakers and liars” and declared that “this should never, ever happen to another president, ever.” On Capitol Hill, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said Republicans plan to launch an investigation of the whistleblower who disclosed President Trump’s effort to coerce Ukraine to investigate a political rival. Graham threatened that they are “going to get to the bottom of all of this to make sure this never happens again.” [...]

Do not doubt that the eyes of our nation are watching this situation unfold. Federal officials will now think twice before reporting any wrongdoing they witness. Their reticence will only be magnified if Republicans exact a price by grilling the Ukraine whistleblower in a Senate hearing “to make sure this never happens again.” The same will be true if Congress lets executive branch officials fire or otherwise punish the whistleblower — as the Trump administration did to Marie Yovanovitch, the former ambassador to Ukraine. [...]

Paul’s reckless utterance of this individual’s name and the rumors spread by others will be a strong deterrent for those who want to report wrongdoing. The individual’s name and photographs had already been circulating on social media, where online posts can inspire real-life action. One far-right media outlet confronted a man who appeared to be the individual’s father in his own driveway and released video images of the man and his house. Whether or not the individual is a whistleblower, prospective whistleblowers know that his fate could become theirs. They probably also know that attorneys for the as-yet-unidentified Ukraine whistleblower have been subjected to harassment and death threats.

The handling of the Ukraine whistleblower’s report may already have inflicted irreparable harm. Trump appointees in the Justice Department effectively overruled a determination by the intelligence community inspector general that the whistleblower had lodged a credible complaint of “urgent concern.” In response, about 70 of the government’s inspectors general signed a letter warning the Justice Department that its actions “could seriously undermine the critical role whistleblowers play in coming forward to report waste, fraud, abuse, and misconduct across the federal government.” The inspectors general stressed that “the effectiveness of our oversight work depends on the willingness of government employees, contractors, and grantees to come forward to us with their concerns.”
posted by katra at 12:03 PM on February 8, 2020 [7 favorites]


I think it's a mistake to focus too much on The Cheeto as the ring master of the circus. When he's out the presidency the GOP will still be for locking kids in concentration camps, denying people the vote, arming kindergarten teachers, etc. Remember when all the GOP senators were afraid of the Tea Party? None of their policies are going to change regardless of who their leaders are. The Turtle was defying norms for years before the rise of the Cheeto.

GOP politicians are afraid of defying Trump's policies because Trump's policy goals are GOP voter's policy goals. And Trump for the most part didn't impose his goals on the voters; he zero'd in on the voter's goals and made them his. EG: Trump didn't care at all about the Mexican boarder and fence/wall until he zero'd in on it as a polarizing issue while running for GOP nominee.
posted by Mitheral at 12:06 PM on February 8, 2020 [17 favorites]


Mitch McConnell Wasn’t Always Loved by Republicans. He Is Now. (NYT)
When Mr. McConnell, the majority leader and Kentucky’s senior senator, secured President Trump’s acquittal on Wednesday, he took to the Senate floor to extol the end of “this precedent-breaking impeachment.” It was a final bow of sorts, the capstone of a yearslong metamorphosis from establishment bore to conservative icon.

Even voters like Ms. Stocks weren’t so sure about Mr. McConnell once upon a time, when Tea Party firebrands tempted them with visions of a new kind of Republican. But that was before the fate of Mr. Trump was at stake, before the fight for acquittal demanded a leader precisely in Mr. McConnell’s mold.

From beginning to end, impeachment has crystallized the symbiosis between the president’s success and Mr. McConnell’s clout. It’s easy to see how the Senate leader has been critical to Mr. Trump’s political survival. Perhaps less obvious, though, is the extent to which Mr. McConnell owes much of his new viability to Mr. Trump — how his brand of staid ruthlessness has thrived as a counterweight to the brash, whim-driven style of the president.

All of the things that once repelled many conservatives about Mr. McConnell have now become the foundations of his appeal. [...] Constituents like Ms. Stocks may grimace at Mr. Trump’s vagaries, the flurry of tweets that, before she turned the notifications off, would often wake her and her husband at 3 a.m. But they find comfort in knowing that when it comes to the president’s actual agenda, Mr. McConnell is behind the wheel.

Basha Roberts, 65, recalled an event in Kentucky after Mr. Trump was elected where she heard Mr. McConnell say, for the first time, “We’re working to make America great again.”

“I knew then that he had bought in,” she said, “and could see all that he could do working with President Trump.” [...] The way Mr. McConnell complements the president cannot alone explain his now-widespread support in his party — how it is that in the past five years, his approval rating among Republicans nationally has climbed to 68 percent from as low as 26 percent, according to surveys from Gallup and Quinnipiac University.

At no point has Mr. McConnell fundamentally changed. For many Republicans, the difference today is that he is despised by all the right people.
posted by katra at 12:28 PM on February 8, 2020 [8 favorites]


Yes, surely that will be the straw that breaks the GOP's back

No, merely Bolton's.
posted by TWinbrook8 at 3:37 PM on February 8, 2020 [1 favorite]


the difference today is that he is despised by all the right people.

I had no idea that I’m one of the right people. Feels good.
posted by valkane at 3:46 PM on February 8, 2020 [1 favorite]


Republican Senators Tried to Stop Trump From Firing Impeachment Witness (NYT)
A handful of Republican senators tried to stop President Trump from firing Gordon D. Sondland, the ambassador to the European Union who testified in the House impeachment hearings, but the president relieved the diplomat of his post anyway, according to people briefed on the discussions.

The senators were concerned that it would look bad for Mr. Trump to dismiss Mr. Sondland and argued that it was unnecessary, since the ambassador was already talking with senior officials about leaving after the Senate trial, the people said. The senators told White House officials that Mr. Sondland should be allowed to depart on his own terms, which would have reduced any political backlash.

But Mr. Trump evidently was not interested in a quiet departure, choosing instead to make a point by forcing Mr. Sondland out before the ambassador was ready to go. When State Department officials called Mr. Sondland on Friday to tell him that he had to resign that day, he resisted, saying that he did not want to be included in what seemed like a larger purge of impeachment witnesses, according to the people informed about the matter.

Mr. Sondland conveyed to the State Department officials that if they wanted him gone that day, they would have to fire him. And so the president did, ordering the ambassador recalled from his post effective immediately. [...]

Among the Republicans who warned the White House was Senator Susan Collins of Maine, who after voting to acquit Mr. Trump said she thought he had learned a lesson. Others included Senators Thom Tillis of North Carolina, Martha McSally of Arizona and Ron Johnson of Wisconsin.
posted by katra at 9:23 PM on February 8, 2020 [7 favorites]


"Republican Senators Leaked Bullshit Ass-Covering Story About Trying to Stop Trump From Firing Impeachment Witness"
posted by tonycpsu at 9:30 PM on February 8, 2020 [45 favorites]


‘Not just chilling but frightening’: Inside Vindman’s ouster amid fears of further retaliation by Trump (WaPo)
Alexander Vindman’s lawyer Michael Volkov responded to Trump on Saturday by emphasizing that Vindman will land “at a good spot” at the Pentagon, where he will be assigned until July 1, when he is to begin a new posting at the Army War College.

“Clearly the Army is not participating in the president’s desire to retaliate,” he said.

But beyond the Vindman brothers, career officials and political appointees who had testified in Ukraine hearings remained worried about their future under a president who has emerged emboldened from the Republican-controlled Senate’s vote to acquit him on both impeachment charges — abuse of power and obstruction of justice — and eager to punish those he believes have betrayed him. [...]

“You look around and you see the adverse actions taken against people who testified under subpoena and it creates a real air of uncertainty,” said a lawyer for one of the witnesses, who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of retribution from the White House. [...]

Trump’s “personal insecurities and vindictiveness are making our nation less secure,” Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) said in a statement. The president’s punitive actions signal he “won’t tolerate people who tell the truth.” [...]

“Every career official will tell you it’s not just chilling but frightening,” said Fernando Cutz, who served on the NSC as a senior adviser to then-national security adviser H.R. McMaster before they both left in 2018. “You’re seeing things happen in an unprecedented way that even Nixon didn’t do. . . . The broader message to career officials is that you can’t speak up. Even if you see something illegal, something unethical, you can’t speak up. That’s the message the president wants to send.”
posted by katra at 9:31 PM on February 8, 2020 [7 favorites]


Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy is referring the Pelosi case to Attorney General Bill Barr for felony prosecution. For tearing a piece of paper.

This isn't just some loudmouth backbencher. This is the highest ranking Republican in the House.
posted by JackFlash at 10:22 PM on February 8, 2020 [16 favorites]


It's important here to remember that the Republicans refused to seat many of Obama's nominees in the judicial system, and held the spots open for Commander Brainworms. They have packed the courts all the way up and down the system, including the Supremes.

The courts will not save us.
posted by SecretAgentSockpuppet at 12:57 AM on February 9, 2020 [24 favorites]


Since the impeachment trial was not a judicial proceeding, does double jeopardy apply?

In other words, if the House were to submit new impeachment charges, could they resubmit the old ones? Some republicans are expressing regret at not calling witnesses, and saying they advised Trump not to strike back at people who testified. Maybe they could call witnesses the next time. Or since some have stipulated that they believe crimes were done, just re-vote on the acquittal.

I am skeptical of the sincerity of the regrets, but it would be an opportunity to put them on record again.
posted by rochrobbb at 6:16 AM on February 9, 2020 [5 favorites]


Lindsey Graham says DOJ is handling information from Giuliani on Bidens (WaPo)
Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) said Sunday that the Justice Department is vetting information that President Trump’s personal attorney has delivered regarding Hunter Biden’s work on the board of a Ukrainian energy company.

Graham, citing an early morning conversation with Attorney General William P. Barr, said that Rudolph W. Giuliani is giving his information to national security experts and that he would back off his own plans to use the Senate Judiciary Committee as a vehicle to investigate the Biden family. “The Department of Justice is receiving information coming out of the Ukraine from Rudy to see — he told me that they have created a process that Rudy could give information and they would see if it’s verified,” Graham, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said on CBS’s “Face the Nation.”

He warned that Giuliani might be getting bad information from his trips to Ukraine as part of a disinformation campaign by Russian security experts, citing their effort to disrupt the 2016 presidential campaign. “If Rudy Giuliani has any information coming out of the Ukraine, he needs to turn it over to the Department of Justice, because it could be Russian propaganda,” Graham said. [...]

Then, just as “Face the Nation” started Sunday morning, Trump sent out a tweet urging Graham to launch some undefined investigations. “He must start up Judiciary and not stop until the job is done. Clean up D.C. now, last chance,” Trump said in the tweet, which CBS’s Margaret Brennan read to the senator on air. [...]

“I’m not going to be the Republican Christopher Steele,” Graham said, mentioning the former British spy whose investigations for Republican and Democratic rivals of Trump’s in 2016 were eventually sent to the Justice Department. He said that after talking to Barr and Burr, he worried Giuliani’s information might not be trustworthy. “Take very cautiously anything coming out of the Ukraine, against anybody,” Graham said.
posted by katra at 10:54 AM on February 9, 2020 [3 favorites]


“Take very cautiously anything coming out of the Ukraine, against anybody,” Graham said.

Yeah, the info could be fabricated as the result of extortion by a foreign head of state withholding military aid.
posted by lostburner at 12:00 PM on February 9, 2020 [17 favorites]


Graham: DOJ has process to review Giuliani’s Ukraine info (AP)
“Rudy Giuliani is a well-known man,” said Graham. “He’s a crime fighter. He’s loyal to the president. He’s a good lawyer.”

Giuliani is also under scrutiny by federal authorities. That means the Justice Department would be putting itself in the awkward position of appearing to work with someone it is actively investigating to gather potentially damaging information against one of the president’s political rivals. [...]

Federal prosecutors in New York are investigating Giuliani’s business dealings, including whether he failed to register as a foreign agent, according to people familiar with the matter. They were not authorized to discuss the investigation publicly and spoke on the condition of anonymity. [...]

Graham said he also spoke Sunday with Republican Sen. Richard Burr of North Carolina, chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. He said Burr also warned him to “take very cautiously” any information coming out of Ukraine. Graham said his message to Giuliani is: “Don’t give it to me.”
posted by katra at 12:19 PM on February 9, 2020 [2 favorites]


By now I'm not expecting anything to go the way I'd like it to. I'll be surprised if there is any investigation into anybody helping Trump in the future.
posted by rhizome at 12:40 PM on February 9, 2020 [2 favorites]


Seriously, history knowers of the blue, has anybody in Congress *ever* used the phrase "loyal to the President" in a not-pejorative way, except maybe in the aftermath of 9/11? This shit is crazy.
posted by Rykey at 1:19 PM on February 9, 2020 [3 favorites]


Congressional Oath of Office:

“I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

Not seeing a damn thing in there about the president. As an aside, the god bit has only been there since 1862, for all those "framers XXX" people.
posted by Bovine Love at 2:47 PM on February 9, 2020 [9 favorites]


Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy is referring the Pelosi case to Attorney General Bill Barr for felony prosecution. For tearing a piece of paper.

I've looked for a source on this, because it would be stunning news, and I would like to see the reporting and response to it. All I've been able to find so far is this, though: Republicans give Pelosi just what she wanted with outrage over ripped up State of the Union (Laura Clawson, Daily Kos)
Rep. Matt Gaetz is leading the asshat charge by filing an ethics complaint against Pelosi with, get this, the claim that “Nobody is above the law.” Gaetz is calling for a criminal referral, claiming that Pelosi violated a statute dealing with “Concealment, removal, or mutilation of documents,” as if every single physical copy of a document is sacred. This temper tantrum about Pelosi tearing up a document is especially special given that—as Dana Houle pointed out on Twitter—Trump is known tear up papers after he finishes with them, in violation of the Presidential Records Act.

Gaetz isn’t the only Republican in high dudgeon about Pelosi, of course. Rep. Kay Granger is touting a privileged resolution expressing disapproval for Pelosi’s “breach of decorum.” House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy tried his hand at a viral video ripping up the impeachment articles and saying “acquitted for life.”
And, ugh, I even watched a Jeanine Pirro clip where McCarthy says 'the AG should give an opinion.' [at about 3:20]
posted by katra at 3:13 PM on February 9, 2020 [4 favorites]


Reflecting a bit on one notable episode from this whole shit show:

Libertarian Rand Paul was the one to cross the line and reveal the purported whistleblower's name on the Senate floor, after trying to goad Justice Roberts into reading it aloud during the questioning period--twice.

This gets at the heart of an aspect of Libertarianism that few people seem to recognize outright.

Libertarians say that they object to the imposition of the power of The State, in their view unfairly, to compel citizens to do things (like pay taxes) or not do things (regulations). In my observation, pushing back on that even a little bit will lead to hysterical invocations of The State sending Men With Guns to enforce its dictates.

Whistleblower laws and policies are specifically intended to protect individuals who are trying to reveal wrongdoing on the part of The State, from the retribution of the authorities of The State.

In a situation where laws/regulations (undesirable to libertarians) are in place to protect an individual from abuse of power by the state (fundamental to their purported worldview), which side did Rand Paul come down on?

He not only *did not* prioritize the liberty of the individual who was the whistleblower, he was the most powerful person to *actively expose* the whistleblower. Even with the sure knowledge that the Trump administration--The State--would surely retaliate, and furthermore, Trump's followers in the citizenry are "men with guns" who are only too happy to threaten vigilante justice.

The way I see it: Libertarians talk a good game about lofty ideals, but behind all the rhetoric, what they want is to be able to fuck people over without any accountability or restraints whatsoever. Paul's actions make perfect sense in this light.
posted by Sublimity at 4:10 AM on February 10, 2020 [45 favorites]


“Hey Lindsey, that slander and innuendo you used to justify acquitting Trump is really just a bunch of slander and innuendo so we’d really appreciate it if you didn’t hold public hearing exposing us as spreading slander and innuendo. K thx, bye. XOXO Willie Barr”
posted by Big Al 8000 at 6:11 AM on February 10, 2020 [1 favorite]


Mod note: A couple deleted. Please keep in mind that we aren't doing catchall / megathreads, and focus on impeachment-related stuff here rather than general politics chatter. Thanks.
posted by taz (staff) at 6:42 AM on February 10, 2020 [3 favorites]


Barr: U.S. scrutinizing information ahead of 2020 election, including from Giuliani (Reuters)
Barr spoke at a news conference a day after Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham said on the CBS News program “Face the Nation” that the department had created a process so that Giuliani could provide information and the department would see if it could be verified.

“We have to be very careful with respect to any information coming from the Ukraine,” Barr said. “There are a lot of agendas in the Ukraine. There are a lot of cross-currents, and we can’t take anything we receive from the Ukraine at face value.” [...]

On Monday, Barr said that the Justice Department has created an “intake process in the field” that will be used to assess the “provenance and credibility” of any information.

“That is true for all information that comes to the department relating to the Ukraine, including anything Mr. Giuliani might provide,” he added.

Although the department acknowledged on Monday it is receiving and scrutinizing such materials, the FBI’s No. 2 official still stopped short of saying whether it had led to a more formal investigation into the Bidens. “I am not going to talk about any investigations as I never would. We do not talk about open investigations,” FBI Deputy Director David Bowdich said.

Graham said he would refrain from his own probe of the Bidens and concentrate instead on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court’s decision to issue warrants that led to a federal investigation into allegations that Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign colluded with Russia to interfere in that election.
posted by katra at 8:40 AM on February 10, 2020 [2 favorites]


QAnon Influencers Are Encouraging Their Followers to Drink Bleach to Stave Off Coronavirus (NY Mag)
Proponents of the QAnon conspiracy, which alleges that the Russia investigation was a front so President Trump could expose rampant pedophilia in the Democratic Establishment and prevent a deep-state coup, generally aren’t great interpreters of the news — unless they are — making this older demographic somewhat vulnerable to scamming.
What Happens When QAnon Seeps From the Web to the Offline World (NYT)
The seepage of conspiracy theorizing from the digital fever swamps into life offline is one of the more unsettling developments of the Trump era, in which the president has relentlessly pushed groundless conspiracies to reshape political narratives to his liking. In promoting fringe ideas about deep state schemes, Mr. Trump has at times elevated and encouraged QAnon followers — recirculating their posts on Twitter, posing with one for a photograph in the Oval Office, inviting some to a White House “social media summit.” Recently, during a daylong Twitter binge, Mr. Trump retweeted more than 20 posts from accounts that had trafficked in QAnon material.
‘QAnon’ conspiracy theory creeps into mainstream politics (AP)
Trump has retweeted QAnon-promoting accounts. Followers flock to Trump’s rallies wearing clothes and hats with QAnon symbols and slogans. At least 23 current or former congressional candidates in the 2020 election cycle have endorsed or promoted QAnon, according to the liberal watchdog Media Matters for America, which compiled online evidence to support its running tally. [...]

Nancy Rosenblum, a Harvard University professor emeritus of ethics in politics and government, said the apocalyptic nature of the QAnon narrative resonates with those who want to believe that their political enemies will be vanquished and a better future will rise from the ashes.

“What makes it unique is that Trump is the chosen one,” said Rosenblum, co-author of the book “A Lot of People Are Saying: The New Conspiracism and the Assault on Democracy.”
posted by katra at 8:57 AM on February 10, 2020 [4 favorites]


Kellyanne Conway says more officials may be ousted after Trump's Senate acquittal (Politico)
Asked during an interview on “Fox & Friends” whether there will be more dismissals in the days to come, Conway said, “maybe,” and sought to defend Vindman’s removal from a detail at the National Security Council. Vindman’s twin brother Yevgeny, who had served as a senior lawyer on the NSC, was also forced out of the White House on Friday. [...]

Conway did not explain why [Yevgeny] Vindman's detail to the NSC ended on Friday when it was previously slated to finish in July.

As for Sondland, the former U.S. envoy to the European Union, Conway said “it was nice of the president to give him that post in the first place,” and described him as a reluctant Trump supporter. [...] “He wrote a big check to the inauguration but wasn’t really there before the president improbably, unsurprisingly, won, for people like that,” Conway said of Sondland, who received his appointment after donating $1 million to Trump’s inauguration committee. [...]

Since Trump’s acquittal last week in the Senate impeachment trial, White House officials have promised “payback” against those who testified or played a part in lawmakers’ efforts to remove Trump from office. A handful of the House’s 17 impeachment witnesses still maintain their jobs in the administration.
posted by katra at 9:11 AM on February 10, 2020 [4 favorites]


Schumer asks inspectors general to investigate whistleblower retaliation after Vindman firing (Politico)
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer is asking that every agency inspector general investigate retaliation against whistleblowers who report presidential misconduct, after the firing of Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman from the National Security Council.

Schumer’s letters to 74 inspectors general, which will be sent Monday, comes after Vindman, a star witness in the House impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump, was removed from his position at the White House on Friday, along with his twin, Lt. Col. Yevgeny Vindman, an ethics lawyer at the NSC. [...] In a letter to Acting Inspector General Glenn Fine at the Defense Department, Schumer described the NSC firings as “part of a dangerous, growing pattern of retaliation against those who report wrongdoing only to find themselves targeted by the President and subject to his wrath and vindictiveness.”

In addition to asking Fine to investigate all acts of retaliation against those who reported presidential misconduct, Schumer also requested that the acting inspector general report the last time that personnel at the Defense Department were informed of their rights as whistleblowers. He also asked that Fine assure Congress in writing that the Pentagon’s general counsel would not allow retaliation against “anyone who has, or in the future makes, protected disclosures of presidential misconduct to Congress or Inspectors General.” [...]

Schumer wrote in his letter: “Without the courage of whistleblowers and the role of Inspectors General, the American people may never have known how the President abused his power in the Ukraine scandal. It is incumbent on you that whistleblowers … are protected for doing what we hope and expect those who serve our country will do when called: tell the truth.”
posted by katra at 9:16 AM on February 10, 2020 [9 favorites]


Retaliating against witnesses and the whistleblower should be the basis for another article of impeachment.
posted by mrgoat at 9:46 AM on February 10, 2020 [37 favorites]


And if you were waiting for the worst possible take on all of this... it's here.

David Brooks: "Instead of spending the past 3 years on Mueller and impeachment suppose Trump opponents had spent the time on an infrastructure bill or early childhood education? More good would have been done."


I'll give Brooks credit that he isn't stupid enough not to know that any such bill would have just sat on the enormous pile that Mitch McConnell refuses to consider in the Senate, so he's just being dishonest. As usual.
posted by Gelatin at 10:36 AM on February 10, 2020 [11 favorites]


"Instead of spending the last 12 hours trying to put out the fire, imagine how much progress you could have made on the kitchen remodel? More good would have been done"
posted by BungaDunga at 11:00 AM on February 10, 2020 [25 favorites]


I can't find it now, but somewhere on Twitter someone posted all the bills that the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives HAS passed on just these topics that ARE sitting on Moscow Mitch's desk.
posted by PhineasGage at 12:46 PM on February 10, 2020 [12 favorites]


The Friday Night Massacre’s Broader Context: Trump’s Redesign for American Democracy (Joshua Geltzer and Ryan Goodman, Just Security)
It would be a dangerous mistake to miss the connection between Trump’s actions toward the Vindmans and Sondland and the president’s public rhetoric intimidating the original whistleblower and suggesting the death penalty was appropriate for other officials who provided information to the whistleblower and to the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community. The president’s real message was not just about them for what they had done. It was about other truth-tellers who might come forward on Ukraine or other abuses of power in future. [...]

What shoe might drop next? Trump is reportedly considering, in consultation with his advisors, firing the intelligence community’s inspector general, Michael Atkinson—another official installed in his current role by Trump himself. Atkinson, very much to his credit, battled others within the executive branch to ensure that the whistleblower complaint that began to unravel Trump’s extortion of Ukraine reached congressional overseers in both the House and Senate, where it belonged. Simply put, he did his job—in the words of Acting Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire when testifying before Congress, “I have no reason to doubt that Michael Atkinson did anything but his job”—and, yet again, that’s exactly why Trump now might fire him. The job of an inspector general and of other internal watchdogs—including ethics attorneys and, in a broader sense, lawyers in general—is to keep the government within the rule of law. As Trump’s former head of the Office of Government Ethics, Walter Shaub, warned, “Firing an Inspector General for processing a whistleblower complaint would be an extraordinary blow to whatever shred of government integrity remains. It would be an atom bomb.”

If Trump can intimidate the truth-speakers and remove the watchdogs, then he can utilize the instruments of national power he’s increasingly appropriating for himself with virtual impunity. That suits his fundamental vision of governance, and it does so even if a rumored firing never in fact comes to pass: the news reports anticipating it can be enough to spread the intimidation and fear Trump intends to stoke. As Trump said in an interview with Bob Woodward, “Real power is—I don’t even want to use the word—fear,” the basis for Woodward’s book by that title.

[...] Resisting Trump’s threat to American democracy begins with clear-eyed recognition of what designs he has on political power. It also should be a wakeup call to those who have become witting and unwitting accomplices in that transformation.
posted by katra at 12:46 PM on February 10, 2020 [14 favorites]


Re qanon drinking bleach. I, personally, will crowdfund buying bleach for the white house. As someone trained in ethics, I feel like I should warn everyone that drinking bleach is a very bad, terrible, this will kill you, don't do it, idea.

On the other hand, we don't know how it affects lizard people, brainworms, or demonic possession, so I think the White House should dive into this conspiracy like they've dived in to the rest? I mean, what could go wrong?
posted by SecretAgentSockpuppet at 12:49 PM on February 10, 2020 [5 favorites]


The Friday Night Massacre’s Broader Context: Trump’s Redesign for American Democracy

I think it's a mistake to call it Trump's redesign. Find the real agents and architects and bring them into the light.
posted by rhizome at 12:56 PM on February 10, 2020 [13 favorites]


Find the real agents and architects and bring them into the light.

So who gets to exhume Reagan's body and make sure that the wooden stake is still in it?
posted by delfin at 2:02 PM on February 10, 2020 [7 favorites]


CPAC chairman says he would fear for Mitt Romney’s ‘physical safety’ at conference (WaPo)
Matt Schlapp, chairman of the Conservative Political Action Conference, made the controversial comments Sunday as he explained why Romney would be excluded from this year’s four-day event. Schlapp announced last month via tweet that the senator was “formally NOT invited,” as Romney took heat for breaking from staunch Republican support of the president to call for witnesses in Trump’s impeachment trial.

“We won’t credential him as a conservative,” Schlapp told Greta Van Susteren on “Full Court Press.” “I suppose if he wants to come as a nonconservative and debate an issue with us, maybe in the future we would have him come.”

He added: “This year, I would actually be afraid for his physical safety, people are so mad at him.”

The suggestion of potential violence stuck out even in an onslaught of criticism of Romney, drawing some rebukes.

“Closer and closer to saying the quiet part loud,” tweeted Rick Wilson, a prominent “Never Trump” Republican and media consultant.
posted by katra at 2:04 PM on February 10, 2020 [8 favorites]


So who gets to exhume Reagan's body and make sure that the wooden stake is still in it?

He shares blame, of course. I can't say if initiating a bad thing is worse than calling it a good idea and "let's keep doing that," but they're pretty close.
posted by rhizome at 2:13 PM on February 10, 2020 [1 favorite]


He added: “This year, I would actually be afraid for his physical safety, people are so mad at him.”

Can we both-sides Republican issues, too? Who of us can say that the danger of Romney appearing is worse than the risk to his political prospects if he doesn't? I can't wait to see what Chuck Todd has to say about this difficult decision.
posted by rhizome at 2:15 PM on February 10, 2020 [2 favorites]


Trump world’s latest attack on Romney: Tie him to Burisma (Politico)
Regardless of where the corkboard-and-pins theory flourished best, it still got in the president’s purview, and now it’s an attack that’s powerful simply because it exists.

“”You’re watching the conspiracy laundromat in action,” said GOP consultant and Trump critic Rick Wilson. “What they do is that they punch [a theory] out to [hypothetical] Twitter user @MagaKing907525462, and then it’ll get retweeted by some dipshit like Dan Bongino or John Cardillo, and then it’ll get picked up by Breitbart, and then the Federalist will pick up on it and then from the Federalist it’ll go to Fox. And then lather, rinse, repeat.”
posted by katra at 3:56 PM on February 10, 2020 [8 favorites]


[...] “He wrote a big check to the inauguration but wasn’t really there before the president improbably, unsurprisingly, won, for people like that,” Conway said of Sondland

I wish Trump's supporters understood that they cannot enjoy real security under a totalitarian regime. They might be privileged against some other groups, but for a totalitarian regime to maintain control it is fundamentally necessary for everyone to be insecure. Look at North Korea, look at the former USSR, look at Russia today. The privileges of members of the inner circle and their families can and will be whisked away in a moment if they are seen to threaten the absolute power of the State, or even if they cease to be useful. If there are no reasons to punish anyone then reasons must be created, because eager compliance with the wishes of the State can only be maintained by constant terror.
posted by Joe in Australia at 3:59 PM on February 10, 2020 [27 favorites]


They understand that. Bullies are always afraid, anyway. In a way, fear is the only thing they really understand.
posted by snuffleupagus at 5:25 PM on February 10, 2020 [4 favorites]


This is quite extraordinary and troubling. I think Australia's ambassador to the USA, Joe Hockey, is implying that the Trump regime has been threatening Australia over its cooperation with the FBI and CIA:
Downer revelations could have put Five Eyes alliance at risk
[...] As Australia's ambassador to the US, Mr Hockey was key in calming tensions within the Trump administration when Mr Downer's unwitting role in sparking the FBI probe came to light in late 2017.

Mr Hockey, who was known to be close to US President Donald Trump, said the importance of the Five Eyes partnership could not be understated.

"I can't tell you how important the Five Eyes partnership is for us. US intelligence has been instrumental in thwarting nine of the 13 disrupted terrorist attacks in Australia," he said.

"Our role in Five Eyes is more valuable than ever because of the increasing importance of the Indo-Pacific. We are not under threat in Five Eyes, but we could have been."

Asked how Australia's role in the intelligence sharing alliance could have been under threat in the past, Mr Hockey said: "Australia was under pressure on Five Eyes because of the whole Downer issue."

"The FBI and CIA were under profound attack and the Downer issue could have gone really badly for us... I don't want to say anything more about that." [...]
More impeachment, please.
posted by Joe in Australia at 5:43 PM on February 10, 2020 [9 favorites]


“”You’re watching the conspiracy laundromat in action,” said GOP consultant and Trump critic Rick Wilson. “What they do is that they punch [a theory] out to [hypothetical] Twitter user @MagaKing907525462, and then it’ll get retweeted by some dipshit like Dan Bongino or John Cardillo, and then it’ll get picked up by Breitbart, and then the Federalist will pick up on it and then from the Federalist it’ll go to Fox. And then lather, rinse, repeat.”

The liberal blogosphere used to call that process -- which involved conservative bloggers to Drudge before the days of Twitter -- the "puke funnel."
posted by Gelatin at 6:20 PM on February 10, 2020 [17 favorites]


Speaking of what seems like an impeachable offense to me; AP's Jill Colvin and Jonathan Lemire
are reporting: "Advisers hoped that Secret Service moves in Manchester to secure the area for president would make it harder for Democratic candidates and their supporters to transverse the state’s largest city in the hours before the primary’s first votes are cast"

In other words, the President is deliberately trying to interfere directly with voters.
posted by SecretAgentSockpuppet at 6:21 PM on February 10, 2020 [28 favorites]


Even after all of the torrents of bullshit, I am still capable of being surprised by how dumb and petty Trump and his crew are. Trying to mess with a primary by creating a traffic jam is the kind of sounds-clever-until-you-think-about-it nonsense you see the overly caricatured villain pull in some kind of kid's movie drama. It's just so pathetic on so many levels that it's hard to grapple with it.
posted by feloniousmonk at 6:49 PM on February 10, 2020 [7 favorites]


In other words, the President is deliberately trying to interfere directly with voters.

It's in the public interest, though.
posted by Rykey at 6:56 PM on February 10, 2020 [9 favorites]


katra: "“What they do is that they punch [a theory] out to [hypothetical] Twitter user @MagaKing907525462"

This is weirdly specific.
posted by Riki tiki at 7:15 PM on February 10, 2020 [2 favorites]


Prosecutors seek 7 to 9 years in prison for Roger Stone (Politico)
Following a weeklong trial last November, a Washington jury took found Stone guilty on all seven felony counts he faced: five of making false statements to Congress, one of obstruction of Congress, and one of witness tampering with both the House Intelligence Committee inquiry and special counsel Robert Mueller's probe.

In a sentencing filing Monday, prosecutors from the U.S. Attorney's Office in Washington argued that Stone's conduct was exceptionally sinister because of the importance of those investigations and the danger of overseas influence on U.S. elections. "Foreign election interference is the 'most deadly adversar[y] of republican government,'” prosecutors from the U.S. Attorney's Office in Washington wrote, quoting Alexander Hamilton's Federalist Paper No. 68. "Investigations into election interference concern our national security, the integrity of our democratic processes, and the enforcement of our nation’s criminal laws. These are issues of paramount concern to every citizen of the United States. Obstructing such critical investigations thus strikes at the very heart of our American democracy."

The argument was strikingly similar — in some cases borrowing from the exact passages from the same Constitution-era text — as that lodged by the House's prosecutors during Trump's impeachment trial. "Alexander Hamilton cautioned that the 'most deadly adversaries of republican government may come 'chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils,'" the House members argued in their trial brief. [...] DOJ's mirroring of the argument Democrats used regarding election interference is another example in which the Trump Justice Department at times appeared to champion different positions than [Trump's] trial team. [...]

While prosecutors tied the gravity of Stone's crimes to their impact on the electoral system, the bulk of the prison time authorities are calling for is a product of the prosecution's decision to treat hostile and vulgar messages Stone sent to longtime associate Randy Credico as genuine threats of violence, or at least as having the potential to stir up violence against Credico or others. [...] "It is the threat itself, not the likelihood of carrying out the threat, that triggers the enhancement," prosecutors wrote. "Endeavoring to tamper with a witness can involve a wide range of conduct. This enhancement recognizes that when the conduct involves threats of injury or property damage, rather than simple persuasion for example, the base offense level does not accurately capture the seriousness of the crime. To apply the enhancement, there is no 'additional ‘seriousness’ requirement beyond the fact of a violent threat.'"
posted by katra at 7:57 PM on February 10, 2020 [20 favorites]


The folly of writing that Trump ‘hits back’ (Dan Froomkin, Press Watch)

Looks at the extremes of coverage of the dismissal of the Vindmans and Sondland between the Washington Post (vengeance) and the NY Times (boxing/equals).

Highlights the perspective of Just Security (above).
posted by ZeusHumms at 6:38 AM on February 11, 2020 [13 favorites]


The folly of writing that Trump ‘hits back’ (Dan Froomkin, Press Watch)

Similarly, the so-called "liberal media" keeps reinforcing the frame that Trump is strong when it characterizes Trump's Twitter rants as "attacks" ("Trump attacks Pelosi over impeachment" or somesuch). Badmouthing someone behind their back, or in a forum where they can't answer, isn't a sign of strength; it's one of weakness (for example, one of the things that made Joseph Nye Welch's "Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last?" at the Army-McCarthy hearings so powerful was that he said it to McCarthy's face).

The news media wouldn't characterize Trump's tweets as "whines" or "gripes" because the connotation of weakness sounds like editorializing, but so do words like "slams," "bashes," and "attacks." One hopes headline writers don't use them because they're actually impressed.
posted by Gelatin at 7:00 AM on February 11, 2020 [19 favorites]


Much of what Trump says is the voice of Roy Cohn speaking from the grave.
posted by ackptui at 7:14 AM on February 11, 2020 [5 favorites]


Much of what Trump says is the voice of Roy Cohn speaking from the grave.

Which is hardly a secret, and which is all the more reason for the so-called "liberal media" to assume some competence and quit pretending Trump's "attack all the time" tactic isn't exactly that, a tactic, and probably one meant to distract from his own weaknesses. "Trump seeks to distract from $SCANDAL with baseless attacks on accusers" would be as accurate a headline.
posted by Gelatin at 8:08 AM on February 11, 2020 [11 favorites]


Trump’s latest rally stunts are designed to get you to surrender (Greg Sargent, WaPo Opinion)
In the end, many of President Trump’s ugliest degradations — the nonstop lying, the constant efforts to undermine faith in our political system, the relentless delegitimization of the opposition — often seem to converge in some sense on a single, overarching goal:

To get you to give up.

To give up on what, exactly? On the prospects for accountability for Trump, via mediating institutions such as the media, or via other branches of government, or even via the next election, and more broadly, on the very notion that our political system is capable of rendering outcomes that have not been thoroughly corrupted to their core. [...] But something else is going on here as well. By refusing to offer any recognition of wrongdoing, by shutting down all cooperation with the House, by unapologetically corrupting his own trial, Trump is in effect rendering as dead letters impeachment itself, accountability itself, and even the very idea that the amassing of such an enormously compelling fact record detailing Trump’s misconduct should have any significance at all.

You should give up.

[...] None of this is to concede magical powers to Trump. He remains vulnerable for reelection. And we don’t have to succumb to any of this. As Jurecic says, the impeachment asserted that the Constitution matters in the face of nihilism.

What’s more, the enormous fact record produced by impeachment and the special counsel’s investigation has tremendous inherent value — not just as statements in the face of such nihilism that presidential corruption, accountability and facts themselves matter, but also as road maps for further revelations. Similarly, the success of House Democrats in assembling this fact record under tremendous duress — and the parade of patriotic witnesses who smuggled out the truth at grave risk of retribution, which Trump openly advertised truth tellers will face — reminds us that public service matters, as well.

Whether by instinct or design, Trump and his propagandists plainly see their successful sowing of doubt in the integrity of our political system — their sowing of a kind of sneaking dread that Trump is successfully corrupting everything in sight — as being in some basic sense a positive for him.

But we don’t have to succumb to any of it.
posted by katra at 8:34 AM on February 11, 2020 [34 favorites]


Prosecutors seek 7 to 9 years in prison for Roger Stone

Uh oh. Trump is not pleased. A senior DOJ official said the Justice Department was “shocked” by the memo and that the recommendation was “not what had been briefed to the Department.”

“The Department finds seven to nine years extreme, excessive and grossly disproportionate to Mr. Stone’s offenses,” the DOJ source says.

Looks like Trump is ordering Bill Barr to reduce the sentence recommendation and Bill Barr is dutifully complying. DOJ is going to file a new sentencing memo reducing the penalties.

The Trump Unleashed saga continues.
posted by JackFlash at 9:33 AM on February 11, 2020 [14 favorites]


I've tuned out the rallies for so long that I was only vaguely aware that they were still going on, so I checked to see what this latest iteration has in store, and yeah. He pretty much is trying to get people to surrender to the fuhrer. I can understand that there is an audience for this, but that said, it's so extreme that I wonder if they aren't in the process of massively over playing their hand here. You can only get so far with "our trademark interpretation of the rules forced them to allow us to do whatever we want" as a defense, while being obviously incompetent and incoherent, before people start noticing. I'm not a big watcher of polls but the ones I've seen regarding the impeachment vote seem to reflect people starting to notice. Trump and everyone else are shining a very bright light on it all now during their victory laps. It plays great with their core, the aimlessly defiant lying, but it's behavior that flies in the face of so-called American values going back to colonial times. If they pull out another win, boy are we all in for it.
posted by feloniousmonk at 9:36 AM on February 11, 2020 [6 favorites]


Much of what Trump says is the voice of Roy Cohn speaking from the grave.

Or pro-wrestlers yelling before or after a match about grievances and payback with archenemies. Except that one of the wrestlers has nuclear weapons and the media broadcasts and rebroadcasts everything he spits out without much critical insight. And why would they? People tune in.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 9:37 AM on February 11, 2020 [1 favorite]


Looks like Trump is ordering Bill Barr to reduce the sentence recommendation and Bill Barr is dutifully complying. DOJ is going to file a new sentencing memo reducing the penalties.

Is the judge even obligated to take this new and obviously politically / personally / corruptly motivated new memo into consideration?
posted by Gelatin at 9:40 AM on February 11, 2020 [12 favorites]


Justice Department will cut recommended prison sentence for Roger Stone after sharp Trump criticism (CNBC)
It is highly unusual for the DOJ to reverse a sentencing recommendation after it has been made by prosecutors in a U.S. Attorney’s office that has prosecuted a defendant. [...] The Washington Post reported Monday evening that the original sentencing filing by prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney’s office “came after days of intense debate within” that office.

“Front-line prosecutors,” some of whom were previously on the team of special counsel Robert Mueller, who lodged the charges, “argued for a sentence on the higher end for Stone than some of their supervisors were comfortable with, according to two people familiar with the discussions,” The Post reported. [...]

“I think it’s unusual” that prosecutors first wanted a sentence in line with federal guidelines “and then changed their minds,” said Weinstein, who now is a defense attorney and partner in Hinshaw & Culbertson’s Miami office. [...] “I’m puzzled what it is that changed between last night and today,” Weinstein added. “The only thing I’m aware of is the president’s tweet. Circumstantially, that sure looks like what’s driving this.”
posted by katra at 9:47 AM on February 11, 2020 [11 favorites]


My impression is that Barr (or whoever's idea this was) knows how corrupt this looks but is trying to give Trump a "win" before he decides to give Stone an immediate pardon, which would look even more corrupt and also be much more damaging to the campaign.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 9:55 AM on February 11, 2020 [3 favorites]


Russians Think Triumphant Trump Is More Their Man Than Ever (Julia Davis, Daily Beast)
'Russian commentators note that in Trump’s “mythologized world, he is now a superhero,” and they see him as even easier prey than before.'

Russian state media have welcomed enthusiastically the recent U.S. Senate acquittal of President Donald J. Trump. Having predicted this outcome for his impeachment trial, Russian experts and state-media pundits are anticipating beneficial side effects for the Kremlin as Trump is more Trump—and more Russia’s Trump—than ever.

[…] Russian President Vladimir Putin’s recent invitation to Trump to attend Victory Day festivities in Moscow this spring is designed to bring the U.S. president ever deeper into the Kremlin fold. Appearing on Sunday Evening With Vladimir Soloviev, politician Sergey Stankevich asserted, “Donald Trump has to come to Moscow in May, no doubt about it. He is obligated to be here.”

[…] On another gleeful note, political scientist Dmitry Evstafiev argued that “Trump might start to engage in McCarthyism, which will be the first step in the self-destruction of the American system.” He predicted the disintegration of existing political institutions in the United States, prompted by Trump’s outright rejection of bipartisanship, which will be replaced by the authoritarian system he is striving to create.

[…] Pulitzer Prize-winning historian Anne Applebaum remarked last week after a visit to Venezuela, “I observed, from Caracas, the finale of the impeachment trial, Romney’s last stand, the firing of civil servants. All around me, people nodded wearily: Yes, they said, we’ve seen this before… Venezuela is not the U.S., Trump is not a Bolivarian socialist like [the late Hugo] Chavez, of course everything is different,” she said. “But it is amazing how familiar Trump’s behavior seemed to people who had lived through the decline of their own democracy.”
posted by ZeusHumms at 9:57 AM on February 11, 2020 [24 favorites]




My impression is that Barr (or whoever's idea this was) knows how corrupt this looks but is trying to give Trump a "win" before he decides to give Stone an immediate pardon, which would look even more corrupt and also be much more damaging to the campaign.

I normally disparage the lazy media's reliance on stale narratives ("Dems in Disarray," anyone?), but "Trump Administration does something obviously corrupt to prevent him from doing something even more obviously corrupt" is a trending story I can get behind.
posted by Gelatin at 10:27 AM on February 11, 2020 [4 favorites]


Collins was right about Trump learning his lesson, which is that Republicans are above the law. If we don't get these guys out of office at the end of the year, we're in a world of trouble.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 11:39 AM on February 11, 2020 [10 favorites]


Is the judge even obligated to take this new and obviously politically / personally / corruptly motivated new memo into consideration?

Consider it, yes, abide by it, no.

People convicted of crimes in federal court are sentenced by judges who use federal sentencing guidelines, basically a formula that takes into account a number of factors, including the nature of the crime(s) in question, past convictions and whether the defendant has accepted guilt. This then results in a sentencing range, and it's up to the judge to decide the specific sentence based on that.

Before sentencing, both sides usually submit a sentencing memorandum - typically prosecutors will ask the judge to go towards the higher end of the scale, defense attorneys will explain why the judge should take mitigating factors into account. But again, it's up to the judge to decide on a final sentence (Note: I am not a lawyer, but I'm a reporter who's been covering federal criminal cases for years, granted, never involving circumstances like here).
posted by adamg at 12:31 PM on February 11, 2020 [15 favorites]


Prosecutor withdraws from Roger Stone case (The Hill, Feb. 12, 2020) A Department of Justice (DOJ) prosecutor who asked a judge to sentence Roger Stone to between seven to nine years in prison has withdrawn from the former Trump aide's case after reports that officials would seek to reduce the sentencing recommendation.

The withdrawal by prosecutor Aaron Zelinsky on Tuesday came after the initial sentencing guidance was sharply criticized by President Trump, raising questions about potential political interference in the sentencing of Stone. Stone was found guilty of lying to Congress and witness tampering.

posted by Iris Gambol at 12:38 PM on February 11, 2020 [12 favorites]


Prosecutor withdraws fired by Bill Barr from Roger Stone case
posted by JackFlash at 12:45 PM on February 11, 2020 [4 favorites]


Prosecutor withdraws fired by Bill Barr from Roger Stone case

But either way, the fact that there are obvious shenanigans going on could, one would hope, make it all the harder for a judge to be seen as going along with the fix. Even if the prosecutor withdrew in protest, it's a signal that they don't agree with what the boss wants.
posted by Gelatin at 12:53 PM on February 11, 2020 [3 favorites]


Sherman, fire up the WABAC
"Feb 19, 2019 - Stone posted an inflammatory photo of Judge Amy Berman Jackson on social media"
I don't think this is going to affect the Judge's sentencing decision very much.
posted by mikelieman at 1:06 PM on February 11, 2020 [3 favorites]


I don't think this is going to affect the Judge's sentencing decision very much.

Bill Barr is setting this up so Trump can't fail. If the judge hands out a sentence longer than the new DOJ recommendation, Trump can just bellow about unfair Obama judges and necessity of fixing it with a pardon.
posted by JackFlash at 1:26 PM on February 11, 2020 [2 favorites]


He's going to pardon Stone no matter what the judge does. Susan Collins will be concerned.
posted by SecretAgentSockpuppet at 1:30 PM on February 11, 2020 [6 favorites]


You cant fire me, i quit, AUSA edition:

Two federal prosecutors who brought down longtime Trump adviser Roger Stone resigned their posts Tuesday amid reports that the government is revising a sentencing recommendation that the president called a “miscarriage of justice.”

Aaron Zelinsky, once an attorney on former special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigative team, notified the court that he has withdrawn from the Stone case and resigned effective immediately as an assistant U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia. Fellow prosecutor Jonathan Kravis notified the court less than an hour later that he too would be stepping down.


source

posted by Exceptional_Hubris at 1:40 PM on February 11, 2020 [9 favorites]


Various news sources are now reporting that, in addition to the two prosecutors mentioned above, a third AUSA who had signed yesterday's Stone sentencing memo, Adam Jed, has also withdrawn from the case, leaving only one DOJ signatory.

Tuesday Takedown is 2020's saturday night masacre?
posted by Exceptional_Hubris at 1:51 PM on February 11, 2020 [6 favorites]


Best Stone can hope for is commutation of any sentence. A pardon would mean he isn’t protected by the 5th amendment and can be forced by congress to testify about what he did in 2016. Of course, when he refuses to testify haul him to court on contempt of Congress and when Barr refuses to prosecute, impeach him.

I’m of the opinion the House should impeach everyone in the cabinet who stonewalls them and force every single one of Trump’s minions to publicly defend their toadying. Get the Senate on record as refusing to do their jobs, too.

In my head, I see a commercial where you have pictures of Papadopoulos, Manafort, Cohen, Gates, and Flynn overlaid with the crimes they were convicted of and then a voice over of Trump speeches “only the best people” “drain the swamp”, etc.
posted by Big Al 8000 at 1:53 PM on February 11, 2020 [12 favorites]


How does one resign effective immediately as an assistant US attorney for DC but stay on in Baltimore? Very curious.
posted by Big Al 8000 at 1:57 PM on February 11, 2020 [1 favorite]


The end result will be a Justice Department recommendation of two years in prison for Mitt Romney for his lack of role in the crimes of Roger Stone.
posted by delfin at 2:07 PM on February 11, 2020 [15 favorites]


Roger Stone: prosecutors quit after DoJ signals plan to reduce sentence (Guardian)
Amid a growing outcry, senior Democrats protested against the decision and House judiciary committee chairman Jerry Nadler appeared to signal the DoJ move was worthy of investigation.

(((Rep. Nadler))) (@RepJerryNadler)

A President who intervenes in the criminal justice system to help his allies, while punishing people like Lt. Col. Vindman for telling the truth, represents a real danger and the Committee will get to the bottom of this. 2/2 February 11, 2020

And others weighed in.

Manu Raju (@mkraju)

Schumer calls for IG probe into DOJ overruling prosecutors to give Roger Stone lighter sentence. Nadler says his panel will “get to the bottom” of it. Schiff says Trump administration represents “the gravest threat” to rule of law “in a generation.” McConnell declines to comment
February 11, 2020
Prosecutors quit amid escalating Justice Dept. fight over Roger Stone’s prison term (WaPo)
David Laufman, a former Justice Department official, called it a “shocking, cram-down political intervention” in the criminal justice process. “We are now truly at a break-glass-in-case-of-fire moment for the Justice Dept.,” he wrote on Twitter.

Rep. Bill Pascrell Jr. (D-N.J.) said the move amounted to “obstruction of justice.”

“We are seeing a full-frontal assault on the rule of law in America,” Pascrell said. “Direct political interference in our justice system is a hallmark of a banana republic. Despite whatever Trump, William Barr, and their helpers think, the United States is a nation of laws and not an authoritarian’s paradise.”
posted by katra at 2:37 PM on February 11, 2020 [7 favorites]


All four US Attorneys on the Stone case have now resigned.
posted by mikelieman at 2:44 PM on February 11, 2020 [18 favorites]


The craziest part of this is that Roger Stone would absolutely thrive in prison. He'd be living his best life there with a whole squad of colorful henchmen, the kingpin of the instant ramen black market
posted by theodolite at 2:47 PM on February 11, 2020 [18 favorites]


If Barr was willing to intervene so brazenly in the Stone case, I guess it's no wonder that Rudy Giuliani remains uncharged, despite the fact that his connected-at-the-hip co-conspiring goons were both charged months ago, and there have been reports that federal authorities were investigating the former mayor since at least then. As Barr's lawlessness becomes increasingly clear, it also makes the timing of the wind-down of the Mueller probe look that much more suspicious. It's all one cover-up.
posted by scarylarry at 2:49 PM on February 11, 2020 [7 favorites]


Fortunately, the retaliation campaign passed over Lt. Col. Vindman with *checks notes* oh.

Jeff Mason, WH Correspondent, Reuters: Trump says the military should look at disciplinary action against Lt. Col. Vindman, who gave testimony in impeachment hearings about the president
posted by delfin at 2:52 PM on February 11, 2020 [6 favorites]


What I would like to see once this settles down, is the House committee on oversight announcing hearings to determine what really happened. I think this may dovetail with Mueller's Obstruction of Justice report.
posted by mikelieman at 2:52 PM on February 11, 2020 [1 favorite]


As Barr's lawlessness becomes increasingly clear, it also makes the timing of the wind-down of the Mueller probe look that much more suspicious. It's all one cover-up. [...] I think this may dovetail with Mueller's Obstruction of Justice report.

From the AP:
The evidence presented in the [Stone] trial didn’t directly address Mueller’s conclusion that there was insufficient evidence to prove a criminal conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia to tip the outcome of the 2016 presidential election in Trump’s favor. But it provided new insight into the scramble inside the Trump campaign when it was revealed in July 2016 that the anti-secrecy site WikiLeaks was in possession of more than 19,000 emails hacked from the servers of the Democratic National Committee.

Witnesses in the case testified that Trump’s campaign viewed Stone as an “access point” to WikiLeaks and tried to use him to get advance word about hacked emails damaging to Hillary Clinton.
posted by katra at 2:54 PM on February 11, 2020 [3 favorites]


All 4 prosecutors quit Roger Stone case after DOJ shifts to urge lighter sentence (Politico)
Trump expanded on his view while speaking to reporters late Tuesday afternoon, but he denied that he asked the DOJ to change the sentence recommendation. [...]

Around the same time Trump was speaking at the White House, the Justice Department submitted a revised sentencing filing that offered no specific recommendation for Stone's sentence, but said a term on the order of seven to nine years "could be considered excessive and unwarranted."

"The government respectfully submits that a sentence of incarceration far less than 87 to 108 months’ imprisonment would be reasonable under the circumstances," the prosecution's new submission said. "Ultimately, the government defers to the Court as to what specific sentence is appropriate under the facts and circumstances of this case."

Congressional Democrats erupted in outrage over the episode.

“Coupled with the president’s blatant retaliation against those who helped expose his wrongdoing, the Trump administration poses the gravest threat to the rule of law in America in a generation,” said House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer sent a letter Tuesday to DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz requesting an investigation into the reversal.
posted by katra at 3:28 PM on February 11, 2020 [6 favorites]


Exclusive: New Unredacted Emails Show How Deeply OMB Misled Congress on Ukraine (Kate Brannen, Just Security)
Similar to the unredacted emails Just Security reported on in January, these new emails shed further light on the standoff that took place between the Pentagon and OMB over Trump’s hold on Ukraine funding.

They confirm that OMB, including the general counsel’s office, was fully in the loop about the Pentagon’s concerns and took active steps to bury them. They also expose the extent to which OMB misled, and even lied to, the Government Accountability Office (GAO), a congressional investigative body, as the GAO tried to understand the circumstances surrounding the funding hold. [...]

While these emails provide new evidence about how and why the Trump administration withheld military assistance to Ukraine, the Senate never subpoenaed them or any other documents or witnesses in Trump’s impeachment trial. If it had, senators, as well as the public, could read these emails in unredacted form for themselves. The Senate acquitted the president last week.[...]

Even if the president were holding up the funding for legitimate policy reasons and not part of a corrupt scheme to tarnish his political opponent, he did not have the authority to do so. As GAO concluded, “Faithful execution of the law does not permit the President to substitute his own policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law.”

These emails reveal that DoD was worried about exactly this and that OMB didn’t want to hear it. And now, with these redactions, it doesn’t want the public to hear it either.
posted by katra at 4:02 PM on February 11, 2020 [24 favorites]


The Legal Limits on Trump’s Reprisals Against Impeachment Witnesses (Scott R. Anderson, Lawfare)
No law prohibits federal employees from testifying before Congress, at least so long as the testimony in question does not include classified or other statutorily protected information. Beginning with the 1912 Lloyd-LaFollette Act, Congress has expressly affirmed that federal employees have a “right … to furnish information to either House of Congress”—a right that has generally received bipartisan support. [...]

The executive branch, however, has long maintained that the president has the exclusive constitutional authority to “supervise and control the work of subordinate offices and employees of the Executive Branch” and to “protect national security and other privileged information”—an authority that Congress cannot interfere with through legislation like the Lloyd-LaFollette Act. [...] Consistent with this position, federal agencies generally maintain policies that prohibit employees from independently communicating with Congress. [...] Failing to follow these instructions is not a crime, but it can serve as a basis for disciplinary action. If the Trump administration were to justify its actions taken against Sondland and Alexander Vindman—the latter of whom Trump has described as “insubordinate”—it would most likely point to policies like this. (It would be harder for the administration to explain its decision to also remove Yevgeny Vindman from his position at the NSC.)

But such policies are by no means the final word on when federal employees may speak to Congress. In coordination with prior presidential administrations, Congress has also adopted a number of laws that are designed specifically to protect whistleblowers within the federal government who disclose information about possible misconduct—including those who do so to Congress. [...] Whistleblower laws and policies, however, are limited in scope. [...]

[...] aside from classified information (which is not at issue in the impeachment proceedings), the executive branch’s core objection to the broad disclosures authorized by the Lloyd-LaFollette Act was that they would interfere with the president’s authority to regulate the flow of “privileged” information in the executive branch, meaning that subject to executive privilege. So constitutional objections are likely to come down to whether the disclosures protected by the whistleblower statutes fall within the scope of executive privilege. Relevant case law, however, confirms that executive privilege is a qualified privilege that has to be weighed against other public interests, and strongly suggests that it should generally yield where “there is any reason to believe government misconduct occurred”—the same basic touchstone as the whistleblower statutes. [...] In the case of the impeachment witnesses, this means that resolving any constitutional challenge may require the courts to rule on whether the affected employees had reason to believe misconduct had occurred, putting the conduct of the president and his allies once again at the center of the inquiry. Again, this seems like an outcome Trump and his allies would be advised to avoid.

None of this is reason to understate the fear that those federal employees who participated in the House’s impeachment proceedings may be feeling, or to look past the incredible pettiness and impropriety of Trump’s reprisals. Nor are the whistleblower statutes airtight, as there are countless small ways that Trump and his allies may be able to make witnesses’ careers in government less palatable that are difficult to prove or simply do not rise to the level of punishable conduct. And Trump may well choose to push the statutes’ limits, in spite of the possible legal and political consequences. While the law can help shield civil servants from flagrant abuses, it can’t completely insulate them from a president determined to punish them. This is why testifying as part of the House impeachment inquiry was such a brave act—and why the civil servants who did so deserve to be protected.
posted by katra at 5:20 PM on February 11, 2020 [11 favorites]


Trump says the military should look at disciplinary action against Lt. Col. Vindman

McCarthy's reign of terror ended when he went after the Army, right?
posted by mabelstreet at 5:38 PM on February 11, 2020 [4 favorites]


Scoop: Trump pulls nomination for former U.S. attorney for D.C. to Treasury post (Axios)
Liu was confirmed in September 2017 to lead the largest U.S. attorney's office in the country, overseeing a number of politically charged prosecutions that included the case against Trump associates Roger Stone, Michael Flynn, Paul Manafort and other spinoffs from the Mueller investigation. [...] This was "the president's call," according to a former administration official familiar with the situation. The decision, which was made today, has administration officials questioning the circumstances that led to Trump changing his mind — with the developments in the Roger Stone case today being the only new information they are aware of.
And from Politico:
At the time of the [Stone] trial, the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia was Jessie Liu, but she was replaced in that post last month on an interim basis by a former top aide to Attorney General Bill Barr, Tim Shea. Shea‘s name appeared on Monday's filing, although such filings are typically prepared by the line prosecutors on the case.

Liu also appeared to become a casualty of the latest developments in the Stone case, as the White House abruptly withdrew her nomination as the Treasury Department‘s undersecretary for terrorism and financial crimes, according to a person familiar with the situation. [...]

Even before the new and extraordinary events in the Stone case, Liu was virtually certain to face questions at the hearing about her office‘s handling of various politically sensitive cases and investigations, including those of Stone, former national security adviser Michael Flynn and former the former deputy FBI director Andrew McCabe.
posted by katra at 5:48 PM on February 11, 2020 [14 favorites]


I wrote to my useless Blue Dog rep and my two awesome Senators and asked them to impeach again based on the last week's behaviors. I also encouraged them to impeach Barr. Fingers crossed.
posted by Joey Michaels at 5:53 PM on February 11, 2020 [12 favorites]


Katra, without you (and this thread), I would be significantly poorer in data and information. Thanks.
posted by SecretAgentSockpuppet at 7:25 PM on February 11, 2020 [27 favorites]


With impeachment in rear view, Pelosi looks to next attack on Trump (Politico)
In a series of private meetings this week, Pelosi has all but explicitly told her members that with the election just nine months away, it’s time for Democrats to shift the spotlight away from the Ukraine scandal and other controversies ensnaring Trump. [...] A series of ongoing court cases, though, could renew the push among some Democrats to investigate Trump, including the bid to interview former White House counsel Don McGahn.

[...] The pressure for Democrats to get the message right on the economy comes as Trump enters the throes of his reelection campaign with the highest approval ratings at any time of his presidency. His approval rating now stands at 49 percent, leaving him virtually unshaken by an election scandal that would likely sink any other president. [...] Some of the party’s worst fears were realized in a recent ABC/Washington Post poll that showed nearly 6 in 10 people approve of Trump’s handling of the economy, another career high.

[...] Pelosi indicated last week she has no desire to summon Bolton and would rather see the current court cases play out first — a sentiment she reiterated in a private meeting Monday. But details of the Ukraine scandal have continued to surface since Trump’s Senate trial ended, including the Justice Department’s decision this week to review information from Rudy Giuliani on Biden.
Trump’s War Against ‘the Deep State’ Enters a New Stage (NYT)
More axes are sure to fall. A senior Pentagon official appears in danger of losing her nomination to a top Defense Department post after questioning the president’s suspension of aid to Ukraine. Likewise, a prosecutor involved in Mr. Stone’s case may lose a nomination to a senior Treasury Department position. A key National Security Council official is said by colleagues to face dismissal. And the last of dozens of career officials being transferred out of the White House may be gone by the end of the week.

[...] The administration plans to withdraw the nomination for Pentagon comptroller of Elaine McCusker, a Defense Department official who questioned the aid freeze, The New York Post reported. While the Senate has not been notified of such a move, an administration official said it was likely to happen after budget hearings this week.
Trump escalates campaign of retribution as Republican senators shrug (WaPo)
Republicans who control the Senate resigned themselves this week to the reality that they are unable to check or even influence Trump, even as some GOP strategists are warning that the president’s actions threaten the party’s Senate majority by complicating the home-state politics for a quintet of endangered incumbents.
posted by katra at 7:26 PM on February 11, 2020 [7 favorites]


Mabelstreet; re McCarthy and the Army hearings: (notice Roy Cohn there?) What really killed McCarthy is that the hearings were televised, and television was pretty new at the time, so everyone who could watch it, watched it. And they realized, as they watched, what a petty, cruel, mean bully McCarthy was, and they didn't like it. It led to him being censured by the Senate, and his name reduced to a slur.

It was Army lawyer Joseph Welch who said the line "Have you no sense of decency, sir?" to McCarthy , which is one of the most effective lines ever uttered on the television.
posted by SecretAgentSockpuppet at 7:33 PM on February 11, 2020 [11 favorites]


Whereas Trump is visible all the fucking time, and it doesn't bother his base. "Decency is SJW bullshit!"
posted by Johnny Wallflower at 7:48 PM on February 11, 2020 [15 favorites]


I know we aren't doing catchall threads anymore, but I did want to share this. I use an RSS to email service. It puts ads in the messages. They're annoying but mostly harmless. Lately, the messages have displayed pro-Trump ads. Today, I had enough of those. I wrote to the service, explained that partisan ads weren't suitable to the type of service the company provides. I got a nearly immediate response thanking me and agreeing with me that those ads were inappropriate, and something would be done about it. I feel good about doing my tiny part to push back.
posted by sardonyx at 8:07 PM on February 11, 2020 [28 favorites]


Court rejects lawsuit over Trump’s recordkeeping (Politico, Feb. 10, 2020) A judge has dismissed a lawsuit complaining that President Donald Trump and his aides are failing to maintain legally required records of his meetings with foreign leaders.

U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson said legal precedents don't permit her to police the White House's enforcement of the laws that govern the handling of executive branch records: the Presidential Records Act and the Federal Records Act.


Jackson is the same judge who keeps catching all the Mueller Report fallout, incl. the current R. Stone case. ("Judge Amy Berman Jackson's Had a Front Row Seat for Mueller Cases," Law.com, 12/17/19)
posted by Iris Gambol at 9:44 PM on February 11, 2020 [1 favorite]


U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson said legal precedents don't permit her to police the White House's enforcement of the laws that govern the handling of executive branch records

Not being a lawperson, I don't know if this is valid or not, but... what would permit a federal judge to decide on the enforcement of critical laws like these? Or who could decide on these cases, if federal judges apparently can't?
posted by Rykey at 4:09 AM on February 12, 2020 [4 favorites]


So as not to abuse Edit: To put it another way, if precedent is the issue, how do we ever address something as important as government recordkeeping, if federal courts can't? The Supreme Court?

Also, if the thing I'm bashing against my desk has turned into a lifeless, jelly-filled pulp, am I still technically headdesking?
posted by Rykey at 4:16 AM on February 12, 2020 [4 favorites]


if precedent is the issue, how do we ever address something as important as government recordkeeping, if federal courts can't? The Supreme Court?

I'm going to have to read the opinion before I'm ready to comment.


CITIZENS FOR                  ) 
RESPONSIBILITY AND            ) 
ETHICS IN WASHINGTON, et al., ) 
                              ) 
    Plaintiffs,               ) 
                              ) 
    v.                        ) Civil Action No. 19-1333 (ABJ) 
                              )  
DONALD J. TRUMP, et al.,      ) 
                              )   
    Defendants.               ) 
______________________________)

                     MEMORANDUM OPINION 

posted by mikelieman at 4:28 AM on February 12, 2020 [8 favorites]


Ok. It appears that the Presidential Records Act ( 44 U.S.C. § 2201 et seq.) is broken because as a footnote referring to Armstrong I states:

3 The Court chose not to second-guess the judgment made by the legislature, id.at 291, when it “presumably relied on the fact that subsequent Presidents would honor their statutory obligations to keep a complete record of their administrations.” Id. at 290.

And has we know, Trump doesn't honor his obligations.

Make sure everyone you know is registered to vote, and gets to the polls on election day.
posted by mikelieman at 4:43 AM on February 12, 2020 [10 favorites]


A thread from Luppe B. Luppen, aka @nycsouthpaw on Twitter that really nails the current crisis:
This might be obvious but it bears repeating. The Roger Stone case and the Michael Flynn case originated in the Special Counsel’s Office, under regulations designed to make it difficult for political appointees—who might favor the politician who appointed them—to interfere.

Barr’s manifest interference in these cases—which the President who appointed him is celebrating this morning—was facilitated by the sudden shuttering of the special counsel’s office shortly after his confirmation and the transfer of its ongoing matters to US Attorneys’ offices.

Those transfers meant, for the Flynn and Stone cases, the DC US Attorney Jessie Liu stood in the shoes of Robert Mueller.

In recent days, Trump replaced Liu with one of Barr’s lackeys, initially promising her a Treasury job, and then unceremoniously dumping her.

Mueller documented all the ways Trump tried to fire him and damage his prosecutions when he was still on the job, and the WH aides that stood up to him.

Mueller’s successor actually was fired here, Mueller’s cases were damaged, and all the line prosecutors could do is resign.

Had Trump and his goons forced out Mueller and scuttled his prosecutions, it would’ve been a top level crisis. The same should be true for the people finishing his work.

It’s also a reminder that we never learned why Mueller closed his office so suddenly with so much left to do.

I think, in any congressional hearings that result from this, that has to be a key question now. Mueller and his people should come back to the Hill without a bunch of absurd prenegotiated restrictions and be candid about what happened to them under Whitaker and Barr.
If you missed the celebratory Trump tweet, which I'm not going to link to, it read:
Congratulations to Attorney General Bill Barr for taking charge of a case that was totally out of control and perhaps should not have even been brought. Evidence now clearly shows that the Mueller Scam was improperly brought & tainted. Even Bob Mueller lied to Congress!
He's actively crowing about the complete lawlessness of his new fixer, AG Barr.

Barr needs to be impeached. Yesterday.
posted by bcd at 5:56 AM on February 12, 2020 [35 favorites]


Barr needs to be impeached. Yesterday.

I agree, even if the House knows, as they surely do, that the Senate will give him a free pass. The House also needs to investigate to build up a body of evidence that can, if an when a law-abiding administration takes over from Trump, put Barr behind bars -- much as Nixon's crooked Attorney General, John Mitchell, was.

Also, every reporter or pundit who suggested, or pretended to believe, that Barr's nomination represented an honorable member of the establishment perhaps acting as a check on Trump's power, instead of an obviously authoritarian fixer when Barr had auditioned for the post with an obviously authoritarian op-ed needs to be fired.
posted by Gelatin at 6:31 AM on February 12, 2020 [27 favorites]


Bill Barr follows orders — and turns the Justice Department into Trump's protection racket (Heather Digby Parton, Salon)
'As all four prosecutors quit Roger Stone case, Trump's startling vendetta against his perceived enemies ramps up'

David Laufman, the Justice Department's former counterintelligence chief, tweeted that it was "a shocking, cram-down political intervention in the criminal justice process. We are now truly at a break-glass-in-case-of-fire moment for the Justice Dept."

This was not just about sparing Trump's crony a long prison sentence. After all, Trump has the power to pardon him, and no doubt will do so when he feels the time is right. This was also retribution for the Mueller investigation, which originally uncovered the Stone evidence, and about clamping down on the U.S. attorney's office in D.C. which has prosecuted several of Trump's associates. Those would include Paul Manafort, who, like Stone, withheld evidence, refused to testify against the president and decided to face a jury — which convicted him.
posted by ZeusHumms at 7:43 AM on February 12, 2020 [5 favorites]


Trump attacks federal judge, prosecutors in Twitter tirade defending Roger Stone (WaPo)
Over the course of about two hours, Trump cranked out six blasts about the handling of Stone’s sentencing, including one that targeted U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson, who is presiding over the case.

He implied that Jackson harbored some broad bias, linking the Stone case to her role in the sentencing of his former campaign chairman Paul Manafort and her dismissal of a lawsuit against former secretary of state Hillary Clinton related to Benghazi, Libya.

“Is this the Judge that put Paul Manafort in SOLITARY CONFINEMENT, something that not even mobster Al Capone had to endure?” Trump wrote, sharing another tweet that named Jackson. “How did she treat Crooked Hillary Clinton? Just asking!” [...]

The timing of Tuesday’s online attack prompted many to accuse Trump, who has a long history of mounting public crusades against judges and courts over unfavorable rulings, of attempting to intimidate Jackson and secure a more lenient sentence for Stone. [...] Trump has repeatedly gone after judges who rule against him and questioned the judiciary’s constitutional authority. The president’s pattern of attacks have been condemned by lawyers and law professors, who have called his rants “worse than wrong” and “dangerous,”
posted by katra at 7:52 AM on February 12, 2020 [9 favorites]


"Attacks" again, I see, not "insults" or "threatens". Professional writers should consider more carefully how much language matters.
posted by Gelatin at 8:12 AM on February 12, 2020 [6 favorites]


Was Manafort actually put in solitary confinement (used as punishment), or protective custody (separation to protect against other inmates)? Yes, both involve being alone in prison, but they're very different things. Or is this just straight out of Trump's ass?
posted by Rykey at 8:13 AM on February 12, 2020


Was Manafort actually put in solitary confinement (used as punishment), or protective custody (separation to protect against other inmates)? Yes, both involve being alone in prison, but they're very different things. Or is this just straight out of Trump's ass?

via WaPo:
[...] the tweet misrepresented Jackson’s involvement in the Manafort case since the judge only sentenced Trump’s former campaign manager to 7½ years and was not responsible for the conditions of his confinement while awaiting trial.

FACTS: Yes, the judge sent Manafort to jail cuz broke the law again while out on bail. His VIP cell had a private shower and laptop. His lawyers told a separate judge that he was too far away — so that judge sent him to a new jail, where he was put in solitary for his own safety. https://t.co/rvVOqozlbA — Marshall Cohen (@MarshallCohen) February 12, 2020
posted by katra at 8:26 AM on February 12, 2020 [4 favorites]


According to Judge Berman Jackson, under Armstrong I the current doctrine is that "the Presidential Records Act is “one of the rare statutes that . . . impliedly precludes judicial review." That is to say, the law is largely toothless.

Continuing to cite to Armstrong she writes:

[Armstrong I] reviews the legislative history of the PRA and reports that the purpose of the statute was to ensure that presidential records would be preserved so that the public could have access to them after the President left office. Id. At the same time, the Court observed, Congress “sought assiduously to minimize outside interference with the day-to-day operations of the President and his closest advisors and to ensure executive branch control over presidential records during the President’s term in office.” Id. And the Court concluded that the absence of any language creating a private right of action was consistent with that aim. Id. The opinion reasoned that “permitting judicial review of the President’s compliance with the PRA would upset the intricate statutory scheme Congress carefully drafted to keep in equipoise important competing political and constitutional concerns.”

The fix, presumably, would be to amend the PRA to have a meaningful enforcement mechanism. But, that would require a Senate that would pass such a revision, and a President willing to sign it. Perhaps not unthinkable, as if the tides change such things might become trendy. Eventually, that enforcement mechanism would probably be challenged on a Constitutional basis by a later President, but it least it would exist to be challenged.
posted by snuffleupagus at 8:32 AM on February 12, 2020 [5 favorites]


So Manafort's in PC, but deserves solitary (according to prison rules, not my own ethics). Very good, totally normal.
posted by Rykey at 8:36 AM on February 12, 2020


Republicans boycott House Intel hearing (Politico)
Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee boycotted a hearing Wednesday on emerging technology and national security, calling it a "distraction" and contending that the panel should be focused on "urgent and critical concerns" like a recent watchdog report identifying errors and abuses in the FBI's domestic surveillance program.

Republicans outlined their concerns in a letter to the committee's chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), and the GOP side of the dais sat empty as the hearing began. "Given the committee's access to highly sensitive information, it is concerning that you prioritize publicity events rather than the more productive work that occurs in the committee's classified spaces," they wrote, in a missive led by ranking GOP member Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) and signed by the panel's eight other Republicans.

Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.), who chaired Wednesday's hearing, called the GOP boycott a "sad and dangerous" break from the committee's long history of compartmentalizing politically charged feuds to handle the nuts and bolts of intelligence work."

"That rubicon has been crossed," he said, calling the GOP's letter "as wrong-headed as it is mendacious."

Himes attributed the GOP gambit to bitterness over the House's impeachment effort, which the Intelligence Committee led throughout the fall. Schiff engineered a process that led to 17 top White House, State Department and Pentagon officials testifying about Trump's effort to press Ukraine to investigate his Democratic rivals. The committee's final report on the matter included phone records that indicated Nunes had been in touch with Trump associates involved in the Ukraine effort.
posted by katra at 9:16 AM on February 12, 2020 [6 favorites]


If congress doesn't like the way the executive branch is enforcing the laws that it has passed, it already has an enforcement mechanism, ITMFA.
posted by VTX at 9:20 AM on February 12, 2020 [3 favorites]


If congress doesn't like the way the executive branch is enforcing the laws that it has passed, it already has an enforcement mechanism, ITMFA.

I am planning to post an ITMFA VI: ITMF(Again) thread after this one closes, due to the ongoing investigations, new disclosures and pending court cases, as well as the new abuses of power and obstructions of justice that have been happening since the first impeachment.
posted by katra at 9:41 AM on February 12, 2020 [31 favorites]


Guardian: Stone case fallout: reaction
The alarm sounded by four prosecutors who removed themselves en masse from the Stone case has been heard throughout the network of career justice deparment officials, including a former attorney general:

Eric Holder (@EricHolder) Jonathan Kravis, Aaron Zelinsky, Adam Jed and Michael Marando — Department of Justice heroes. I support them and all of the men and women of goodwill at DOJ. Be tough. Do not compromise your values; there can be no compromise with those who act corruptly. February 12, 2020

A former justice department inspector general:

Michael R. Bromwich (@mrbromwich) Memo to all career DOJ employees

This is not what you signed up for. The four prosecutors who bailed on the Stone case have shown the way. Report all instances of improper political influence and other misdeeds to the DOJ IG, who is required to protect your identity. February 12, 2020

A former deputy attorney general:

Sally Yates (@SallyQYates) To the career men and women of DOJ, you are both the backbone and the heart of the Department. Your noble dedication to the rule of law is the foundation of our republic. https://t.co/GDW3IFBr1x February 11, 2020

Former federal prosecutors:

Harry Litman (@harrylitman) It’s 100% true. Really extreme consternation from all former DOJ’ers of every era and every party. The intensity and unanimity of the dismay is remarkable https://t.co/1zPN3rby1l February 12, 2020

Government watchdog groups:

Tamara Cofman Wittes (@tcwittes) If you were occupied watching primary returns last night, then you are waking up to a five-alarm fire in our democracy. https://t.co/qhdVw5DXNr pic.twitter.com/m2hUauqax8 February 12, 2020
posted by katra at 10:13 AM on February 12, 2020 [12 favorites]


Why Bill Barr’s DOJ replaced Catholic Charities with Hookers for Jesus WaPo Opinion piece by Dana Milbank. I just wanted to put it in here, because you couldn't make that up
posted by mumimor at 10:14 AM on February 12, 2020 [9 favorites]


Why Bill Barr’s DOJ replaced Catholic Charities with Hookers for Jesus

Your tax dollars at twerk.
posted by kirkaracha at 10:56 AM on February 12, 2020 [5 favorites]


Elizabeth Warren calls for Barr's resignation or impeachment. And rightfully so.

Recognizing this is an impeachment, not catch-all thread, I do think its relevant/worth noting that, so far, Warren is the ONLY 2020 Dem candidate who has a clear cut plan for BRINGING THESE CRIMINAL ASSHOLES TO JUSTICE.
posted by Exceptional_Hubris at 10:58 AM on February 12, 2020 [35 favorites]


Barr was lying during his confirmation hearing, and everyone knew it at the time:
- Mr. Barr pledged to allow the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, to finish his investigation and promised to withstand political pressure from President Trump or other forces, saying his age, 68, and experience freed him to act independently.

- Mr. Barr unexpectedly qualified some of his unusually expansive views of executive power. He emphasized legal limits on the presidency and law enforcement independence.
posted by PhineasGage at 10:58 AM on February 12, 2020 [13 favorites]


The Slow Firing of Robert Mueller[‘s Replacement] (emptywheel)
Immediately after his conviction, Stone spent the weekend lobbying for a pardon. His wife appeared on Tucker Carlson’s show and someone got inside White House gates to make the case.

But, as impeachment proceeded, nothing happened, as the Probation Office started collecting information to argue that Stone should go to prison for a long while. The day Democrats finished their case against Donald Trump, though, Bill Barr made his move, replacing Liu before she was confirmed, removing a very conservative Senate confirmed US Attorney to install his flunkie, Timothy Shea. But even that wasn’t enough. Prosecutors successfully convinced Shea that they should stick to the probation office guidelines recommending a stiff sentence. When Timothy Shea didn’t do what Barr expected him to, Barr intervened and very publicly ordered up the cover up he had promised.

Effectively, Bill Barr is micro-managing the DC US Attorney’s office now, overseeing the sentencing of the man who could explain just how involved Trump was in the effort to maximize the advantage Trump got from Russia’s interference in 2016, as well as all the other prosecutions that we don’t know about.

Trump has, finally, succeeded in firing the person who oversaw the investigations into his role in the Russian operation in 2016. Just as Stone was about to have reason to explain what that role was.
Lindsey Graham shuts down calls to investigate DOJ's Roger Stone reversal (Politico)
Graham, a staunch Trump ally, said Wednesday he did not intend to bring Attorney General William Barr in for testimony aside from the committee’s general oversight of the Justice Department. And while Senate Republicans broadly criticized Trump’s Twitter forays into the case, they said further investigation was not warranted — dismissing Democrats’ calls for congressional action over allegations of politically motivated favoritism. [...]

Senate Republicans said they trusted U.S. District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson, who is presiding over Stone’s case, to resolve the issue when she decides on a sentence for Stone. “I think the judge is going to take care of all of that. Nobody is going to question the judge’s decision,” said Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), a former Judiciary Committee chairman. [...]

At least one Republican, though, said it was worth talking with the four prosecutors who stepped down in order to learn more about the reversal. “I think we need to ask them and let’s find out,” said Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.).
posted by katra at 12:24 PM on February 12, 2020 [9 favorites]


The House Judiciary Committee has set a hearing with Barr for March 31. Who knows if he'll actually keep the appointment, but that's the date to circle on your calendar for the moment.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 12:53 PM on February 12, 2020 [6 favorites]


Attorney General William Barr to testify before House Judiciary Committee (Politico)
Attorney General William Barr has accepted an invitation to testify to the House Judiciary Committee next month, ending a year-long standoff that began when the panel first demanded his testimony in the aftermath of special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation.

The arrangement comes as Democrats have demanded answers about Barr's apparent intervention in the sentencing of President Donald Trump’s longtime ally Roger Stone, who was convicted last year on charges that he lied to congressional investigators and threatened a witness.

[...] Democrats have a long list of issues they're likely to press Barr on, including his involvement in decisions surrounding Trump's decision to withhold military funds from Ukraine last year, and his handling of a whistleblower complaint about the episode that DOJ determined should be withheld from Congress, overruling an intelligence community inspector general.
posted by katra at 12:56 PM on February 12, 2020 [6 favorites]


It better be under oath.
posted by Gelatin at 12:58 PM on February 12, 2020 [4 favorites]


It better be under oath.

It is illegal (although usually unpunished) to lie to congress regardless of whether or not he's been sworn in.
posted by Exceptional_Hubris at 1:02 PM on February 12, 2020 [5 favorites]


As long as the Republicans remain in power Barr is not going to be prosecuted even if he perjures himself flagrantly, which he is too smart to do.

But testifying falsely under oath is something that virtually all Americans would claim to disapprove of. Putting Barr under oath may not result in his downfall and disgrace when he inevitably abuses the truth but it will raise the political and moral cost of ignoring his misdeeds and it might motivate him to avoid jeopardizing himself on some issues by declining to answer certain questions.
posted by Nerd of the North at 1:24 PM on February 12, 2020 [9 favorites]


I do my best to avoid doomsday talk on the blue, but... We're watching the breakdown of our federal government in real time, aren't we.
posted by Rykey at 1:25 PM on February 12, 2020 [31 favorites]


The best case scenario is that Barr shows up and just dodges questions. "The president might want to claim privilege", "I'm not at liberty to discuss", "that's covered by the president's absolute immunity" etc. There is no longer any functioning enforcement mechanism by which Barr can be compelled to divulge information. The worst case is he shows up, throws two middle fingers to the sky, and testifies lies about Hunter Biden.

Bill Barr wouldn't sit down before house democrats if there was literally any danger at all to him or anyone in the administration. The fact that he's agreeing to testify means he sees only upside to the interaction.
posted by mrgoat at 1:32 PM on February 12, 2020 [6 favorites]


Guardian: "And here’s video of Trump saying he’s not ready to say he’s considering a pardon for Stone “yet”:
CSPAN (@cspan) President Trump: "The fact is Roger Stone was treated horribly…Roger Stone for doing – nobody even knows what he did."

Q:"Are you considering a pardon for Roger Stone?"

Trump: "I don't want to say that yet." pic.twitter.com/PCnqpyU8dg February 12, 2020
Guardian: "Here’s video of Donald Trump talking about what he learned from impeachment:
CSPAN (@cspan) Q: "Some Republicans have said they hoped you would learn a lesson from impeachment. What lesson did you learn from impeachment?"

President Trump: "That the democrats are crooked…that they shouldn't have brought impeachment and my poll numbers are 10 points higher." pic.twitter.com/N7ToHqdKfY February 12, 2020
Guardian: (If Trump’s poll numbers are up since impeachment the change is fractional.)
posted by katra at 1:34 PM on February 12, 2020 [7 favorites]


Senate Republicans said they trusted U.S. District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson, who is presiding over Stone’s case, to resolve the issue when she decides on a sentence for Stone. “I think the judge is going to take care of all of that. Nobody is going to question the judge’s decision,” said Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa)

Nobody? Trump is already literally attacking the judge's decisions.
posted by JackFlash at 1:57 PM on February 12, 2020 [7 favorites]


maybe it is a "nobody" akin to that in president khorosho's tweet about stone (as reported by cspan, above) -- "The fact is Roger Stone was treated horribly…Roger Stone for doing – nobody even knows what he did." -- which overlooks the jury that found the prosecution had proved beyond a reasonable doubt that stone is guilty of one count of obstruction of an official proceeding, five counts of false statements, and one count of witness tampering, plus the prosecution, court staff, and those other parties to the joint-defense-daisy-chain.
posted by 20 year lurk at 2:20 PM on February 12, 2020 [10 favorites]


It is illegal (although usually unpunished) to lie to congress regardless of whether or not he's been sworn in.

Yes, it is, but as you note, it usually is unpunished, and lying under oath can have other consequences -- like getting one disbarred, for example.

The stakes are high, and the House needs to ante up.
posted by Gelatin at 2:28 PM on February 12, 2020 [4 favorites]


We know what Roger Stone did, Mr. President. He lied in your defense. (Philip Bump, WaPo)
“Nobody even knows what he did,” Trump said of Stone’s convictions. “In fact, they said he intimidated somebody. That person said he had no idea he was going to jail for that. That person didn’t want to press charges. They put him in for nine years. It’s a disgrace.” [...]

This is disingenuous, if not dishonest. What Stone did is well documented. It was also done in service to Trump, something of which Trump is certainly aware. [...] Through his attorneys, Trump was asked by Mueller’s team whether he knew about WikiLeaks’s releases in advance. He claimed not to recall any conversations with Stone about upcoming releases.

At Stone’s trial, prosecutors made clear what they saw as Stone’s motivation for lying to Congress and, later, pressuring Credico not to testify honestly about their interactions.

“The evidence in this case will show that 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,” prosecutor Aaron Zelinsky said during his opening statement.

At the conclusion of the trial, prosecutor Jonathan Kravis echoed that sentiment.

“He knew that if the truth came out about what he was doing in 2016, it would look terrible,” he said. “Roger Stone knew that if this information came out it would look really bad for his longtime associate Donald Trump.”
posted by katra at 2:38 PM on February 12, 2020 [9 favorites]


i don't immediately find details about manafort's incarceration beyond that he is currently prisoner no. 35207-016 at FCI Loretto, but recall that he _was_ held alone in the VIP unit -- by U.S. Marshals, as "the only way to ensure his security" (manafort memorandum, p. 11 at fn.1) -- at Northern Neck Regional Jail in VA while awaiting trial. it appears he was also held in solitary -- same reason -- in NY's Metropolitan Correctional Center while awaiting arraignment there, last summer, but he was moved back to FCI Loretto in August 2019, and those charges were dismissed in December.
posted by 20 year lurk at 5:34 PM on February 12, 2020 [3 favorites]


Brian Williams was talking about Manafort's solitary tonight in the same terms as for his pretrial detention, which is solitary just like I live in solitary because I don't have any roommates in my apartment.
posted by rhizome at 9:38 PM on February 12, 2020 [6 favorites]


Could be worse; could be solitary like Epstein. I wonder how the investigation of his suicide is going by Barr?
posted by benzenedream at 9:52 PM on February 12, 2020


Barr placed that investigation on the DOJ's Inspector General's plate last August. Not that Michael E. Horowitz is doing much: Ben Sasse to DOJ Inspector General: Finish the Epstein Investigation (Press release at Sen. Sasse's own .gov page, Dec. 2, 2019) Today, U.S. Senator Ben Sasse (R-NE) and U.S. Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) led a bipartisan group of Senators on the Judiciary Committee in urging the Inspector General of the United States Department of Justice to finish his investigation into the circumstances of Jeffrey Epstein’s death.

The letter, sent by U.S. Senators Sasse, Blumenthal, Cruz, and Blackburn, follows a Judiciary Committee oversight hearing where the Director of the Bureau of Prisons refused to answer questions about Epstein.

The Senators write that “The IG’s office has an important oversight duty, and it cannot be used by others in the bureaucracy as a shield against calls for transparency. While we recognize that thorough investigations cannot be completed overnight, more than three months have passed since Epstein’s death and the initiation of your investigation.”


Full letter, at the link.
posted by Iris Gambol at 10:39 PM on February 12, 2020 [5 favorites]


Tom The Dancing Bug: Cartoon: A Calvinesque and Hobbesian look at impeachment acquittal (Ruben Bolling, Daily Kos Community)
posted by ZeusHumms at 7:48 AM on February 13, 2020 [6 favorites]


Baby boy needs his babysitter back. Former Trump aide Hicks to return to White House: administration official < Reuters
posted by Harry Caul at 8:25 AM on February 13, 2020 [4 favorites]


SOMEbody's gonna be instructed not to testify.
posted by Rykey at 8:40 AM on February 13, 2020 [2 favorites]


If they were keeping their powder dry on inherent contempt, Barr's the guy to fire at. Ask him questions, make it clear that failure to answer them or invoke a real legal principle as to why not ("maybe someone'll invoke executive privilege at some point" is not actually a legal principle) constitutes contempt of Congress, and then when he doesn't, go ahead and shove his ass into a locked room in the basement. The Capitol Police aren't answerable to the executive branch and as such are nearly uniquely empowered to hold the Attorney General against his will.
posted by jackbishop at 9:03 AM on February 13, 2020 [7 favorites]


Guardian: Pelosi says Trump's comments on Stone represent 'abuse of power'
During her weekly press conference, House speaker Nancy Pelosi said Trump’s comments on Roger Stone’s case represent an “assault on the rule of law” and an “abuse of power.”

ABC News (@ABC) Speaker Nancy Pelosi on President Trump’s comments on Roger Stone sentencing: “This is an abuse of power that the president is again trying to manipulate federal law enforcement to serve his political interests.” https://t.co/lDmNpyyCo4 pic.twitter.com/RZ5B56j8Do February 13, 2020
Ex-White House chief of staff John Kelly speaks out against Trump (Guardian)
Kelly, a retired four-star Marine Corps general, told an audience at Drew University in New Jersey on Wednesday evening that Vindman was simply following the training he’d received as a soldier when he flagged his concerns about Donald Trump’s phone conversation with Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskiy last summer.

“He did exactly what we teach them to do from cradle to grave,” Kelly said. “He went and told his boss what he just heard.” Kelly’s comments were first reported in the Atlantic. [...] He said: “We teach them, ‘Don’t follow an illegal order. And if you’re ever given one, you’ll raise it to whoever gives it to you that this is an illegal order, and then tell your boss.”
posted by katra at 9:08 AM on February 13, 2020 [18 favorites]


Yes. Barr's stated position that the executive is all-powerful is a refusal to recognize Congress as a co-equal branch of government (and this from the party that likes to claim they uniquely value the Constitution!). Let the Sergeant at Arms give him a lesson in not recognizing Congress' power.
posted by Gelatin at 9:09 AM on February 13, 2020 [7 favorites]


Congressional Subpoena Power and Executive Privilege: The Coming Showdown Between the Branches (Margaret Taylor, Lawfare, Jan. 30, 2019)
[...] Congress’s inherent contempt power, which means relying on the legislature’s own constitutional authority to detain and jail a contemnor until the individual complies with congressional demands. What does that actually look like? It’s not very pretty—which is why the inherent contempt process has not been used by either body since 1935, when a Herbert Hoover administration official was held briefly in the Willard Hotel. While there is no “Capitol Jail,” the Capitol Police do maintain a holding cell a few blocks away at the Capitol Police Department. At the current moment, the prospect of the House sending the sergeant-at-arms of the Capitol to arrest an administration official would likely not sit well with a public that does not favor physical confrontation in U.S. politics.
posted by katra at 9:20 AM on February 13, 2020 [4 favorites]


As much as I'd like to see the House put Barr in jail for inherent contempt, this is a fantasy. The Sergeant at Arms is not going to march into Barr's office with some Capitol Police (could they even get in? I'm sure the building has security) and forcibly detain the AG.

First, he could just not go. What would they do, draw down on Barr's protection detail? Second, if he did go with them, there'd be another set of police /security detail / secret service people waiting at whatever the holding location would be to let him out faster than you can say habeas corpus.

Congress has the constitutional authority to hold a person, they do not have the physical capability to do so.
posted by mrgoat at 9:34 AM on February 13, 2020 [2 favorites]


Trump's firing of Vindeman was a literal crime.
U.S. Code § 1513. Retaliating against a witness, victim, or an informant (e) Whoever knowingly, with the intent to retaliate, takes any action harmful to any person, including interference with the lawful employment or livelihood of any person, for providing to a law enforcement officer any truthful information relating to the commission or possible commission of any Federal offense, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 9:47 AM on February 13, 2020 [24 favorites]


Trump's firing of Vindeman was a literal crime.

Sorry, but the Dershowitz "he did it for the good of the country" defense trumps the U.S. Code. I know it's difficult to keep up. It's like Germany in 1939. Changes are happening fast.
posted by JackFlash at 9:52 AM on February 13, 2020 [12 favorites]


As much as I'd like to see the House put Barr in jail for inherent contempt, this is a fantasy. The Sergeant at Arms is not going to march into Barr's office with some Capitol Police (could they even get in? I'm sure the building has security) and forcibly detain the AG.

Barr is going to be in Congress testifying. It isn't a matter of sending Capitol police to his office (which I agree is a nonstarter).
posted by Gelatin at 9:53 AM on February 13, 2020


Trump's firing of Vindeman was a literal crime.

I hope the statute of limitations is at least a year.
posted by Gelatin at 9:54 AM on February 13, 2020 [1 favorite]


this from the party that likes to claim they uniquely value the Constitution

When a Democrat is president, maybe.
posted by kirkaracha at 9:57 AM on February 13, 2020 [1 favorite]


When we finally get rid of Trump, I hope there won't be any of that "look ahead" shit again. But I'm not placing any bets.
posted by mumimor at 10:00 AM on February 13, 2020 [25 favorites]


I am increasingly curious about the post-Trump era. (Setting aside for a moment the particulars on how we actually arrive there.) It seems obvious that Trump's crimes need to be prosecuted and that structural changes are necessary in order to prevent them from happening again. I can actually see a pathway to Trump being prosecuted if he loses -- if he loses, he will lose big and ugly and all those who barely tolerated him will abandon him in droves, happily hanging him out to dry in the process. At the same time, his manipulators have gotten a temporary taste of real power and so the motive to preserve access to it will factor significantly when it comes to legislative change. Hanging the blame all on one bad orange might allow real change to be avoided. In bizarre echoes of the English Civil War, we probably need to see profound changes like control over the DOJ/DOD untethering from the executive. Do we have what it takes to implement the necessary laws to avoid an increasingly extreme power see-saw that ends in dictatorship? With today's Congress the answer is obviously no. We have a lot of really important and scary elections ahead of us.
posted by feloniousmonk at 10:05 AM on February 13, 2020 [8 favorites]


When we finally get rid of Trump, I hope there won't be any of that "look ahead" shit again. But I'm not placing any bets.

Of course there will be. Between November 2020 and January 2021 that'll be David Brooks' main theme, and the even-the-liberal New York Times will give plenty of op-ed space to dishonest conservatives -- but I repeat myself -- to echo that talking point.

But Democrats everywhere do not seem to be in a forgiving mood. More, it seems to be recognized that Obama -- constrained as he may have been -- made a mistake in not coming down harder on criminal activity from before his administration. Failing to do so only encouraged the greedheads and the fascists, and they need to be stopped. Too much is at stake.
posted by Gelatin at 10:20 AM on February 13, 2020 [9 favorites]


Yeah, I mean, let's face it, the Republican Senate signed off on giving TrumpCo the United States. Now we're gonna have to fight tooth and nail to get it back from the gangsters.
posted by valkane at 10:26 AM on February 13, 2020 [12 favorites]


Roger Stone furore shows 'crisis of credibility' in US justice system, experts warn (Ed Pilkington, Guardian)
In the wake of the Watergate scandal, new rules were put in place under the title “White House contacts policy” that severely restrict any communication between the president, his team and justice officials. That wall of separation has been honored by successive Republican and Democratic administrations since 1978.

“Trump has torn down that wall,” [Chiraag Bains of Demos, who worked for four years as a DoJ prosecutor] said. “He treats the justice department’s prosecution powers as an arm of his political apparatus, to threaten perceived enemies and reward friends.” Michael Bromwich, who acted as the DoJ’s official ethics watchdog between 1994 and 1999, was so alarmed by the apparent intervention of the White House in Stone’s sentencing that he called on federal prosecutors coming under improper political pressure to report it confidentially to his successors in the inspector general’s office.

[...] In February 2017, Trump tried to cajole the then FBI director, James Comey, into ending an investigation into the former national security adviser Michael Flynn. According to NBC News, the interference in Flynn’s case continues to this day. The news outlet reported that, in an echo of the Stone affair, senior DoJ officials intervened last month to try to undercut government sentencing recommendations for Flynn and spare him any prison time for lying to the FBI.

How the current crisis plays out could boil down to what Amy Berman Jackson, the judge in the criminal case against Stone, does next. [...] At the sentencing hearing, set for 20 February, she will also be able to ask the justice department’s lawyer probing and potentially awkward questions.
Trump critics say another impeachment is not ‘off the table.’ Could it really happen? (Kansas City Star)
Once Trump spoke out, the Justice Department lowered the recommendations — and the earlier prosecutors involved quit, the Associated Press reported. That apparent intervention raised questions about how Democrats might try to constrain Trump, with CNN host Jake Tapper asking a leading House Democrat Wednesday if Congress would consider a second impeachment.

“You know, we’re not going to take our options off the table,” Rep. Eric Swalwell of California said of the prospect during the interview. “We don’t wake up in the morning wanting to impeach him — we want to work with him on prescription drugs, background checks and infrastructure. But we’re not going to let him just torch this democracy because he thinks that he’s been let off once and we’re not going to do something about it.”
posted by katra at 10:35 AM on February 13, 2020 [12 favorites]


Personally, I'd be satisfied if the so-called "liberal media" made it clear that whatever the Affordable Care Act's shortcomings, they're far more the fault of Joe Lieberman than Barack Obama.
posted by Gelatin at 12:19 PM on February 13, 2020 [17 favorites]




Barr pushes back against Trump’s criticism of Justice Dept., says tweets ‘make it impossible for me to do my job’ (Devlin Barrett and Matt Zapotosky; WaPo)
Attorney General William P. Barr pushed back hard Thursday against President Trump’s criticism of the Justice Department, saying, “I’m not going to be bullied or influenced by anybody.”

In an interview with ABC News, Barr said presidential statements and tweets “about the department, about people in the department, our men and women here, about cases pending here, and about judges before whom we have cases, make it impossible for me to do my job and to assure the courts and the prosecutors and the department that we’re doing our work with integrity.”

The attorney general’s comments are almost certain to anger the president, who has heaped criticism on some current and former Justice Department officials over prosecutions and investigations involving the president’s former associates and alleged leaking by government officials. Barr said he was prepared to accept the consequences of speaking out against the president.
posted by ZeusHumms at 1:51 PM on February 13, 2020 [5 favorites]




Barr pushes back against Trump’s criticism of Justice Dept., says tweets ‘make it impossible for me to do my job’
I think we should at least give serious consideration to the notion that Barr's biggest problems with the tweets is that it makes it hard for him to do the job he was hired to do without drawing attention to it, i.e. that from his standpoint the "problem" is that Trump is saying the quiet parts out loud.
posted by Nerd of the North at 1:58 PM on February 13, 2020 [39 favorites]


Pelosi Says Barr ‘Deeply Damaged The Rule Of Law,’ But Dismisses Impeaching Him (Kate Riga, TPM)

I'm not sure there's a right answer to that question. If you don't impeach him he skates, if you do impeach him he still skates and it underscores even further how toothless the impeachment power is in the modern political environment.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 2:06 PM on February 13, 2020 [6 favorites]


Barr pushes ba-
! Oh, please, please, please, let him have a big howling snotflinging tweetgasm and fire Barr. Pleasepleasepleasepleaseplea
posted by Don Pepino at 2:09 PM on February 13, 2020 [5 favorites]


Correct. Barr takes time to loudly complain about Trump's tweets ex post facto, because that makes Barr look like he is actually committed to his job and functioning independently of the President's whim. But look at what Barr DID, not what he says to the press after doing it. After Trump tweeted, Barr immediately did as he was directed to do. Only Stupid Godfather Trump thinks anybody is fooled by the fact that he used the public Bat Signal rather than the private Bat Phone to communicate his desires to Barr. The authors of the law disallowing the President to direct the DOJ's actions never imagined a personality like Trump. They assumed crooks, realizing their guilt, would try to hide their unlawful directions to DOJ in back rooms, not broadcast them to the universe. Stupid Godfather thinks he obeyed the letter of the law (or created sufficient cover about the matter) by broadcasting his directives to his stooge publicly on Twitter without actually picking up the phone, calling Barr, and telling him what to do privately. What are the chances Barr actually independently concluded that, yes, the sentence recommended by four US Attorneys was unjust and that recommendation must be reversed?
posted by JimInLoganSquare at 2:09 PM on February 13, 2020 [17 favorites]


To paraphrase A Few Good Men, it doesn't matter what we all know. It only matters what can be proven, in the legal sense.

Here, the problem is while this is consistent with Trump's tweeted edict, it is also consistent with the rest of Barr's subservience, and from that perspective is no less plausibly self-directed than anything else Barr does.

It's like we're getting the weird reverse-application of the rule that it's not the crime that gets you, it's the cover up. Well, what if you skip that part?
posted by snuffleupagus at 2:19 PM on February 13, 2020 [1 favorite]


Here, the problem is while this is consistent with Trump's tweeted edict, it is also consistent with the rest of Barr's subservience, and from that perspective is no less plausibly self-directed than anything else Barr does.

As a thought experiment, how many other cases had Barr personally intervened in to opine about a sentencing memo? How low would the answer to that question have to be for it to be clear and obvious what happened here?
posted by Exceptional_Hubris at 2:23 PM on February 13, 2020 [4 favorites]


Barr has been sneaky cheater AG Barr since at least 1989. I don't know why anyone is surprised by his shell games.
posted by Harry Caul at 2:35 PM on February 13, 2020 [10 favorites]


It's not One Weird Trick or especially clever or anything like that. There's no need to cover it up, given the Senate will block the intended remedies for someone like Barr, so why create new risks by communicating covertly when Barr's politics (and religion) are radical enough to explain his actions? It's more banal mirror-world absurdity.
posted by snuffleupagus at 4:43 PM on February 13, 2020 [3 favorites]


New York City Bar Association Sends Letter to Congressional Leaders and Department of Justice Inspector General Regarding the Prosecution of Roger Stone and Related Actions by the Department of Justice (NYC Bar) (pdf)
We write to express our deep concerns about the impartial administration of justice in connection with the prosecution of Roger Stone in federal court in Washington, D.C., and to call for immediate investigations by Congress and by the Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General. Recent actions by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia, a component of the United States Department of Justice, raise serious questions about whether the Department of Justice is making prosecutorial decisions based not on neutral principles but in order to protect President Trump’s supporters and friends. In our criminal justice system, a single standard must apply to all who are accused or convicted of violating the law—unequal treatment based on political influence is to be deplored in all cases but is especially dangerous if it emanates from the presidency. [...]

The City Bar has previously criticized the Attorney General for his failure to recuse himself from the Department of Justice’s review of the whistleblower complaint, in which the Attorney General was himself mentioned during the Trump-Zelensky phone call of July 25, 2019.[5] We also have also called for congressional investigation of several public pronouncements by the Attorney General that we believe were inconsistent with the independence required of his office.[6]

The present case raises more direct, and more serious, questions concerning the role of presidential influence in prosecuting individual criminal cases. All prior Presidents, at least since Watergate, made it a practice to decline to comment on ongoing cases being handled by the Department of Justice. This practice protected the criminal justice system from improper presidential influence. The new practice, in which the President makes public comments that are critical of prosecutions of his allies and in which the Department of Justice contradicts the sentencing recommendations of the prosecutors who handled the case to advance the President’s personal and political ends, cannot be tolerated. If it is tolerated, it will undermine the rule of law on which our nation was founded and on which we rely as a foundation of our democracy.

For this reason, we call for Congress and the Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General to begin immediate investigations into these unusual and troubling events. Only a thorough public investigation can lay bare the true facts relating to the Stone sentencing. Nothing is more important to safeguarding the proper functioning and reputation of our criminal justice system than its commitment—and ability—to deliver justice impartially for all. Special treatment for the President’s friends cannot be reconciled with the ideals that govern that system.
via The New York City bar goes after William Barr (Jennifer Rubin, WaPo Opinion)
posted by katra at 5:28 PM on February 13, 2020 [19 favorites]


In an interview with ABC News, Barr said presidential statements and tweets “about the department, about people in the department, our men and women here, about cases pending here, and about judges before whom we have cases, make it impossible for me to do my job and to assure the courts and the prosecutors and the department that we’re doing our work with integrity.”

You don't say.
posted by Gelatin at 6:03 PM on February 13, 2020 [4 favorites]


NY Bar bars Barr
posted by kirkaracha at 6:21 PM on February 13, 2020 [9 favorites]


It's so hard to be stealthy and undermine the law when the guy who demands it, needs to tweet to make sure that everyone knows he is the guy doing it, and makes us minions actually do it.

Poor, poor Barr. Perhaps he should resign and stuff.
posted by kiwi-epitome at 6:45 PM on February 13, 2020 [9 favorites]


Trump accused of another quid pro quo, this time with New York (politico)

"He's holding New York state hostage to try to stop investigations into his prior tax fraud," tweeted Rep. Val Demings.
posted by valkane at 6:56 PM on February 13, 2020 [8 favorites]


"He's holding New York state hostage to try to stop investigations into his prior tax fraud," tweeted Rep. Val Demings.

Great. I'm hoping he does California next. Secession 2020!
posted by Anoplura at 7:07 PM on February 13, 2020


You're a Russian California secessionist too?
posted by benzenedream at 7:59 PM on February 13, 2020 [4 favorites]


It's not One Weird Trick or especially clever or anything like that

Politicizing the DoJ was so obviously something Trump would get around to doing that it was predicted way back in May 2016: "The soft spot, the least tyrant-proof part of the government, is the U.S. Department of Justice and the larger law enforcement and regulatory apparatus of the United States government. The first reason you should fear a Donald Trump presidency is what he would do to the ordinary enforcement functions of the federal government, not the most extraordinary ones... This stuff is not hard to do, and you don't even need to win to succeed."
posted by BungaDunga at 8:00 PM on February 13, 2020 [16 favorites]


Trump contradicts past denials, admits sending Giuliani to Ukraine (CNN)
Emboldened after his impeachment acquittal, President Donald Trump now openly admits to sending his attorney Rudy Giuliani to Ukraine to find damaging information about his political opponents, even though he strongly denied it during the impeachment inquiry.

The reversal came Thursday in a podcast interview Trump did with journalist Geraldo Rivera, who asked, "Was it strange to send Rudy Giuliani to Ukraine, your personal lawyer? Are you sorry you did that?" Trump responded, "No, not at all," and praised Giuliani's role as a "crime fighter."

[...] Trump had previously denied that he sent Giuliani to Ukraine. Asked in November if he directed Giuliani to "do anything" in Ukraine, Trump said, "No, I didn't direct him," but went on to call Giuliani a "great corruption fighter." Giuliani says he's exposing legitimate corruption in Ukraine, even though his claims about former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden have been widely debunked.

In the new interview, Trump defended the decision to "use" Giuliani, even though US diplomats previously testified that Giuliani had undermined long-standing US policy toward Ukraine.

Giuliani was a central player in the scandal that got Trump impeached, though the President was acquitted by the Senate last week. Multiple witnesses described how Giuliani met with former Ukrainian officials in search of dirt against Joe and Hunter Biden. Other key players described how Giuliani and his allies pressured Ukraine to announce investigations into the Bidens.

Trump's past denials came in November, when the House of Representatives was investigating the President's conduct with Ukraine.
posted by katra at 10:16 PM on February 13, 2020 [11 favorites]


Barr pushes back against Trump’s criticism of Justice Dept., says tweets ‘make it impossible for me to do my job’ (WaPo, updated)
The flare-up over the Stone case comes against a backdrop of growing behind-the-scenes anger from the president toward the Justice Department — more about whom the department has not charged with crimes than about whom it has charged, according to people familiar with the discussions.

[...] Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz referred Comey’s handling of the memos to prosecutors for possible criminal prosecution, but lawyers quickly determined it was not a close call and did not seek to build a case. That sent Trump into a rage, according to people briefed on his comments. He complained so loudly and swore so frequently in the Oval Office that some of his aides discussed it for days, these people said. Trump repeatedly said that Comey deserved to be charged, according to their account. “Can you [expletive] believe they didn’t charge him?” Trump said on the night of the decision, these people said. Trump has also wanted charges filed against Comey’s former deputy, Andrew McCabe. A separate inspector general investigation concluded that McCabe lied to investigators about his role in authorizing disclosures for a Wall Street Journal story in October 2016 about internal FBI tensions over an investigation of the Clinton Foundation. A grand jury in Washington seemed poised to make a decision on the case last year before fizzling into inaction.

Trump’s anger over the lack of charges against FBI personnel flared again in January, prompted by two unrelated developments, according to people familiar with the matter. First, prosecutors updated their position in the case of former national security adviser Michael Flynn, saying a sentence of some prison time would be appropriate. Around the same time, The Washington Post reported that U.S. Attorney John Huber in Utah — tapped years earlier to reinvestigate several issues related to vague allegations of corruption against Hillary Clinton — had quietly wound down his work after finding nothing of consequence.

Those two developments further enraged the president, according to people familiar with the discussions. [...] In the president’s mind, it is unacceptable that people such as Comey and McCabe have not been charged, particularly if people such as Stone and Flynn are going to be treated harshly, these people said. [...]

Separately, Barr tapped U.S. Attorney John Durham in Connecticut to investigate whether any crimes were committed by FBI and CIA officials in the pursuit of allegations in 2016 that Russia interfered in the election to benefit Trump’s campaign. After learning that the Huber investigation is not likely to produce charges, Trump has become more insistent that Durham finish his work soon, according to people familiar with the discussions. Trump, these people said, wants to be able to use whatever Durham finds as a cudgel in his reelection campaign.
posted by katra at 10:45 PM on February 13, 2020 [5 favorites]


'There need to be mass protests': Authoritarianism experts say time is running out for Americans to stop Trump (John Haltiwanger, Business Insider)
"The system is enabling Trump," Jason Stanley, a Yale philosophy professor who wrote "How Fascism Works," told Insider.

"There need to be mass protests," he said. "The Republican Party is betraying democracy, and these are historical times. Someone has got to push back."

"The deeply worrying moment is when you start to become a one-party state," Stanley added. "The Republican Party has shown that it has no interest in multi-party democracy ... They are much more concerned with power, with consolidating power."

Stanley said recent actions by Republicans and Trump were "straight from the literature on authoritarianism."
Trump is considering barring all officials from listening to his phone calls with foreign leaders, which could be 'catastrophic' for national security (Sonam Sheth, Business Insider)

'He doesn't give a f---': Trump is making a fool out of every Republican senator who said he learned his lesson from impeachment (Sonam Sheth, Business Insider)
Jeffrey Cramer, a longtime former federal prosecutor who spent 12 years at the Justice Department, told Insider that Trump's latest actions showed that Republican senators "were grasping for straws to justify their decision that the case against Trump was proven but they didn't vote to convict him."

"Trump has shown them how foolish, naive, or hypocritical they were," he said. "Hardly a profile in courage."

"At least Barr is being up-front about his intent to help the president and his co-conspirators," Cramer added. "Unclear why any adult would think this president has the capacity to learn. The guy is operating a well-orchestrated crime spree while making himself money and lowering his golf score at the same time."
posted by ZeusHumms at 10:55 PM on February 13, 2020 [24 favorites]


You're a Russian California secessionist too?

I am neither Russian, nor a serious secessionist. I just don't see a way out of our current mess that doesn't involve violence. I'm not confident that a (semi) peaceful break-up of the US is possible, but it really seems like we need a bit of a serious reset. I have no faith that we'll get relief from the Judiciary, Congress, or whomever ends up replacing the Fascing Pumpkin.
posted by Anoplura at 10:57 PM on February 13, 2020


The reversal came Thursday in a podcast interview Trump did with journalist Geraldo Rivera, who asked, "Was it strange to send Rudy Giuliani to Ukraine, your personal lawyer? Are you sorry you did that?" Trump responded, "No, not at all," and praised Giuliani's role as a "crime fighter."

Normally I'd object to referring to Rivera as a "journalist," but the fact that he got Trump to agree to his statement framing the things Trump had been denying as "you regret those things you did?" -- thus triggering Trump's narcissistic impulse never to admit fault -- has me shaking my head in wonder. Rivera got Trump to forget that his story was that he never did the things that he (obviously) did.

Now that Rivera, of all people, has set this standard, other people who would consider themselves to have a more legitimate claim to the term "journalist" need to step up -- for example, asking Susan Collins every day, "Were you foolish for believing Trump learned his lesson or did you just not really care?" about a dozen times a day.
posted by Gelatin at 5:08 AM on February 14, 2020 [27 favorites]


Re the necessity of mass protest: the 2017 Women's March was the largest single-day march in American history, and it totally kicked ass in the way it was local and international at the same time, with hundreds of marches in the US and around the world. It was also a ton of work for the organizers, so I hesitate to be all "Hey, can you do that again?", but clearly the march showed us what was possible. Can we replicate that, or are critical factors too different now?
posted by Rykey at 6:41 AM on February 14, 2020 [6 favorites]


Trump bucks Barr’s request to stop tweeting about Justice Dept., declaring a ‘legal right’ to seek intervention in criminal cases (WaPo)
In his tweet, Trump quoted Barr from a television interview Thursday in which he asserted that the president had never asked him to do anything related to a criminal case.

“This doesn’t mean that I do not have, as President, the legal right to do so, I do, but I have so far chosen not to!” Trump added in his own voice.

[...] In the ABC interview, Barr said Trump would be within his rights to ask for an investigation in an area that didn’t affect his personal interest — such as in a terrorism case or fraud by a bank. But he said an attorney general would not listen to an order to investigate a political opponent.

Trump has publicly and privately raged in recent months about wanting investigations of those he sees as enemies, including former vice president Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden, former FBI director James B. Comey and former FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe.

“If he were to say go investigate somebody, and you sense it’s because they’re a political opponent, then an attorney general shouldn’t carry that out, wouldn’t carry that out,” Barr said.
posted by katra at 7:33 AM on February 14, 2020 [5 favorites]


Rykey: Can we replicate that, or are critical factors too different now?

I worry that the Trump Administration's onslaught has worn people down and thrown up so much shit that people are scrambling to deal with hundreds of different things, so there's no focal issue, beyond "Dump Trump." I'm focusing on GOTV efforts.


ZeusHumms: 'He doesn't give a f---': Trump is making a fool out of every Republican senator who said he learned his lesson from impeachment

The lesson he learned is that the GOP have his back, even when everyone says he's wrong. He's emboldened by their support, how is this a surprise to anyone? Are we supposed to feel sorry for the GOP now?

Speaking of which, Attorney General Says Trump's Tweets About DOJ Make His Job 'Impossible' (NPR, Feb. 13, 2020)

I don't even have a tiny violin for this one. Your job is impossible? Then quit, and stop supporting the tyrant (though he'll be replaced by another pro-Trump croney).

But don't worry. NPR notes that Barr's job appears safe. That's really a weight off my mind.
posted by filthy light thief at 7:42 AM on February 14, 2020 [6 favorites]


Speaking of which, Attorney General Says Trump's Tweets About DOJ Make His Job 'Impossible' (NPR, Feb. 13, 2020)

As noted above, Barr means his job of aiding and abetting Trump, not his job as Attorney General of ensuring impartial justice for all Americans.
posted by Gelatin at 7:49 AM on February 14, 2020 [14 favorites]


Barr’s ABC News interview is deeply damning. Here’s what must come next. (Greg Sargent, WaPo Opinion)
Barr claimed he thought this was the approach all agreed would be followed, but that the prosecutors submitted the stiffer recommendation, which “surprised” him. He claimed he then started the process to undo this — before Trump tweeted his rage at 2 a.m. the next day. Later the next morning, Barr was already preparing to implement the change when he was notified about Trump’s tweet — meaning Trump’s rage didn’t influence him. Barr claimed Trump’s tweet boxed him in — reversing the sentence would now smack of carrying out Trump’s bidding.

This account is actually very damning. The most charitable interpretation here is that Trump has openly sought to corrupt the process. By Barr’s own implicit admission, Trump’s rage could only be construed as an effort to manipulate law enforcement — after all, this is precisely what, by Barr’s account, boxed him in.

[...] What’s more, Trump has already had success corrupting the process. Barr has done Trump’s bidding on many other fronts, by misleading the public about the special counsel’s findings, working to discredit the Russia investigation and opening a special channel for information on the Bidens. Meanwhile, an alarming new Post report details that Trump regularly rages about the department’s failure to prosecute political opponents such as Hillary Clinton and former FBI director James B. Comey. Trump has now explicitly asserted the authority to directly command Barr to do this in the future. [...]

Beyond all this, Barr’s account raises many new questions. What had those prosecutors actually agreed to on Stone? Why did Barr conclude the initial sentencing was too draconian? Given his own pious concern about appearances, why did he try to reverse the prosecutors’ recommendation in a case involving Trump’s close adviser that Trump himself obsessed over for months?

All these questions open the door for Congress to hear from the prosecutors themselves. Ideally, they can tell their side of the story leading up to this fiasco, recount why they thought the stiffer sentence was appropriate and describe the degree to which Barr’s actions have politicized the internal climate. The bigger story here is this: Now that impeachment is behind us, there’s no aggressive, centralized process marshaling powerful investigative resources and commanding intense national media attention. So House Democrats will simply have to come up with a creative new war footing to cope with the emboldened and unchecked president’s lawlessness.
posted by katra at 8:15 AM on February 14, 2020 [12 favorites]


I am so not buying this Trump/Barr rift as anything but kayfabe designed to make it look like Barr is <SusanCollins>concerned</SusanCollins>.
posted by tonycpsu at 8:43 AM on February 14, 2020 [31 favorites]


simply have to come up with a creative new war footing to cope

Just keep investigating his accomplices and put them in jail, rinse, repeat.
posted by valkane at 8:44 AM on February 14, 2020 [2 favorites]


William Barr’s interview: McConnell, top Republicans support him. Critics are suspicious (Fred Barbash and Allyson Chiu, WaPo, reprint)
“The attorney general says it’s getting in the way of doing his job,” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) told Fox News anchor Bret Baier. “Maybe the president should listen to the attorney general.“ [...]

“I have no doubt that when the president tweets, he is causing problems for the Attorney General,” Rep. Val Demings (D-Fla.), who served as a manager in Trump’s impeachment proceedings, said in a tweet late Thursday. “But he’s not making it harder for Barr to do the right thing, he’s making it harder for him to get away with doing the wrong thing.” On CNN, Demings also speculated that Barr and Trump were “in cahoots.”

[...] There were plenty of plausible and practical reasons for Barr’s comments and their timing. [...]

“Barr isn’t objecting to Trump’s political interference with the Justice Department to undermine the rule of law,” observed Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.). “He’s saying Trump shouldn’t tell everyone about it.”

Rep. David N. Cicilline (D-R.I.) pointed to Barr’s reputation as “the president’s defender.” “Basically, the attorney general was saying, ‘Look I got this. I’m executing it. I’m doing all the things you want me to do. I’m your Roy Cohn,'” Cicilline told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, referencing Trump’s late fixer and lawyer. " ‘Don’t make my job harder by tweeting about it and drawing attention to it.’ ”
posted by katra at 8:45 AM on February 14, 2020 [11 favorites]


I am so not buying this Trump/Barr rift as anything but kayfabe

Me too.
"The President wasn‘t bothered by the comments at all and he has the right, just like any other American citizen, to publicly offer his opinions," Grisham said.
That sounds just like him!
posted by kirkaracha at 8:54 AM on February 14, 2020 [7 favorites]


Attorney General William Barr to Donald Trump: Please Stop Tweeting About Us, You’re Making It Obvious (Stephen A. Crockett Jr., The Root)
On Thursday, Attorney General William Barr, aka Evil Fred Flintstone, went on a tirade about his lover/homie/friend President Donald Trump.
Good nickname.
posted by ZeusHumms at 10:07 AM on February 14, 2020 [7 favorites]


US closes case against ex-FBI boss McCabe with no charges (AP)
Federal prosecutors have declined to charge former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, closing an investigation into whether he lied to federal officials about his involvement in a news media disclosure, McCabe’s legal team said Friday.

The decision resolves a criminal investigation that spanned more than a year and began with a referral from the Justice Department’s inspector general, which said McCabe repeatedly lied about having authorized a subordinate to share information with a newspaper reporter for a 2016 article about an FBI investigation into the Clinton Foundation.

McCabe’s lawyers said in a statement they were told in a phone call and letter that the case is closed and “no charges will be brought against him based on the facts.”

McCabe, a frequent target of attacks from President Donald Trump, has denied that he intentionally misled anyone. He has said his 2018 firing — for what the Justice Department called “lack of candor” — was politically motivated. He sued the Justice Department in August, saying officials had used the inspector general’s conclusions as a pretext to rid the FBI of leaders Trump perceived as biased against him.
Guardian: "Trump had publicly called on the department to take action against McCabe, who became acting head of the agency after the president fired FBI director James Comey in 2017.
A lawyer for McCabe says that “justice has been done”.
posted by katra at 10:12 AM on February 14, 2020 [7 favorites]


Justice Department has directed outside prosecutors to review Michael T. Flynn’s case, according to people familiar with the matter

" Democratic lawmakers and legal analysts, though, remained wary of what Barr was up to, and one development Friday indicated he was far from a complete break with the president.
According to people familiar with the matter, Barr has tasked outside prosecutors — in the deputy attorney general’s office and from the U.S. Attorney’s Office in St. Louis — to review the handling of the criminal case against former Trump national security adviser Michael T. Flynn and other sensitive national security and public corruption prosecutions in the U.S. attorney’s office in Washington."
posted by Harry Caul at 12:29 PM on February 14, 2020 [3 favorites]


Feel like its important, because this year has been a long decade - and with emphasis added - to quote the paragraph after the one Harry Caul did:

"That has fueled concerns among career prosecutors and others that the department’s political leadership is making a push to exert more control at a key point in sensitive, high-profile cases. Flynn was one of the early people to plead guilty in connection with special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s probe, admitting he lied to the FBI about his contacts with the Russian ambassador to the United States, though he has since tried to withdraw his plea and allege misconduct on behalf of prosecutors."
posted by Exceptional_Hubris at 12:59 PM on February 14, 2020 [3 favorites]


Barr Installs Outside Prosecutor to Review Case Against Michael Flynn, Ex-Trump Adviser (NYT)
The review is highly unusual and could trigger more accusations of political interference by top Justice Department officials into the work of career prosecutors.

[...] Over the past two weeks, the outside prosecutors have begun grilling line prosecutors in the Washington office about various cases — some public, some not — including investigative steps, prosecutorial actions and why they took them, according to the people. They spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the sensitive internal deliberations.
Bill Barr Trying to Dig Sidney Powell out of the Hole She Dug for Mike Flynn (emptywheel)
Both NYT and NBC are reporting that Bill Barr has gotten yet another US Attorney (after he gave CT’s John Durham and WDPA’s Scott Brady similar politicized errands), St. Louis’ Jeffrey Jensen, to politicize DOJ. Jensen has been tasked — along with some of Jeffrey Rosen’s aides — to second guess the investigation of Michael Flynn and other non-public cases (though probably ones that include Jared Kushner and Paul Manafort).

[...] Back in June, it seems clear, Bill Barr told Sidney Powell it would be safe to blow up Mike Flynn’s plea deal, perhaps believing that things he saw on Fox News — including a bunch of hoaxes that Sara Carter had started, and which FBI had already investigated multiple times. Powell proceeded to make Flynn’s legal woes worse and worse and worse. Alarmingly, she had Mike Flynn submit a sworn statement that radically conflicts with other sworn statements he already made. In other words, based on Bill Barr apparent reassurances that Flynn should pursue an absolutely insane legal strategy, Flynn turned his probation sentence into additional perjury exposure.

And so now Bill Barr is sending off his minions to try to undo the damage that Flynn and Powell created for themselves by trying to suggest that multiple lies to the FBI somehow amounted to an ambush because Flynn was so sure the FBI was on his side that he lied convincingly.
posted by katra at 1:04 PM on February 14, 2020 [5 favorites]


[...] Back in June, it seems clear, Bill Barr told Sidney Powell it would be safe to blow up Mike Flynn’s plea deal, perhaps believing that things he saw on Fox News — including a bunch of hoaxes that Sara Carter had started, and which FBI had already investigated multiple times. Powell proceeded to make Flynn’s legal woes worse and worse and worse. Alarmingly, she had Mike Flynn submit a sworn statement that radically conflicts with other sworn statements he already made. In other words, based on Bill Barr apparent reassurances that Flynn should pursue an absolutely insane legal strategy, Flynn turned his probation sentence into additional perjury exposure.

Germany is horrified about how badly Austria-Hungary screwed the pooch.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 4:00 PM on February 14, 2020 [1 favorite]


Bill Barr Trying to Dig Get More DOJ Career Prosecutors to Resign in Sheer Disgust

Relatedly, Jessie Liu, ex-U.S. attorney who oversaw Roger Stone case, resigns from Trump administration (NBC News, Feb. 13, 2020) President Trump yanked Liu's nomination for a top spot at the Treasury Department earlier this week.

The former U.S. attorney whose office oversaw the Roger Stone prosecution resigned from the Trump administration Wednesday, two days after President Donald Trump abruptly withdrew her nomination for a top job at the Treasury Department.

Jessie Liu had headed the U.S. attorney's office in Washington, D.C., which oversaw several cases that originated with former special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election, including prosecutions of longtime Trump associate Stone and former national security adviser Michael Flynn. [...] On the day Liu left, the Justice Department submitted a softer sentencing recommendation for Flynn, who had pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI. The new filing said prosecutors believed probation would be an appropriate sentence for Flynn. They had previously asked that he spend up to six months behind bars.

A similar scenario played out in a more spectacular way in Stone's this case week. After prosecutors on the case recommended a 7 to 9 year sentence for Stone on Monday, the U.S. attorney's office abruptly changed course the next day, saying that amount of time would be "excessive" and that Stone should get a lesser sentence. Stone's entire prosecution team resigned from the case in protest.
posted by Iris Gambol at 4:31 PM on February 14, 2020 [1 favorite]


“This is a president declaring himself above the law” Former ethics chief Walter Shaub on why post-impeachment Trump is the most dangerous Trump (Aaron Rupar, Vox)
“What I didn’t expect is how badly the system would fail to stop him,” Walter Shaub says.

[For] Walter Shaub, who headed the Office of Government Ethics (OGE) before quitting in July 2017 over objections to Trump’s failure to divest from his businesses and other concerns, [the 2/13 tweet attempting to extort New York state] and the public’s relatively muted reaction to it marked a dangerous marker along the road to authoritarianism.
The rest is an interview transcript:
Walter Shaub: One of the things that’s so alarming about what he’s done is it’s so closely related to what he did with Ukraine, and so open, that one of the dangers is he’s sending a message to the world: ‘I not only can but will do the very thing that I was impeached for because the Senate has blessed my use of governmental authority for my personal gain.’

It doesn’t matter whether it succeeds. It matters what message it sends and what it tells us about what he’s going to do next. And I wasn’t nearly as alarmed before the media and the public failed to react to it. And frankly, the relative silence in response to this conduct, which is on par with the Ukraine conduct, is the most terrifying thing that’s happened in the three-plus years that he’s been in power. [...]

Walter Shaub: There was a really instructive interview that [MSNBC host] Nicole Wallace did with Robert Costa of the Washington Post yesterday in which he explained to her that [Trump’s] closest advisers are telling people like Costa that Trump now feels the rule of law is done, and he can do whatever he wants because the Senate will back him.

I think what this shows is two things. One, there is no limit on what he’ll do if he’s allowed to get away with it. And two, doing things like this in the open, in plain sight, is a way of testing whether the public has been properly primed for even worse coercive or corrupt acts. And so the danger these things have is they can become just a joke if the public reacts strongly, or they can become an ambiguous tweet that was misinterpreted if the public responds strongly. But if the public doesn’t respond, then the behavior escalates because these testings of the boundaries will continue until he hits a boundary that he can’t cross. And then he’ll test elsewhere — just like a hacker testing a computer system’s safety mechanisms to find a port of entry.
posted by ZeusHumms at 5:15 PM on February 14, 2020 [18 favorites]


This is a.....proto-idea, if even that.

But, if the pendulum ever swings far enough back to make a Constitutional Convention (or amendment by State ratification) a reasonable prospect, restructuring the DoJ so it isn't under the direct control of the Executive might be a decent idea.

It can't be a co-equal branch, but maybe it should be under some kind of tripartite control, where the President, Speaker of the House (because the VP is the head of the Senate) and Chief Justice share oversight.

Or the President, President Pro-Tem and Speaker, if independence of the DoJ from the judiciary is deemed more important. (In a Constitutional Convention, you're playing jazz and anything flies once approved. Enabling both ennobling majesty, and abject terror.)
posted by snuffleupagus at 6:00 PM on February 14, 2020 [2 favorites]


the Department of Justice was created by statute and signed into law in 1870, an Act to establish the Department of Justice.
the office of the Attorney General was created by statute in 1789, the Judiciary Act.

it has been organized by several executive orders over subsequent years, so i'm not saying modifying the agency and its authorities may not be fraught with constitutional issues, but it is principally a creature of the Congress.

on the other hand, article ii imposes on the office of the chief executive the duty to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed."
posted by 20 year lurk at 6:18 PM on February 14, 2020 [3 favorites]


U.S. military isn’t investigating Vindman, top Army official says (WaPo)
The top civilian official in the U.S. Army said the service isn’t investigating Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, days after President Trump told reporters that the military may look into disciplining the former National Security Council official and key impeachment inquiry witness.

Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy said Friday there is no investigation into Vindman, who had been detailed to the White House National Security Council as Ukraine director and was due to return to the Army for a new assignment when Trump dismissed him early from the post last week.

[...] McCarthy, in response to a question during an event at the National Press Club in Washington, noted that Vindman was currently in a “bridging” assignment at the Department of the Army headquarters and would be heading to a senior service college for study this summer.

“There’s no investigation,” McCarthy said.

[...] On Tuesday, when asked about Alexander Vindman’s dismissal from the White House, Trump said that “the military can handle him.” Asked what that meant, Trump replied, “If you look at what happened, they’re going to certainly, I would imagine, take a look at that.”
posted by katra at 6:48 PM on February 14, 2020 [6 favorites]


on the other hand, article ii imposes on the office of the chief executive the duty to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed."

OK, I see the confusion. You might've thought that "executed" means "to perform or accomplish something," but he thinks it means "to murder; assassinate."

As in, "I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot the rule of law and I wouldn’t lose any voters."
posted by kirkaracha at 9:05 PM on February 14, 2020 [11 favorites]


The Department of Justice was created by statute and signed into law in 1870, an Act to establish the Department of Justice. the office of the Attorney General was created by statute in 1789, the Judiciary Act.

Yep, I knew the DoJ was created by statute, though I had forgotten the AG position itself was too. Just like a lot of things that we tend to presume are Constitutional. The DoJ, in particular, seems worthy of restructuring such that it isn't effectively under the executive, in way not easily undermined by either explicitly political branch, but of course a Constitutional Convention right now would be a nightmare.
posted by snuffleupagus at 5:56 AM on February 15, 2020 [2 favorites]


As impeachment trial ended, federal prosecutors took new steps in probe related to Giuliani, according to people familiar with case (Rosalind S. Helderman and Tom Hamburger, WaPo, reprint)
As the Senate impeachment trial of President Trump drew to a close in Washington earlier this month, federal prosecutors in New York contacted witnesses and sought to collect additional documents in an investigation related to Trump’s personal attorney Rudolph W. Giuliani, according to people familiar with their activities. The recent steps — including an interview with a witness last week — indicate that the probe involving Giuliani and two of his former associates is moving forward, even as the Justice Department has set up a process to evaluate claims Giuliani is making about alleged wrongdoing in Ukraine related to former vice president Joe Biden. [...]

Prosecutors from that office recently sought information related to the former U.S. ambassador in Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch, who the three men pushed Trump to oust, according to a person familiar with the request who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the ongoing investigation. [...] Investigators also appear intently focused on Parnas’s financial practices, according to the people familiar with their interest.

[...] In recent days, investigators have interviewed the investor, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the ongoing investigation. He told The Post that he bought $250,000 of shares in Fraud Guarantee in 2016. The investor said that he has received no returns on his payment and that it is not clear to him whether Fraud Guarantee was a real business. He said he was persuaded to invest in part because he said Parnas told him he could use his high-powered connections to pitch Trump on an idea the investor had to build a temple in Jerusalem on a platform high above the existing city. The investor, whose interactions with Parnas were first reported by the Wall Street Journal, said he believed the proposal could bring together Judaism, Christianity and Islam — and usher in peace to the Middle East.

At a meeting in Florida, the investor showed Parnas a painting that he had commissioned of the temple, according to Artem Mirolevich, the painter, who was also present. “Parnas said that Trump was the type of person who might be interesting in building something like this,” Mirolevich said, noting that the investor had envisioned an 800-story structure built over the ancient city. Mirolevich said that after the meeting, he unsuccessfully tried to persuade his friend not to invest with Parnas. “I told him: ‘It’s in the company’s name. He’s telling you there will be fraud. It’s guaranteed,’ ” he said. But the investor decided to proceed because he wanted to show Trump his idea for the temple in Jerusalem, he and Mirolevich said.
posted by katra at 9:03 AM on February 15, 2020 [7 favorites]


Giuliani claims he can 'prove' a 'Democratic scam' in Ukraine with iPad full of 'reports' he never actually shares (The Week)
The former New York City mayor made a Fox Business appearance on Thursday night to push any corruption in Ukraine on Democrats' shoulders. "They're going to be very surprised when they see the report that I have" apparently revealing an "unaccounted for" $5.3 billion in Ukraine aid during the Obama administration, Giuliani said, not exactly specifying who "they" are. That aid gap apparently explains "how all those oligarchs become oligarchs," Giuliani said, making some chomping noises and motions to imitate his interpretation of how money is laundered.

Giuliani goes on to mention this mysterious report over and over, which apparently shows how "not just" the Bidens engaged in a "huge Democratic scam" in Ukraine. "That's why they're so crazy on the subject of Ukraine, and why they want to literally kill me," Giuliani said of Democrats, without any proof of this murderous plot. "I don't think it. I can prove it," Giuliani claimed again before breaking out a tablet containing a "document" that does just that — not that he actually shows it to the audience.
posted by katra at 9:29 AM on February 15, 2020 [3 favorites]


just like a hacker testing a computer system’s safety mechanisms to find a port of entry.

Justice Dept. Is Investigating C.I.A. Resistance to Sharing Russia Secrets (Charlie Savage, Adam Goldman and Julian E. Barnes, NYT, reprint)
Trump administration officials investigating the government’s response to Russia’s election interference in 2016 appear to be hunting for a basis to accuse Obama-era intelligence officials of hiding evidence or manipulating analysis about Moscow’s covert operation, according to people familiar with aspects of the inquiry. Since his election, President Trump has attacked the intelligence agencies that concluded that Russia secretly tried to help him win, fostering a narrative that they sought to delegitimize his victory. He has long promoted the investigation by John H. Durham, the prosecutor examining their actions, as a potential pathway to proving that a deep-state cabal conspired against him. [...] Mr. Durham appears to be pursuing a theory that the C.I.A., under its former director John O. Brennan, had a preconceived notion about Russia or was trying to get to a particular result — and was nefariously trying to keep other agencies from seeing the full picture lest they interfere with that goal, the people said.

But officials from the F.B.I. and the National Security Agency have told Mr. Durham and his investigators that such an interpretation is wrong and based on a misunderstanding of how the intelligence community functions, the people said. National security officials are typically cautious about sharing their most delicate information, like source identities, even with other agencies inside the executive branch.

Mr. Durham’s questioning is certain to add to accusations that Mr. Trump is using the Justice Department to go after his perceived enemies, like Mr. Brennan, who has been an outspoken critic of the president. [...] The Durham investigation has rattled current and former intelligence officers. Little precedent exists for a criminal prosecutor to review the analytic judgment-making process of intelligence agencies, said Michael Morrell, a former acting C.I.A. director who left the government in 2013. “This whole thing is so abnormal,” Mr. Morrell said.

[...] The Justice Department has declined to talk about Mr. Durham’s work in meaningful detail, but he has been said to be interested in how the intelligence community came up with its analytical judgments — including its assessment that Russia was not merely sowing discord, but specifically sought to help Mr. Trump defeat Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election.

The Justice Department inspector general, who released the results late last year of an inquiry into aspects of the F.B.I.’s Russia investigation, found no documentary or testimonial evidence senior law enforcement and intelligence officials had engaged in a high-level conspiracy to sabotage Mr. Trump, the narrative the president and his supporters continue to embrace.
posted by katra at 10:09 AM on February 15, 2020 [3 favorites]


katra > ...he was persuaded to invest in part because he said Parnas told him he could use his high-powered connections to pitch Trump on an idea the investor had to build a temple in Jerusalem on a platform high above the existing city. The investor, whose interactions with Parnas were first reported by the Wall Street Journal, said he believed the proposal could bring together Judaism, Christianity and Islam — and usher in peace to the Middle East.

At a meeting in Florida, the investor showed Parnas a painting that he had commissioned of the temple, according to Artem Mirolevich, the painter, who was also present. “Parnas said that Trump was the type of person who might be interesting in building something like this,” Mirolevich said, noting that the investor had envisioned an 800-story structure built over the ancient city.


While Trump’s ego might envy the title, personality, and political power of Herod the Great – who built the Second Temple in Jerusalem in the late decades of the first century BCE - he’d do well to remember its destruction in 70 CE before he gets any messianic ideas about sponsoring a Third Temple.

Besides, a new Tower of Babel would be better suited to The Donald’s natural abilities.
posted by cenoxo at 10:52 AM on February 15, 2020 [5 favorites]


the probe involving Giuliani and two of his former associates is moving forward

Anyone who thinks Trump and Barr are going to allow a prosecution of Giuliani is just dreaming. Barr has already demonstrated that he will interfere in the prosecutions of Flynn and Stone to keep Trump happy. Barr is certainly not going to let anything happen to Trump's best and most loyal friend Giuliani.
posted by JackFlash at 11:18 AM on February 15, 2020 [2 favorites]


Attorney general's actions spark outrage and unease among US prosecutors (CNN)
The fears over potential political interference are particularly acute in New York, where prosecutors with the US attorney's office in Manhattan handle high-profile cases with a broad range of geopolitical implications, including terrorism prosecutions as well as investigations involving foreign governments and financial institutions, all of which can intersect with White House interests.

Manhattan prosecutors have also generated cases that are of concern to Trump personally, including the prosecution of Cohen and an investigation of the Trump Organization that ended without charges. And for the past few months, prosecutors there have been investigating Rudy Giuliani, Trump's personal attorney, as well as Trump's inaugural committee.

Still, despite the alarm sounded in recent days, Southern District of New York prosecutors believe that their leader, Geoffrey Berman, has defended the office's relative autonomy, particularly since Barr's arrival, according to people familiar with the matter.

Barr, these people said, has attempted to micromanage certain cases, asking more questions and for more frequent updates than his predecessors on matters from Berman.  Berman has bristled at those demands, according to these people, and has repeatedly pushed for actions on certain politically sensitive cases in opposition to Justice Department leadership, most notably the indictment in October of the state-owned Turkish bank, Halkbank.

According to a person familiar with the discussions, Barr personally spearheaded an effort last year to negotiate a settlement with the bank that would have allowed it to sidestep an indictment after Turkey's President, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, pressed Trump in a bid to avoid charges. Berman, however, insisted on criminal prosecution, according to the people familiar with the matter. [...] Those types of actions have pacified Berman's staff in New York, who recall a message that Berman, a Trump appointee, delivered soon after taking his oath of office in 2018: "I want to be clear: Politics is not going to have a role in what we do. We're going to keep doing business as we always have." 
posted by katra at 12:19 PM on February 15, 2020 [9 favorites]


Can we stop tiptoeing around the fact that Trump is behaving like a dictator? (Lucian K. Truscott IV, Salon)
Folks, let's not mince words: This is the kind of stuff we read about happening in dictatorships like Russia and North Korea and Iran. And yes, it's the kind of rule by strong-arm fiat that was practiced by Adolf Hitler in Nazi Germany.

Before this week, I would have thought it an exaggeration to compare Trump's frequent rallies to the infamous Nuremberg rallies Hitler held during the1930s. No longer. Trump's rallies are unnervingly close to those held in Nuremberg. The MAGA hat has become a kind of Trumpian Nazi helmet. The denunciations of hated minorities are the same. As is his insane bellowing before a crowd screaming its slavish obeisance.

Let's just stop for a moment and consider the angry chants of "Lock her up," first directed at Hillary Clinton, now at Nancy Pelosi. What do Trump's cheering crowds want his Democratic opponents locked up for? Neither of those women has faced criminal charges, much less been convicted of any crime. Neither is even under investigation for corruption or alleged criminal behavior. But that doesn't matter to Trump and his rally crowds. This stuff has been going on for so long, it's clear that they actually do want them locked up. When Trump stands before his screaming fans, raising his arms and smiling, it's obvious he does, too. To call for the imprisonment of political opponents without trial is not playing with rhetoric for effect. It's not political gimmickry. It's not cute. It's not funny. It's not clever. Let's say out loud what it is: It's pure fascism, plain and simple.
posted by ZeusHumms at 9:15 PM on February 15, 2020 [36 favorites]




The Size of Bill Barr’s Cover-Up Hints at the Magnitude of What He’s Covering Up (emptywheel)
After the Tuesday Afternoon Massacre — where four prosecutors withdrew from the Roger Stone case rather than be party to Bill Barr interfering in the prosecution of Trump’s rat-fucker — we learned on Friday that Bill Barr had deployed a third US Attorney — Saint Louis’ Jeffrey Jensen — to the DC US Attorney’s office as part of an elaborate cover-up for Trump’s crimes. I’m going to attempt to lay out the full scope of Barr’s attempted cover-up. This post will serve as an overview and I will update it with links to the known or suspected evidence and crimes that Barr is covering up. I’m not including efforts to launch or sustain investigations into those Trump perceives to be his enemies.
Barr’s internal reviews and re-investigations feed resentment, suspicion inside Justice Dept. (Devlin Barrett, Matt Zapotosky and Josh Dawsey, WaPo)
On Friday, prosecutors said they would no longer pursue a criminal case against Andrew McCabe, the former acting FBI director who has long been a target of Trump’s vitriol. The decision infuriated the president, according to a senior White House official, who like others spoke on the condition of anonymity to detail internal discussions. Trump ranted privately to associates about the announcement, telling one he’s always known McCabe was a “bad guy.” While the president is angry over the decision not to charge McCabe with lying to investigators during a leak investigation, he is unlikely to fire Barr over the matter, people familiar with the matter said.
posted by katra at 9:37 PM on February 15, 2020 [9 favorites]


The painting that the "investor" wanted to get in front of Trump was reported on by Wonkette, late last year. Here's a bigger image of it.

It's not obviously horrible as a work of art, but as a plan for actual construction it is, of course, crazy: an 800! storey! building! In a highly contested, earthquake-prone piece of land; something that is not only technologically infeasible but whose very presence would be both sacrilegious and an affront to nationalists. And the damage to future archaeology, my goodness.
posted by Joe in Australia at 1:22 AM on February 16, 2020 [8 favorites]


The painting that the "investor" wanted to get in front of Trump was reported on by Wonkette, late last year. Here's a bigger image of it.

OK, that's just insane. All the best people...
posted by mumimor at 3:06 AM on February 16, 2020 [1 favorite]


Look upon my works, ye mighty, and weep for the poverty of my mind.
posted by flabdablet at 4:58 AM on February 16, 2020 [3 favorites]


Artist Artem Mirolevich’s website, bio, and admittedly imaginative painting/print Third Temple Over Jerusalem. In this interview (Google translation from Russian), he acknowledges it’s a fantasy.

Unless such a megastructure is completely covered in gold leaf – with a rotating casino on top, overpriced condos in the towers, and surrounded by pillars of laser light reaching into the sky - Trump won’t be interested.
posted by cenoxo at 5:47 AM on February 16, 2020


‘Something has to be done’: Trump’s quest to rewrite history of the Russia probe (Philip Rucker, WaPo, reprint)
The U.S. intelligence community long ago produced evidence of Russia’s illegal interference in the 2016 presidential election to try to boost Donald Trump’s candidacy. Then the special counsel investigating the matter detailed myriad ways President Trump sought to stymie the probe. And then Robert S. Mueller III testified to Congress about Trump’s conduct — and warned of Russia’s continued interest in thwarting U.S. elections.

But it is Trump who is trying to have the last word.

Seven months after Mueller’s marathon testimony brought finality to the Russia investigation, Trump is actively seeking to rewrite the narrative that had been meticulously documented by federal law enforcement and intelligence officials, both for immediate political gain and for history. [...] Last week alone, Trump called the Russia investigation “tainted,” “dirty,” “rotten,” “illegal,” “phony,” a “disgrace,” a “shakedown,” a “scam,” “a fixed hoax” and “the biggest political crime in American History, by far.”

He argued that the probe into Russian election interference was based on false pretenses, despite a recent report from the Justice Department’s inspector general stating the opposite even as it criticized the FBI’s surveillance of a former Trump campaign aide. And he claimed, again without evidence, that Mueller, a former FBI director regarded for his precision with facts, lied to Congress — which happens to be one of the charges Stone was convicted of by a jury last November.

[...] Ruth Ben-Ghiat, a history professor at New York University and a scholar of authoritarianism, said she sees darker motives in Trump’s actions. “It’s all about manipulating information and recasting the narrative to be what you need it to be,” Ben-Ghiat said. “Even more than censoring, which is old-school, rulers like Trump — and Putin is the master at this — manipulate opinion by manipulating information.” [...] “While Trump is impulsive and there’s always the question of, is he a chessmaster or is he just moving blindly out of emotion, this strategy of manipulating information and creating a false narrative are the actions of someone who thinks long-term, who thinks about legacy,” Ben-Ghiat said. “He’s a builder. He thinks about the future. And this is a story about someone building an alternate history for the future.”
posted by katra at 10:05 AM on February 16, 2020 [7 favorites]


Trump is victim of politicized justice system, Kellyanne Conway claims (Guardian)
Conway took to Fox News Sunday to turn accusations being levelled against Trump – that he is engaging in an unprecedented effort to influence criminal prosecutions in his favour – on their head.

Far from making a dangerous intervention in criminal cases involving his friends and perceived enemies, she said, it is Trump himself who is the victim of the politicisation of the justice system.

[...] Marc Short, chief of staff to vice-president Mike Pence, towed the same controversial line on CNN’s State of the Union. Like Conway, he claimed without evidence that criminal justice had been politicised against Trump. “The scales of justice aren’t balanced any more,” he said, “when someone like Roger Stone gets a prosecution that suggests a nine-year jail sentence and candidly someone like Andy McCabe who also lied to federal investigators gets a lucrative contract here at CNN. People say, ‘How is this fair?’ and that’s the source of the president’s frustration.”

[...] Short went on to repeat a well-vented conspiracy theory popular in Trump circles: that the report of special counsel Robert Mueller into Russian connections with the Trump campaign during the 2016 election was a hoax instigated by the “deep state”.

“What’s been happening inside the justice department has been unprecedented,” he said, “when you basically knew the Russian investigation was a hoax but you continue to pursue it, you continue to entrap people – that’s something the American people have not seen before.”
posted by katra at 10:11 AM on February 16, 2020 [3 favorites]


"towed the same controversial line"...because they're trolling.
posted by 20 year lurk at 10:16 AM on February 16, 2020 [3 favorites]


In his assault on justice, Trump has out-Nixoned Nixon (Robert Reich, Guardian Opinion)
“History doesn’t repeat itself, but it sometimes rhymes,” Mark Twain is supposed to have said.

My first job after law school was as an attorney at the Department of Justice (DoJ). I reported for work September 1974, weeks after Richard Nixon resigned. In the years leading up to his resignation, Nixon turned the justice department and FBI into his personal fiefdom, enlisting his appointees to reward his friends and penalize his enemies. He brought conspiracy charges against critics of the Vietnam war, for example, and ordered the department to drop an antitrust case against ITT after the conglomerate donated money for the 1972 Republican convention. [...]

After Nixon resigned, the entire slimy mess of Watergate spawned a series of reforms designed to insulate the administration of justice from politics.

During the years I worked at the justice department, officials teamed up with a bipartisan group of congressional leaders with the goal of making justice the most independent part of the executive branch. “Our law is not an instrument of partisan purpose,” said Edward Levi, Gerald Ford’s attorney general.

[...] Now we’re back to where we were 50 years ago. Trump seems determined to finish Nixon’s agenda of rigging elections and making the justice department a cesspool of partisanship. In Trump’s 2016 campaign, even Stone was back to his old dirty tricks of issuing lies and conspiracy theories, and seeking dirt on a Democratic opponent.

[...] Trump’s view is that he has ultimate power – an “absolute right” – to control the justice department. That’s as wrongheaded now as it was when Nixon held the same view. If a president can punish enemies and reward friends through the administration of justice, there can be no justice. Justice requires impartial and equal treatment under the law. Partiality or inequality in deciding whom to prosecute and how to punish invites tyranny.
posted by katra at 10:30 AM on February 16, 2020 [12 favorites]


Fearful of Trump’s Attacks, Justice Dept. Lawyers Worry Barr Will Leave Them Exposed (Katie Benner, Sharon LaFraniere and Nicole Hong, NYT, reprint)
In more than three dozen interviews in recent days, lawyers across the federal government’s legal establishment wondered aloud whether Mr. Trump was undermining the Justice Department’s treasured reputation for upholding the law without favor or political bias — and whether Attorney General William P. Barr was able or willing to protect it. [...]

In the legal trenches where the department’s lawyers handle controversial cases on a daily basis, some expressed relief that Mr. Barr had defended the department and tried to set boundaries for a president seemingly intent on erasing the red line between political motivations and individual criminal cases that has prevailed since Watergate. “Thank God,” one lawyer said. “I was beginning to be really upset over the sentencing, but I really admire that he told Trump to shut up,” said another. A third wrote in a memo: “Barr was EXACTLY right.”

But others questioned Mr. Barr’s sincerity, saying he was already too closely aligned with Mr. Trump’s political priorities to accept his words at face value. One described Mr. Barr’s timing as self-serving, saying that the president had attacked the department before but Mr. Barr spoke up only when he felt his own credibility was on the line. Another suggested that the best way for Mr. Barr to demonstrate his integrity would be to resign.
Former Justice Dept. Lawyers Press for Barr to Step Down (Katie Benner, NYT, reprint)
“Each of us strongly condemns President Trump’s and Attorney General Barr’s interference in the fair administration of justice,” the former Justice Department lawyers, who came from across the political spectrum, wrote in an open letter on Sunday. Those actions, they said, “require Mr. Barr to resign.” [...] Strikingly, the lawyers called upon current department employees to be on the lookout for future abuses and to be willing to bring oversight to the department. “Be prepared to report future abuses to the inspector general, the Office of Professional Responsibility, and Congress,” they wrote, and “to refuse to carry out directives that are inconsistent with their oaths of office.”

Prosecutors who currently work at the department should withdraw from cases that involve abuses or political interference, the lawyers said. As a last resort, they asked Justice Department employees “to resign and report publicly — in a manner consistent with professional ethics — to the American people the reasons for their resignation.”
posted by katra at 10:49 AM on February 16, 2020 [13 favorites]


Maybe someone told Barr he can be impeached?
posted by mumimor at 11:32 AM on February 16, 2020


Shame that someone wasn't Pelosi.
posted by Rykey at 10:31 PM on February 16, 2020 [1 favorite]


Barr, like Pompeo, Pence, et al, doesn't care about his reputation or career, including impeachment. They literally believe they are on a mission from God to save the country and let Donald be the divine orange kool aid flavored tool they ascribe to. Barr sees this as his political holy war. < Mother Jones on Barr's Notre Dame speech, just a few months ago

“This is not decay,” Barr said. “This is organized destruction. Secularists and their allies have marshaled all the forces of mass communication, popular culture, the entertainment industry, and academia in an unremitting assault on religion & traditional values.”
posted by Harry Caul at 6:07 AM on February 17, 2020 [20 favorites]


Democrats Plan to Highlight Health Care and Jobs Over Investigating Trump (Sheryl Gay Stolberg, NYT, reprint)
Top Democrats say that oversight of the president will continue, and they plan in particular to press Attorney General William P. Barr over what they say are Mr. Trump’s efforts to compromise the independence of the Justice Department. But for now, at least, they have shelved the idea of subpoenaing Mr. Trump’s former national security adviser, who was a central figure in the president’s impeachment trial. [...] The move is particularly striking given how aggressively Mr. Trump, emboldened by his acquittal by the Senate, has moved to take revenge on his perceived enemies and push the limits of his power. But just as they did before the 2018 midterm elections, Democrats appear to have decided that focusing on Mr. Trump’s near-daily stream of norm-shattering words and deeds only elevates him, while alienating the swing voters they need to maintain their hold on the House and have a chance at winning the Senate.
Democrats, don’t let Trump off the hook (Paul Waldman, WaPo Opinion)
Were you aware that House Democrats passed almost 600 bills in 2019? They covered a broad range of critical issues — health care, gun violence, political reform, the minimum wage and a lot more. Voters have no idea, because the House’s legislative efforts got almost no media coverage, and the bills fell into the legislative black hole that is Mitch McConnell’s Senate.

[...] Yes, Democratic representatives need to be able to tell their constituents they’ve been working hard on their behalf — so when they’re back home, they can talk about those 600 bills they passed until they’re blue in the face. But this election is going to be about Trump. If he doesn’t lose, Democrats don’t win.

[...] There isn’t one message all Democrats need to communicate in the same way to voters to beat Trump. There are a series of them — about his corruption, about his debasement of the office he holds, about his unwillingness to solve problems such as rising health-care costs and income inequality, about his relentless service to corporations and the wealthy.

Because the House has at least some ability to reveal, explore and draw attention to this president’s misdeeds, that’s what it should be doing. If Democrats are worried that the voters will punish them for being too mean to Trump, they’ve already lost.
posted by katra at 8:14 AM on February 17, 2020 [8 favorites]


No, but the concerns that most voters regularly express -- health care and jobs -- are very real, and what's more, the Democrats' agenda is better on those two subjects (and more; the so-called "liberal media" presumes that Republicans are "strong on national security," but their record sucks).

Democrats need a positive message to go along with spotlighting Trump's many negatives, and health care and jobs are a natural fit.
posted by Gelatin at 8:25 AM on February 17, 2020 [4 favorites]


No, but the concerns that most voters regularly express -- health care and jobs -- are very real

Well of course politics exist, but my sense is that for the swing voter to actually exist, elections are going to have to have some not-a-bright-line issues, and the radicalization lately of the US project reduces that greatly, if not making the swing voter extinct (for now). Costner wept.
posted by rhizome at 9:42 AM on February 17, 2020


The story excerpt refers to swing voters in the context of not focusing on Trump's daily outrages. Of course swing voters are mostly a myth, but offering a positive agenda -- and one that's appealing to voters of both parties, such as, "only we Democrats are trying to make sure you don't die in poverty of preventable causes -- in addition to pressuring Trump on the legal front has value all by itself.

And not being reactive to Trump also has value. Trump loves to set the agenda with his behavior and hates to be ignored. Again, no one is talking about pretending Trump's lawless behavior doesn't exist -- that'd be a serious mistake -- but offering everyone an alternative to both Trump and lousy Republican policies seems a sound strategy, though one of course can't count on The New York Times not to put its thumb on the scale.
posted by Gelatin at 10:01 AM on February 17, 2020 [7 favorites]


Federal judges' association calls emergency meeting after DOJ intervenes in case of Trump ally Roger Stone (USA Today)
A national association of federal judges has called an emergency meeting Tuesday to address growing concerns about the intervention of Justice Department officials and President Donald Trump in politically sensitive cases, the group’s president said Monday.

Philadelphia U.S. District Judge Cynthia Rufe, who heads the independent Federal Judges Association, said the group “could not wait” until its spring conference to weigh in on a deepening crisis that has enveloped the Justice Department and Attorney General William Barr. [...] Rufe, nominated to the bench by President George W. Bush, said the group of more than 1,000 federal jurists called for the meeting last week after Trump criticized prosecutors' initial sentencing recommendation for his friend Roger Stone and the Department of Justice overruled them.

[...] “I am not concerned with how a particular judge will rule,” Rufe said, praising Jackson's reputation. “We are supportive of any federal judge who does what is required.”

The unusual concern voiced by the judges’ group comes in the wake of an equally unusual protest. More than 2,000 former Justice Department officials called on Barr to resign Sunday, claiming his handling of the Stone case "openly and repeatedly flouted" the principle of equal justice.

"Although there are times when political leadership appropriately weighs in on individual prosecutions, it is unheard of for the department’s top leaders to overrule line prosecutors, who are following established policies, in order to give preferential treatment to a close associate of the president, as Attorney General Barr did in the Stone case," the letter reads.
posted by katra at 4:46 PM on February 17, 2020 [26 favorites]


They can still work on exposing Trump’s corruption at all levels, but at some point you have to campaign on actual issues. Trump will, even if pretty much everything he says as far as actually making the nation better for the average person is pure bullshit. The Dems have to put actual policy out there or else Trump’s bullshit eats up all that airtime.

You have to give people something to vote for. I’m voting for whoever gets the Dem nomination, but there’s people out there who just flat wont vote if they don’t think anything will change. Health care is a huge, huge issue. I’m fortunate enough to work for an employer who gives regular raises. My pay has gone up over 15% over the last few years. However... healthcare increases have eaten almost all of that up. I had to switch to a HSA plan due to the premium difference and so while my premiums are lower, I have a pretty big deductible staring me in the face and I have to put a chunk into an HSA, so that wipes out the rest of the pay raises and then some. But I’m one of the lucky ones. My deductible, while nearly 10% of my pay, is a lot lower than it is for a lot of people. For the millions who aren’t being treated well by their employer and who aren’t getting decent raises, rising premiums are kicking them off a cliff. High deductibles make their health insurance unusable. The ACA was what could get through Congress at the time, and it created as close to an ideal situation for health insurance as could be gotten in our society. It has helped millions of people. Trump has done everything he can to undermine it and that’s a large part of the cost spikes. But at the bottom of it all, it’s clear that our current model of for profit, insurance supported health care just does not work. It’s a drag on the economy and it keeps people lower on the economic ladder from getting ahead. There’s plenty of senators and representatives in safe districts who can keep pounding on Trump, but you’ve got to get the policy out there.
posted by azpenguin at 6:56 AM on February 18, 2020 [10 favorites]


Trump raises possibility of suing those involved in prosecuting Roger Stone (WaPo)
Trump’s morning tweets marked his latest efforts to intervene in the case of Stone, who faces sentencing this week on charges of witness tampering and lying to Congress.

[...] In his tweets on Tuesday, Trump quoted at length Andrew Napolitano, a former New Jersey Superior Court judge and Fox News commentator, who argued that Stone should receive a [new] trial based on “the unambiguous & self outed bias of the foreperson of the jury.”
Trump threatens lawsuits over Mueller probe (Politico)
"These were Mueller prosecutors, and the whole Mueller investigation was illegally set up based on a phony and now fully discredited Fake Dossier, lying and forging documents to the FISA Court, and many other things," Trump wrote on Twitter. "Everything having to do with this fraudulent investigation is badly tainted and, in my opinion, should be thrown out."

The president went on to accuse Mueller of lying before Congress when he told lawmakers he did not interview with Trump to apply for the job of FBI director, tweeting: "The whole deal was a total SCAM. If I wasn’t President, I’d be suing everyone all over the place. BUT MAYBE I STILL WILL. WITCH HUNT!"
Trump 'dossier' author grilled by Justice Department watchdogs: sources (Reuters, Jul. 9, 2019)
Steele’s dossier, made public in 2017, alleged that Moscow attempted to interfere in the 2016 U.S. presidential election and that there was potential collusion between Russia and Trump’s campaign, along with other unverified and salacious claims about the president. [...] One of the two sources said Horowitz’s investigators appear to have found Steele’s information sufficiently credible to have to extend the investigation.
posted by katra at 7:03 AM on February 18, 2020 [5 favorites]


They can still work on exposing Trump’s corruption at all levels, but at some point you have to campaign on actual issues. Trump will, even if pretty much everything he says as far as actually making the nation better for the average person is pure bullshit.

Trump is going to campaign on many of the same promises that he made in 2016, and on which he hasn't delivered -- building the wall, a great replacement for Obamacare, bringing coal back, etc. And his base will eat it up, without noticing that even with a Republican Congress his first two years, all he accomplished was a tax cut for the rich, the Muslim travel ban, and appointing conservative judges.

The media is too lazy to cover "boring" topics like actual issues, but Democrats offer better policies -- why else would Republicans have to lie about theirs? -- and so they would be foolish not to remind voters of the fact.
posted by Gelatin at 7:05 AM on February 18, 2020 [5 favorites]


Trump threatens lawsuits over Mueller probe (Politico)

Trump threatens to sue people all the time without following thru. Trump doesn't dare subject himself to discovery. Reporting that doesn't acknowledge these two basic facts is trying to peddle hot air as actual news. No sale.
posted by Gelatin at 7:08 AM on February 18, 2020 [7 favorites]


Reporting that doesn't acknowledge these two basic facts is trying to peddle hot air as actual news. No sale.

He is the president now, and while we can see the folly in actual litigation, it still is a threat, and it still appears to be intended to intimidate, and for the purposes of abusing his power, to interfere with the operation of the DOJ. Note how it is also another opportunity to continue to push disinformation and propaganda attempting to undermine the Mueller report, dressed up in outrageous statements seemingly designed to get the media's attention.
posted by katra at 7:13 AM on February 18, 2020 [8 favorites]


Reporting that doesn't acknowledge these two basic facts is trying to peddle hot air as actual news. No sale.

He is the president now, and while we can see the folly in actual litigation, it still is a threat, and it still appears to be intended to intimidate, and for the purposes of abusing his power, to interfere with the operation of the DOJ.


It is no longer news that he is threatening, intimidating, abusing, or interfering. Especially when you (and Politico) reproduce his lies without pushing back. You are not a stenographer.
posted by Etrigan at 7:21 AM on February 18, 2020


Yes, and Politico seems to have fallen for it, following Trump's threat not with your cogent reminder that it's blatantly authoritarian and corrupt behavior but with Trump's claim that the investigations are unfair.

Much like the media reinforces Trump's preferred frame when they refer to his Twitter tirades as "attacks," which connotes strength, Politico's reporting normalizes Trump's authoritarian threats *and* gives credence to his claims that investigating his blatant corruption is unfair.
posted by Gelatin at 7:24 AM on February 18, 2020 [3 favorites]


If the corruption weren't reported, would there be any reporting about the Trump administration at all?
posted by ZeusHumms at 7:45 AM on February 18, 2020 [4 favorites]


BUT THATS NOT WHAT THEY'RE DOING??? That's why I'm complaining Every Fuckign Day to my useless fucking representatives about this shit?? Why aren't there investigations on TV right now? Why isn't Bolton testifying under threat of subpoena? Why isn't that rando committee forcing the IRS to release his taxes to them? What the fuck happened with the insurance fraud, wire fraud, lying to congress, Parnas' documents? This is all just the stuff I can think of off the top of my head.

Much like most people are unaware of the 600 bills left to rot in the Senate, the media fails to cover the vast majority of the work being done to press the Administration for documents and expose his continued criming.

And yes, it would be far more accurate to refer to Trump's activity on Twitter as "whining" or "lying." Not that it matters to the fascist Jesus-freak bootlickers who will vote for him in November. Literally nothing can dissuade them, especially as a group. They openly admit their taste for Flavor-Aid, after all.
posted by wierdo at 7:57 AM on February 18, 2020 [3 favorites]


Especially when you (and Politico) reproduce his lies without pushing back. You are not a stenographer.

I made a point to push back by including the July 9, 2019 Reuters article that noted the Steele dossier was found credible even by IG Horowitz, which I wish the media reporting on the recent threats had done, but I did because they didn't. It is also posted in the context of everything else I've posted, including the recent federal judge association meeting that is responding to this type of conduct. The point is that Trump is continuing to engage in unprecedented abuses of power and double down on them, and that it is becoming that much more urgent for Congress to respond as well.
posted by katra at 8:08 AM on February 18, 2020 [14 favorites]


it is becoming that much more urgent for Congress to respond as well

During the impeachment coverage, I looked in vain for a reporter to ask a Republican senator what they planned to do if -- no, when -- they have a Democratic president and a Republicans congress, and the president ignores any Congressional subpoenas on the grounds that 1) Congress has no means to enforce them other than impeachment and b) the Republicans just all but unanimously declared that obstructing Congress isn't an impeachable offense.

Of course the Republicans will change their tune as soon as the political landscape changes, and the media seems cynical enough to recognize it without calling attention to it, but the Republicans have established a very real precedent, surrendering Congress' oversight power over the Executive.
posted by Gelatin at 8:16 AM on February 18, 2020 [6 favorites]


The media, yes, but I don't think we need to append reminders that Trump lies all the time to each and every of his lies. Not here on MeFi. Not after all these years. (on lack of preview - I'm responding do Etrigan's callout, not to the post above)
posted by hat_eater at 8:17 AM on February 18, 2020


And yes, it would be far more accurate to refer to Trump's activity on Twitter as "whining" or "lying."
Twitter tantrums
posted by Tabitha Someday at 8:20 AM on February 18, 2020 [1 favorite]


The media, yes, but I don't think we need to append reminders that Trump lies all the time to each and every of his lies. Not here on MeFi. Not after all these years.

Do we need to reproduce his lies at all? Do we need to pluck out the two paragraphs in a largely uncritical article that are the least critical?
posted by Etrigan at 8:33 AM on February 18, 2020 [1 favorite]


It is no longer news that he is threatening, intimidating, abusing, or interfering.

fwiw, based on my past experience representing survivors in domestic violence protection order cases, the basic points that need to be established in a restraining order case are 1) abuse, and 2) a danger of further abuse. While this is not legal advice, some of the best evidence of a 'danger of further abuse' can be ongoing threats, intimidation, and abuse, which is probably why I consider the ongoing reports and particularly any escalation to be relevant to the urgent need for action that approximates a restraining order, whether it is another impeachment, additional lawsuits, and/or defeating Trump in the upcoming election.

I also don't agree that these behaviors are "whining" or "tantrums," because this is the president of the United States, who has extraordinary power and extraordinary support - as an attorney in a restraining order case, I'd have zero tolerance for a defendant's attorney trying to minimize their client's behavior like that, and would probably try to use their failure to acknowledge the gravity of their actions as additional evidence demonstrating a risk of further harm.

Do we need to reproduce his lies at all? Do we need to pluck out the two paragraphs in a largely uncritical article that are the least critical?

By bringing together three sources, I was essentially trying to write a new article that included a more complete picture. WaPo introduced the context, Politico provided the complete quotes, and then Reuters added the factchecking context.
posted by katra at 8:39 AM on February 18, 2020 [20 favorites]


If he's threatening to sue attorneys over the Mueller probe (which he won't actually do) then they're likely not seeing it as a threat, but more as "ooooh please do it, and then we can roto-rooter you on discovery." These guys know where to look. But... he's all bluster.
posted by azpenguin at 9:02 AM on February 18, 2020 [1 favorite]


And the so-called "elite political media" is too incompetent to recognize basic facts -- even lawsuits that actually get filed are often dismissed for wasting the court's time, and Trump's threats don't amount to even that much, not to mention that Trump obviously doesn't want to be subject t discovery, which he couldn't weasel out of like he does subpoenas, him being the one who brought suit and all -- or worse, they do know, and pretend to be ignorant in order to be nicer to Trump with their story.
posted by Gelatin at 9:12 AM on February 18, 2020 [3 favorites]


Roger Stone will be sentenced Thursday despite his ongoing bid to overturn conviction (WaPo)
Republican strategist and close friend of the president Roger Stone will be sentenced Thursday despite his ongoing efforts to overturn the guilty verdicts against him, a federal judge in Washington federal court ruled.

“There’s been a lot of work that’s gone into the sentencing,” Judge Amy Berman Jackson said Tuesday. “It makes sense to proceed.”

But she said “execution of the sentence will be deferred” while she rules on whether Stone deserves a new trial. [...]

Stone’s defense has asked for a sentence of probation, citing his age and lack of criminal history. At trial, they argued that any inaccuracies in his testimony before the House Intelligence Committee were irrelevant because the Trump campaign never succeeded in getting information from WikiLeaks, and that his threats to his friend Randy Credico were not serious.
posted by katra at 9:17 AM on February 18, 2020 [8 favorites]


“Each of us strongly condemns President Trump’s and Attorney General Barr’s interference in the fair administration of justice,” the former Justice Department lawyers, who came from across the political spectrum, wrote in an open letter on Sunday

As of this comment, this letter has a little over 2000 signatories.
posted by ZeusHumms at 9:59 AM on February 18, 2020 [5 favorites]


Top intel office lawyer who handled Ukraine whistleblower complaint resigning (Politico)
The top lawyer for the intelligence community, whose decision to block a whistleblower's complaint about President Donald Trump and Ukraine from reaching Congress helped jumpstart the impeachment inquiry, is resigning from his post, officials confirmed. Jason Klitenic, the general counsel for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, will depart early next month, according to an agency spokeswoman. [...] Klitenic made a personal decision to return to private practice, the spokeswoman said. He became the subject of scrutiny in September when he consulted with the Justice Department and determined that a whistleblower complaint deemed "urgent" by an internal watchdog would not be provided to Congress. House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) demanded access to the complaint after learning it had been blocked — and that it likely pertained to Trump or his senior advisers — and the furor that ensued led to a cascade of support for impeachment in the House.
ODNI GC Klitenic: President Has Sole Authority Over Security Clearances, But Is Not Member Of Intelligence Community (Jim White, emptywheel, Oct. 1, 2019)
Yesterday, Marcy went into the details of what transpired within DOJ in the Office of Legal Counsel during these deliberations, but here I want to concentrate just on how Klitenic relied on OLC’s interpretation to come to the conclusion that one of the two most important determining factors in stating that Atkinson could not forward the complaint to Congress was that it applied to “someone outside the Intelligence Community”. Knowing as we do now that the complaint did indeed focus on Trump’s words and actions, Klitenic is stating clearly that the President is outside the Intelligence Community. This is really rich coming from Klitenic, because just about two weeks before the Trump-Zelensky phone call, Klitenic had helped to shut down the Congressional investigation of the scandal surrounding the issuance of security clearances within the Trump White House.
Bill Barr’s OLC Treated His Implication in the Whistleblower Complaint as Top Secret (emptywheel, Sept. 30, 2019)
It’s not just the White House that was abusing the classification system in an attempt to cover up what really happened here. It was also DOJ.
posted by katra at 10:18 AM on February 18, 2020 [10 favorites]


citing [Roger Stone's] age and lack of criminal history

Stone's whole life has been lies and slander in the pay of whatever right wing scumbag would pay his bills. He is a living example that as long as you are white and a Republican operative, you don't go to jail unless you screw up in a royal fashion. If you need more proof that the justice system tilts Republican, just read his track record of getting away with dirty tricks.
posted by benzenedream at 10:29 AM on February 18, 2020 [10 favorites]


One is reminded of Leo Rosten's definition of chutzpah as "that quality enshrined in a man who, having killed his mother and father, throws himself on the mercy of the court because he is an orphan."
posted by Nerd of the North at 10:37 AM on February 18, 2020 [19 favorites]


From the chutzpah department: Trump Commutes Corruption Sentence of Governor Rod Blagojevich of Illinois (Peter Baker and Maggie Haberman, NYT via MSN)
posted by ZeusHumms at 11:02 AM on February 18, 2020 [5 favorites]


Guardian: Trump confirms he has commuted Blagojevich's sentence
Speaking to reporters on the tarmac before boarding Air Force One, Trump confirmed that he has commuted the sentence of former Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich.

[...] “It was a prosecution by the same people -- Comey, Fitzpatrick -- the same group,” Trump said, referring to former FBI director James Comey, who was fired by the president.

Comey’s close friend Patrick Fitzgerald, the former US attorney, led the prosecution against Blagojevich. But again, Blagojevich was caught on tape trying to sell the US Senate seat vacated by Barack Obama when he became president.
posted by katra at 11:16 AM on February 18, 2020 [9 favorites]


The Rod Blagojevich scandal and Trump’s commutation of his sentence, explained (Andrew Prokop, Vox)
So if Trump gives Blagojevich clemency and the political system yawns (or briefly protests and then moves on to the next thing), it could be less of a stretch for him to pardon Manafort, Flynn, or Stone later.

And there’s one other likely reason the idea appeals to him so much. He probably looks at Rod Blagojevich — wiretapped by the FBI discussing all sorts of corrupt ideas, and then convicted and sent to prison — and thinks, There but for the grace of God go I.
Author's emphasis.
posted by ZeusHumms at 11:19 AM on February 18, 2020 [20 favorites]


This is pretty infuriating, first because Blagojevich was a corrupt scumbag who is probably among the bottom decile of federal inmates deserving of mercy, and second because it lays the groundwork for republican messaging to low information voters about how Trump's pardons are bipartisan, so nothing to get worked up about. Oh, and at least fifty other reasons.
posted by skewed at 11:26 AM on February 18, 2020 [10 favorites]


Trump commutes sentence of ex-Illinois Gov. Blagojevich, pardons ex-NY police commissioner Kerik, ex-49ers owner DeBartolo — and Michael Milken (CNBC)
The wave of clemency came as Trump has hinted that he might be considering a pardon for his longtime friend Roger Stone, who was convicted last fall of lying to Congress about his contacts during the 2016 presidential election with the document disclosure group WikiLeaks.
posted by katra at 11:28 AM on February 18, 2020 [6 favorites]


He's going to wipe clean Ken Lay's record next. Then Al Capone's.
posted by Lyme Drop at 11:35 AM on February 18, 2020 [1 favorite]


Trump also pardoned Bernie Kerik, Giuliani's old buddy. Kerik was nominated to be GW Bush's Homeland Security Secretary but withdrew when it was revealed he has illegal nanny problems.

He was also convicted of tax fraud and served three years in jail.

Nice that Trump is helping out Giuliani. I expect Guiliani's Ukraine buddies to be next on the pardon list.
posted by JackFlash at 11:48 AM on February 18, 2020 [2 favorites]


I like the headline of this AP story: President Trump goes on clemency spree, and the list is long (Zeke Miller, Jill Colvin and Michael Tarm)
posted by ZeusHumms at 11:58 AM on February 18, 2020 [1 favorite]


How a Presidential Pardon Could Backfire (TIME)
Under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, Americans are protected against self-incrimination, but people who have been pardoned are no longer under any legal jeopardy, Harvard Law School Professor Laurence Tribe told TIME.

“Anyone pardoned by Trump would lose most of the 5th Amendment’s protection against compelled testimony that might otherwise have incriminated the pardoned family member or associate, making it much easier for DOJ and Congress to require such individuals to give testimony that could prove highly incriminating to Trump himself,” Tribe said in an email.

Still, that could lead to another constitutional standoff, if the recipients of the Trump pardons refused to testify before Congress. Mark Osler, a University of St. Thomas Law School professor who has written about the president’s pardon powers, said Congress might respond by holding them in contempt, leading to a second pardon.
If you’re pardoned, can you be compelled to testify about your crime? (Eugene Volokh, WaPo)
[...] if the prospect of criminal liability disappears — whether because he has been granted adequate immunity by prosecutors, or because he has accepted a presidential pardon — then the privilege against self-incrimination also disappears. “[I]f the witness has already received a pardon, he cannot longer set up his privilege, since he stands with respect to such offence as if it had never been committed.” Brown v. Walker (1895); see also, e.g., Nixon v. Sampson (D.D.C. 1975) (yes, that Nixon). (Remember that, as with President Richard Nixon, a pardon can preclude future criminal prosecutions, and not just erase past ones.)

[...] Of course, that only works to the extent that the pardon does indeed foreclose the possibility that your testimony will be used against you in a criminal prosecution. A presidential pardon, for instance, only applies to federal crimes; if the conduct could also be prosecuted as a state crime, the witness can refuse to testify about it.
posted by katra at 12:01 PM on February 18, 2020 [8 favorites]


At trial, they argued that any inaccuracies in his testimony before the House Intelligence Committee were irrelevant because the Trump campaign never succeeded in getting information from WikiLeaks

Ah, the Side Show Bob Defense: Incompetent Version.
posted by Mitheral at 1:20 PM on February 18, 2020 [2 favorites]


He's going to wipe clean Ken Lay's record next.

Shit, maybe he'll bring Ken Lay out of hiding!
posted by rhizome at 2:57 PM on February 18, 2020 [1 favorite]


Pardon the Swamp
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 2:58 PM on February 18, 2020 [3 favorites]


Bill Barr’s Secret: He’s Pro-Defendant (Charlotte Butash, Benjamin Wittes, Lawfare)
Memo to defense attorneys everywhere: You’ve got a friend in Attorney General Bill Barr.

The tough-on-crime face the guy puts on is just an act. In reality, Barr is on your side. In fact, it was on his orders that the Justice Department last week advanced a remarkably pro-defendant position in the prosecution of Roger Stone—a position just waiting for countless defense lawyers around the country to try to exploit in their own cases.

Got a client who’s old or in not-so-great health? Barr wants to help.

Got a non-violent client whose sentencing enhancement factors under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines would “disproportionately escalate [his or her] sentencing exposure to an offense level” associated with violent crime? Barr cares.

Did your client’s victim minimize the threat your client posed to him? Barr wants the courts to take account of that in sentencing.

To be sure, Barr seems to only care about such matters when the defendant is—like Roger Stone—a friend of the president and a person indicted in the Mueller investigation. But Barr’s Justice Department in the Stone case did not walk into court and announce that it has one set of standards for Trump associates in cases about which the president comments serially and a completely different set of standards for all other cases. Rather, the Justice Department articulated certain principles—principles that the defense bar now gets to cite in all cases. [...]

First, the department states that the eight-level enhancement for threatening to cause physical injury was disputed by the victim of the threat (Credico), who asserted that he did not perceive a genuine threat. Though the memorandum recognizes that Credico’s perception of the threat is not dispositive to the enhancement, the department now suggests that the court should still consider the victim’s subjective beliefs, particularly because an increase of eight levels is so significant. Presumably, this would still be the case under the department’s reasoning if Credico made this statement only because he was afraid of Stone. This idea should be particularly useful to those defense lawyers with clients who have sufficiently terrorized their victims as to ensure that the victims now defensively minimize the threats to authorities or on the witness stand.
posted by katra at 3:28 PM on February 18, 2020 [11 favorites]


Rod Blagojevich Trying To Sell Presidential Commutation To Cellmate For $2.8 Million
(The Onion - News in Photos)

I had completely forgotten Rod had been on celebrity apprentice with Trump. The orbital space around planet Clusterfuck Forty-five is truly erratic and full of assholes.
posted by inflatablekiwi at 4:04 PM on February 18, 2020 [13 favorites]


A bunch of crooks with no qualms whatoever about breaking the law in pursuit of money and power, who all now owe a great debt to Trump right before the 2020 election season. I'm sure he's going to put them to good use.
posted by Sublimity at 4:19 PM on February 18, 2020 [4 favorites]


“Anyone pardoned by Trump would lose most of the 5th Amendment’s protection against compelled testimony that might otherwise have incriminated the pardoned family member or associate, making it much easier for DOJ and Congress to require such individuals to give testimony that could prove highly incriminating to Trump himself,” Tribe said in an email.

It seems to me they'd just argue that they might be incriminated over something that they hadn't been pardoned for. Unless Trump issues a pardon for literally every federal crime, they have a pretty good argument that there might be some other obscure federal law they might have violated.
posted by BungaDunga at 4:41 PM on February 18, 2020 [1 favorite]


Justice Dept., in wrestling with how to handle Giuliani, tightens rules for Ukraine-related probes (Matt Zapotosky, WaPo)
The Justice Department revealed Tuesday that law enforcement officials running Ukraine-related investigations must seek approval before expanding their inquiries — a move that could have implications for Rudolph W. Giuliani, as President Trump’s personal attorney pushes for scrutiny of the president’s political foes while facing a federal probe into his own conduct.

The directive from Deputy Attorney General Jeffrey A. Rosen was disclosed in a response to Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) after the House Judiciary Committee chairman demanded clarity on how the Justice Department is reviewing information from Giuliani, who has urged law enforcement to investigate former vice president Joe Biden and his family for their dealings in Ukraine.

Assistant Attorney General Stephen E. Boyd wrote to Nadler that the department had tapped two U.S. attorneys to assist in the process — Scott Brady in Pittsburgh, to receive and assess new information, and Richard Donoghue in Brooklyn, to help coordinate personnel throughout the Justice Department involved in Giuliani’s case and others with a focus on Ukraine.
DOJ taps U.S. attorney to 'coordinate' Ukraine inquiries (Politico)
Donoghue will "coordinate" these activities in the interest of deconfliction and efficiency, Assistant Attorney General for Legislative Affairs Stephen Boyd said in a letter sent Tuesday to Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler and his Republican counterpart, Doug Collins. But the letter is vague about the specific Ukraine-linked issues that might require review. [...]

Rosen said he was not transferring any pending inquiries to Donoghue's office, but said expansions of those matters and any new investigations would need approval from Donoghue and Justice Department headquarters.

"We are implementing this policy to avoid duplication of efforts across Offices and components, to obviate the need for deconfliction at a later stage of potentially overlapping investigations, and to efficiently marshal the resources of the Department to address the handling of potentially relevant new information," Rosen wrote. "Any and all new matters relating to Ukraine shall be directed exclusively to EDNY for investigation and proper handling."
posted by katra at 4:43 PM on February 18, 2020 [1 favorite]


An important bit of the piece on Donaghue: "Jeff Sessions appointed Donoghue as interim U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of New York in 2018. He has never been formally nominated by President Donald Trump or confirmed by the Senate."
posted by BungaDunga at 4:49 PM on February 18, 2020 [1 favorite]


He is, however, not actually interim. Via a stupid loophole in the law governing DA appointments, he managed to get himself installed permanently without ever being confirmed.
posted by BungaDunga at 4:53 PM on February 18, 2020 [2 favorites]


A bunch of crooks with no qualms whatoever about breaking the law in pursuit of money and power, who all now owe a great debt to Trump right before the 2020 election season. I'm sure he's going to put them to good use.

You're saying he's recruiting for his crime syndicate?
posted by Kirth Gerson at 5:12 PM on February 18, 2020 [5 favorites]


Imagine If a Democrat Behaved Like Bill Barr (Quinta Jurecic, Benjamin Wittes, Atlantic)
No post-Watergate administration until Trump’s has seen a sustained effort by the president to publicly demand specific investigative outcomes—specific indictments, leniency for favored individuals, investigations of others—from the Justice Department. And no prior administration has seen an attorney general publicly defend such statements and (at least appear to) implement aspects of them internally. Barr may genuinely believe he is acting defensively, that the progressive forces arrayed against the administration are so without scruple, and that he and his tribe are so restrained and careful, that whatever they are doing must reflect that reality. But he’s wrong. Objectively, he is on the most aggressive form of offense.

And there will be consequences. Already, Trump is normalizing the campaign promise to prosecute political enemies. Kamala Harris, when she was still in the race, promised that her Justice Department would bring criminal charges against Trump for obstruction of justice. And more recently, Warren herself has proposed an independent Justice Department “task force to investigate crimes by Trump administration officials.” These ideas are a long way from Trump’s campaign-trail chants of “Lock her up!” or his demands that former FBI Director Andrew McCabe be prosecuted for lying to investigators; Harris was speaking on the basis of a record established by the Mueller report, and Warren’s plan calls for investigations generally, rather than into any specific individual on a specific charge. But they are nevertheless incursions on Justice Department independence that would have obviously crossed the line of political interference in a pre-Trump era. The fact that many Democratic politicians and voters see nothing wrong with these ideas is itself a sign that Barr has started an escalating cycle of hardball.
Guardian: Trump falsely declares himself 'the chief law enforcement officer'
In his comments to reporters at Joint Base Andrews, Trump said he had not considered pardoning Roger Stone, but he complained that his former associate was being treated “very unfairly.” [...] The president then made the eye-popping (and false) claim that he is “the chief law enforcement officer of the United States.”

That is, of course, not true:

Jim Acosta (@Acosta) "The Attorney General is the head of the DOJ and chief law enforcement officer of the federal government." https://t.co/kchulz703Z February 18, 2020
posted by katra at 5:32 PM on February 18, 2020 [8 favorites]


The president then made the eye-popping (and false) claim that he is “the chief law enforcement officer of the United States.”

Goes along with being Commander in Chief of all Americans.
posted by JackFlash at 5:59 PM on February 18, 2020 [4 favorites]


Kirth Gerson, yes, that's exactly it.
posted by Sublimity at 6:48 PM on February 18, 2020


Barr has told those close to Trump he is considering quitting over the president’s tweets about Justice Dept. investigations

Concern level rises from "Susan Collins" to "Susan Collins times John McCain squared", or one milli-"pushed the wrong button on the elevator and might run into a reporter".
posted by tonycpsu at 6:52 PM on February 18, 2020 [7 favorites]


The Daily Beast:
For those who didn’t receive the Fox News treatment, it appears that in at least one case, cold hard cash did the talking. Paul Pogue, a construction company owner who pleaded guilty to underpaying his taxes by $473,000 and received three years probation, was issued a full pardon and clemency by the president.

According to FEC filings, Pogue’s family has donated hundreds of thousands of dollars in direct contributions and in-kind air travel to the Trump Victory Committee. Beginning in August 2019, Ben Pogue—CEO of Pogue Construction and son of Paul Pogue—and his wife Ashleigh made over $200,000 in contributions to the campaign.

In August alone, Ben Pogue donated $85,000 to Trump Victory while Ashleigh Pogue contributed $50,000 that month. The following month, Ben Pogue made an in-kind air travel contribution of $75,404.40. The couple also made several large donations to the Republican National Committee and each donated $5,600 to Donald Trump for President Inc.
I'm sure there was no quid pro quo involved in this series of events.
posted by Mitheral at 7:00 PM on February 18, 2020 [19 favorites]


Barr has told those close to Trump he is considering quitting over the president’s tweets about Justice Dept. investigations

He considered and deemed the notion ridiculous, as should you. Ain't never gonna happen.
posted by JackFlash at 7:15 PM on February 18, 2020 [3 favorites]


I take this to mean that Barr suspects Trump is going to fire him, and he wants to get out in front of the news, make it look like the “resignation” was his idea.
posted by mbrubeck at 7:22 PM on February 18, 2020 [4 favorites]


Why would Trump even remotely consider the Roy Cohn he has wanted all along? This is 100% kayfabe. Trump is delighted with Barr's performance.
posted by bcd at 7:24 PM on February 18, 2020 [15 favorites]


Goes along with being Commander in Chief of all Americans

The idiot failson has stumbled upon a way to turn never knowing how anything works into a superpower.
posted by flabdablet at 9:58 PM on February 18, 2020 [6 favorites]


It's the superpower of his entire social class, if you think about it.
posted by Rykey at 4:11 AM on February 19, 2020 [11 favorites]


Pentagon policy chief to step down in latest high-level departure (Politico)
Pentagon policy chief John Rood is leaving his job, according to two sources familiar with the move, marking yet another high-level departure from the Trump administration's senior national security ranks.

Rood departs as undersecretary of Defense for policy, one of the department's most senior posts, just over two years into the job, an administration official and former Defense Department official said. [...] Rood's exit from the administration was first reported by CNN. A third source, also a former DoD official, said Rood was asked to resign due to "unhappiness with him for some time."

Foreign Policy reported in December that several officials who have left the Pentagon cited "a toxic work environment" under Rood. [...] The departure creates yet another vacancy for the policy shop, which already has a person filling in for Rood's deputy, following David Trachtenberg's retirement last summer.

Last May, Rood certified to Congress that Ukraine made enough progress in combating corruption that it should receive $250 million in military assistance. The money was withheld by the White House over the summer, a move that led to Trump's impeachment by the House. The administration claimed the aid was withheld over concerns with corruption in Kyiv, though House Democrats tied the move to Trump's efforts to pressure the nation to dig up dirt on his political opponents.
picard.allhandsabandonship.allhands.gif
posted by katra at 8:40 AM on February 19, 2020 [3 favorites]


The Hill finds John Solomon 'failed' to identify key details of sources (Politico)
John Solomon, the former opinion writer at The Hill whose columns were seen as a central part of a smear campaign against former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch, failed to identify "important details" about his sources — including that they had been indicted, were under investigation or were even his own attorneys, according to a review of his work by his former colleagues.

In its review of 14 columns, The Hill's news team said serious doubts about the credibility of Solomon's Ukrainian sources were evident even before his interviews with them. Those include, most notably, two former Ukrainian prosecutors — Yuriy Lutsenko and Victor Shokin — who were the principal sources behind unsupported allegations of corruption by former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter. "In certain columns, Solomon failed to identify important details about key Ukrainian sources, including the fact that they had been indicted or were under investigation. In other cases, the sources were his own attorneys," The Hill concluded.

The Hill also raised questions — which it says remain unanswered — about Solomon's relationships with President Donald Trump's personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani and his associate Lev Parnas, who were central figures driving the suggestion of wrongdoing by the Bidens in Ukraine. Though Solomon has claimed he relied on Parnas as a "facilitator" to connect him with sources in Ukraine, Hill staff said the communications uncovered in the House impeachment investigation pointed to deeper ties. [...] The internal review by The Hill of Solomon's work answers few of the deeper questions about his role in the Ukraine saga. But it underscores the web of contacts that Trump relied on as his eyes and ears in Ukraine, bypassing official State Department channels in order to press the government there to investigate the Bidens, as well as other Democrats based on a debunked conspiracy theory that Ukraine — not Russia — hacked the Democratic Party in 2016.

Solomon's columns were routinely amplified by Trump and featured on Fox News' prime-time opinion shows. They also formed a significant part of the rebuttal to the House's impeachment charges by Trump's allies in Congress and his legal team.
posted by katra at 8:52 AM on February 19, 2020 [11 favorites]


Why didn't The Hill identify those problems while Solomon was turning them into Rudy Giuliani's propaganda factory? Isn't that what editors are for?

They were enjoying the fame and advertising dollars that come from being cited on Fox News everyday and didn't care so much about the accuracy of the stories until they got caught.
posted by hydropsyche at 9:08 AM on February 19, 2020 [13 favorites]


Oh Dana Rohrabacher, never change you crazy diamond.

Donald Trump 'offered Julian Assange a pardon if he denied Russia link to hack'”
posted by misterpatrick at 9:49 AM on February 19, 2020 [17 favorites]


Why didn't The Hill identify those problems while Solomon was turning them into Rudy Giuliani's propaganda factory? Isn't that what editors are for?

I think that's where the "opinion writer" designation comes into play. There have been other occasions with other writers (I suppose Bret Stephens is an easy example) that have led me to suspect that at least some columnists are able to hand their work straight to the presses, without editorial mediation, aka "I'll sign your contract if you don't second guess my writing."
posted by rhizome at 10:26 AM on February 19, 2020 [2 favorites]


from misterpatrick's link:

WikiLeaks put them online hours after Trump had suffered an apparent public relations disaster with the emergence of a tape in which he boasted of molesting women.

God bless the Guardian.
posted by valkane at 10:56 AM on February 19, 2020 [14 favorites]


December 13, 2019: SCOTUS Will Hear Mazars, Deutsche Bank, and Vance Cases … In March 2020 (Josh Kovensky, TPM)

February 4, 2020, from katra: The Money Behind Trump’s Money (David Enrich, NYT)
Last April, congressional Democrats subpoenaed ­Deutsche Bank for its records on Trump, his family members and his businesses. The Trump family sued to block the bank from complying; after two federal courts ruled against the Trumps, the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case, with oral arguments expected in the spring. State prosecutors, meanwhile, are investigating the bank’s ties with Trump, too. The F.B.I. has been conducting its own wide-­ranging investigation of ­Deutsche Bank, and people connected to the bank told me they have been interviewed by special agents about aspects of the Trump relationship.
‘The million-dollar question’: Finance editor breaks down DOJ’s bizarre abandonment of a Russian money laundering case against Deutsche bank (Alex Henderson, AlterNet)
[…] David Enrich, finance editor of the New York Times and author of the new book, “Dark Towers: Deutsche Bank, Donald Trump and an Epic Trail of Destruction,” discussed Deutsche’s relationship Trump and a seemingly abandoned U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) case against the bank during a Monday night, February 17 appearance on MSNBC’s “The Rachel Maddow Show.”

Maddow, noting that Trump “probably owes hundreds of millions of dollars to this one institution,” asked Enrich “whatever happened to” a possible U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) case against Deutsche Bank that involved a “Russian money laundering scandal.” And Enrich responded, “That is the million-dollar question.”

Enrich explained that during the final months of the Obama Administration, the DOJ was “close” to bringing a “criminal case” against Deutsche Bank “for its involvement in Russian money laundering” — but after Trump became president, the case fell by the wayside.
posted by ZeusHumms at 11:50 AM on February 19, 2020 [17 favorites]


Heather Cox Richardson

February 18, 2020:
But what jumped out at me was that these high-profile pardons were all of individuals who had committed financial crimes investigated by the FBI. I wrote here on December 27 about how Trump appears to have gone out of his way to purge the FBI of employees with, as national security and intelligence community expert Natasha Bertrand put in August 2018 in The Atlantic, “extensive experience in probing money laundering and organized crime, particularly as they pertain to Russia.” These people include Robert Mueller, James Comey, Bruce Ohr, Andrew McCabe, and Lisa Page.

I wonder if these pardons are designed to discredit the FBI’s financial crimes unit even further, both to set up a pardon for his friend, advisor, and self-proclaimed dirty trickster Roger Stone, and to try to pull the fangs of the upcoming discussion of his own financial records, currently moving toward a crisis.
posted by ZeusHumms at 11:53 AM on February 19, 2020 [14 favorites]


I wonder if these pardons are designed to discredit the FBI’s financial crimes unit even further

Maybe? Or at least not specifically, or in a way too subtle for me to see. Medicare thief Judith Negron was pardoned out of her 35 year sentence, but she had two partners who were also prosecuted in the same case. One of them has the same 35 year sentence, the other got 50 years. They are still sitting in jail.

Negron was the only one not to take a plea bargain. I don't know if this rationale could be pointed at a discrediting of the FBI, a jab at prosecutors in general, or maybe he's just rewarding her for being a Stand Up Guy.
posted by rhizome at 12:05 PM on February 19, 2020 [1 favorite]


Trump’s latest pardons show how quickly he’s normalizing corruption (Aaron Rupar, Vox)
They’re aimed at the very sorts of obstruction of justice and financial crimes he’s been implicated in.
Trump is desperately working multiple angles to avoid investigation and prosecution.
posted by ZeusHumms at 12:43 PM on February 19, 2020 [11 favorites]


Trump is desperately working multiple angles to avoid investigation and prosecution.

Which is why he will do anything to hang onto the Presidency, as having a pet Attorney General is all that stands between him and indictment.
posted by Gelatin at 12:56 PM on February 19, 2020 [3 favorites]


How long before he straight up sells pardons?
posted by Marticus at 1:03 PM on February 19, 2020 [1 favorite]


How long before he straight up sells pardons?

Given that he pardoned Blagojevich for trying to sell a Senate seat (eight years in jail is enough, my eye), I'm surprised he hasn't thought of it already.

Or did he...?
posted by Gelatin at 1:06 PM on February 19, 2020 [3 favorites]


From today’s Chicago Tribune, February 19, 2020:

Calling himself a ‘freed political prisoner,’ Rod Blagojevich thanks Trump and promises to vote for him

An unapologetic Rod Blagojevich journeys home to Chicago, signing autographs and shaking hands at O’Hare Airport

Rod Blagojevich’s rise and fall and presidential commutation, a Chicago story

Column: Impeached Donald Trump and impeached Rod Blagojevich are corrupt kindred spirits (Feb 14, 2020)

More about ex-Democratic Governor Rod Blagojevich (WP).

Corruption – especially absolute corruption – is no respecter of political parties, but naturally seeks out influence, money, power, and privilege wherever they appear. The now-Imperial Donald is giving us clear lessons on what he values, the working environment he prefers (and continues to build around himself), and all the best people he prefers to work with. Truth and lies are merely interchangeable tools of the moment.
posted by cenoxo at 1:09 PM on February 19, 2020 [8 favorites]


He's pardoning people and commuting sentences like he's assembling the Suicide Squad or something. Which is alarming on the one hand. On the other hand, seeking a pardon is an admission of guilt. Granting that pardon seeker's request is an acknowledgment of that guilt. I'm sure Trump's thought process doesn't get much further than "That guy shouldn't be in prison" but the implication of those pardons is that the president acknowledges the guilt of Kerik et al.
posted by emelenjr at 1:11 PM on February 19, 2020 [4 favorites]


How long before he straight up sells pardons?

Family Of Pardoned Construction Exec Donated Over 200K To Trump’s Reelection Campaign (Cristina Cabrera, TPM)
posted by ZeusHumms at 1:11 PM on February 19, 2020 [18 favorites]


I'm surprised he hasn't thought of it already.

He did. As noted up-thread by Mitheral.
posted by VTX at 1:11 PM on February 19, 2020 [3 favorites]


...the implication of those pardons is that the president acknowledges the guilt of Kerik et al.

But that guilt is irrelevant to the Imperial Donald because he can pardon it. Those who receive his grace will be expected to pay for it somehow.
posted by cenoxo at 1:23 PM on February 19, 2020 [1 favorite]


Editorial: The flamboyant return of Rod Blagojevich. Did you expect anything different? The Editorial Board, Chicago Tribune, February 18, 2020:
... we can say two things with certainty about this disgraced pol: He didn’t lose his smooth-talking ways while incarcerated, nor did he find humility. He made clear he isn’t retaking a place in the public eye so he can acknowledge his wrongdoing. He’s a victim. And he has some things to say about that.

Quoting Scripture, thanking the Rev. Jesse Jackson, thanking President Donald Trump for the commutation of his sentence, offering wisdom he says he gleaned during long nights staring out a barred prison window, Blagojevich was in full command of his bounteous oratory skills. It’s as if he had been preparing for this return to the spotlight for years. Perhaps he was. He sounded like he was campaigning for redemption, or public office, or both. Thankfully, he can’t seek state or municipal elected office in Illinois because he was impeached and convicted. But watch out, voters, he can run for federal office.

Blagojevich said he hoped to draw on the experience of his imprisonment to work on behalf of people who have been wrongfully incarcerated or oversentenced for nonviolent offenses. He also had a message for his fellow underdogs: “You may be down, all your hopes may have seemed to disappear. The road you have to travel is a long one, and home, that’s where you want to be, is so far away you can’t even see the flicker of a light at the end of the tunnel. But don’t give up.”

Those are fine enough sentiments, given credence because Blagojevich has been through a long, despairing odyssey — one he deserved...
Apparently, the Imperial Donald’s merciful pardon is more like a holy indulgence.
posted by cenoxo at 2:22 PM on February 19, 2020 [1 favorite]


I'm pretty sure I wrote early on in this terrible odyssey that Trump ran for President because that what his last chance for an out of jail card. Either he'd not be elected (most likely) and then he could claim to be a victim of political persecution forever. Or he'd be elected and his worries would end forever. Obviously, he had to pay a price, and we still don't know what that price was. We know the judges were part of it, but that was cheap.
The fascinating thing is how he corrupts literally everything he touches. katra linked to an Atlantic article above that pointed out something very interesting:
And there will be consequences. Already, Trump is normalizing the campaign promise to prosecute political enemies. Kamala Harris, when she was still in the race, promised that her Justice Department would bring criminal charges against Trump for obstruction of justice. And more recently, Warren herself has proposed an independent Justice Department “task force to investigate crimes by Trump administration officials.” These ideas are a long way from Trump’s campaign-trail chants of “Lock her up!” or his demands that former FBI Director Andrew McCabe be prosecuted for lying to investigators; Harris was speaking on the basis of a record established by the Mueller report, and Warren’s plan calls for investigations generally, rather than into any specific individual on a specific charge. But they are nevertheless incursions on Justice Department independence that would have obviously crossed the line of political interference in a pre-Trump era. The fact that many Democratic politicians and voters see nothing wrong with these ideas is itself a sign that Barr has started an escalating cycle of hardball.
I strongly believe that American democracy cannot recover without an investigation of the Trump regime. But at the same time I can see it is true that since this can only happen with Democratic control of all three branches of government and it must include an examination of several politicians in Congress, it will be seen as an escalation of a partisan trench war in Washington by many less interested citizens.
posted by mumimor at 3:09 PM on February 19, 2020 [11 favorites]


Trump announces a blitz of pardons and commutations (Politico)
Current Gov. J.B. Pritzker declared in a statement that his constituents had “endured far too much corruption, and we must send a message to politicians that corrupt practices will no longer be tolerated.”

He added: “President Trump has abused his pardon power in inexplicable ways to reward his friends and condone corruption, and I deeply believe this pardon sends the wrong message at the wrong time."

[...] One of the people mentioned by the White House as advocating for Kerik’s pardon is Sidney Powell, the attorney for Flynn, who is now fighting to withdraw his guilty plea for lying to investigators.

And the pardon request for Kerik was submitted by the lawyer representing Chief Petty Officer Edward Gallagher, a Navy SEAL who was stripped of military honors during his prosecution on murder charges, and lobbied to have his promotion reinstated. Kerik also advocated on behalf of Gallagher.

In turn, Gallagher was one of those listed along with Giuliani, Trump's personal attorney, as recommending Kerik’s pardon, the White House said.

Trump’s pardon of Milken, the so-called junk bond king turned philanthropist, also found a roster of support among high-profile names in Trump world, including GOP megadonors Miriam and Sheldon Adelson, Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy and News Corp. founder Rupert Murdoch.
posted by katra at 3:52 PM on February 19, 2020 [4 favorites]


I know this isn't a catch-all thread, but this news isn't ready for it's own post and it is relevant to the general discussion going on here: Trump to name Richard Grenell, U.S. ambassador to Germany, as acting head of intelligence The article says it was first reported by the NYTimes but this link is to WaPo.

Grenell is so incompetent, it is more like a comedy show than real life.
posted by mumimor at 4:11 PM on February 19, 2020 [6 favorites]


Given that he pardoned Blagojevich for trying to sell a Senate seat (eight years in jail is enough, my eye), I'm surprised he hasn't thought of it already.

I believe there was a link posted earlier in this thread that dug into fundraising records and found that at least a few of the recently pardoned were closely related to a large Trump campaign donor. Since there are far more secret donations than public ones and the public numbers were in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, it strains credulity to think there wasn't a lot more money than that behind at least some of the pardons, and isn't unreasonable to think that most or all were literally sold.

Were it pretty much anyone but Trump, the fig leaf of the candidate not being personally enriched would remain, but Donnie has a documented history of using any and all funds to which he has access for his own personal benefit, morality or even legality be damned. Trusts, charities, businesses he didn't completely own, political campaigns, they're all fair game to him if he needs someone to buy him some jet fuel, a terrible painting, or anything else he actually has to pay for before someone will give it to him. (Although as president I expect he has much less trouble getting people to give him things in advance of payment than he once did)
posted by wierdo at 4:39 PM on February 19, 2020 [6 favorites]


mumimor > The fascinating thing is how he corrupts literally everything he touches.

As a compulsive pathological liar, Trump must feather foul his own nest. He survives best within a corrupt environment, and now thinks he’s found a safe place that grants him potentially unlimited power. Eventually, the Imperial Donald won’t be satisfied with just the United States.
posted by cenoxo at 5:00 PM on February 19, 2020 [3 favorites]


it is relevant to the general discussion going on here: Trump to name Richard Grenell, U.S. ambassador to Germany, as acting head of intelligence

Trump to install loyalist Ric Grenell as acting intelligence chief (Axios)
As acting DNI, Grenell will be charged with overseeing and integrating the U.S. intelligence community and will advise the president and the National Security Council on intelligence matters that concern national security.

Trump has made no secret of his deep suspicion of and antipathy toward the intelligence community — which he has told advisers is populated by "Deep State" operatives who "hate Trump."

In Grenell, Trump will have an unwavering loyalist overseeing the 17 U.S. intelligence agencies. [...] Grenell has never worked for an intelligence agency.
Emphasis added, and from WaPo:
He is a fiercely conservative foreign policy hawk and sometime media critic, as well as a vocal supporter of Trump on social media. [...] Grenell’s loyalty to the president extends beyond his public statements. In 2018, internal documents from the Trump International Hotel in Washington listed Grenell as a “Gold” level member of the Trump Organization’s “Trump Card” loyalty program.

This is the second time that Trump has given a prominent post to a high-level Trump Card member: Kelly Craft, Trump’s ambassador to the United Nations, also had gold status, according to the 2018 documents — “VIP Arrivals” lists that the hotel used to alert employees to important guests. The lists were obtained by The Washington Post.

Grenell’s appointment is likely to exacerbate tensions between the president and members of the intelligence community, who have been frequent targets of Trump’s ire.
posted by katra at 5:11 PM on February 19, 2020 [13 favorites]


NYT: Grenell "is also expected to keep his current ambassadorship simultaneous with the new role, one administration official said."
posted by BungaDunga at 6:46 PM on February 19, 2020 [4 favorites]


I strongly believe that American democracy cannot recover without an investigation of the Trump regime. But at the same time I can see it is true that since this can only happen with Democratic control of all three branches of government and it must include an examination of several politicians in Congress, it will be seen as an escalation of a partisan trench war in Washington by many less interested citizens.

This is the Republican Corruption strategy. Corrupting the whole party is a "flood the zone" defense and a standard mob tactic. Investigation will look partisan unless done well. I'd advise beefing up the FBI/IRS and start jailing white collar criminals randomly. It'll get 90% of the Trumpians, 50% of the Republicans, and (the right) 30% of the Democrats. Unlike Republicans though, Dems are OK with actually weeding out corrupt politicians and not re-electing them (e.g. Duncan Hunter).
posted by benzenedream at 6:48 PM on February 19, 2020 [12 favorites]


Isn’t the Trump Card (not so) special? Per the article Trump Hotels Launches New Card Member Site with Added Benefits, Hotel Business, May 1, 2019, membership is complimentary. They do have an interesting motto, though:
“At Trump Hotels, we pride ourselves on providing uniquely personalized experiences for our guests and enhancing our existing benefits for our loyalty members. Our newly enhanced Trump Card experience sets us apart from others in the luxury hospitality industry” said Eric Danziger, CEO, Trump Hotels. “As one of the only independent luxury hotel companies to offer a comprehensive loyalty program of this caliber, our ‘Never Settle’ philosophy shines through. We Never Settle for anything less.
That philosophy is certainly a hallmark of Trump’s business, legal, and political deals. Remember, fellow travelers, if a promotion or a deal doesn’t apparently cost you anything, then you’re what’s being sold.

If anyone with $uitable credential$ wants to join now, learn more about Trump Card (including pages of fine print Terms & Conditions) at the Trump Card Privileges Program.
posted by cenoxo at 7:14 PM on February 19, 2020


Grenell "is also expected to keep his current ambassadorship simultaneous with the new role, one administration official said."

So they no longer have to maintain the diplomatic facade for spies. The Ambassador to Germany will be an actual designated spook.
posted by JackFlash at 7:21 PM on February 19, 2020 [1 favorite]


I doubt the German intelligence community is much worried about this dude. Real spies will run circles around this moron, who will be too busy destroying the US intelligence community to notice.
posted by SecretAgentSockpuppet at 7:43 PM on February 19, 2020 [8 favorites]


If another country can no longer trust anything the current President of the United States says, it would be safest (from their security POV) to not trust his ambassadors or intelligence appointees either, interim or otherwise. If a paranoid POTUS won’t believe his own intelligence agencies, why should our allies (or opponents) also believe them? Deliberate uncertainty and confusion is a dangerous and foolish strategy for all sides.
posted by cenoxo at 7:52 PM on February 19, 2020 [1 favorite]


I doubt the German intelligence community is much worried about this dude. Real spies will run circles around this moron, who will be too busy destroying the US intelligence community to notice.
posted by SecretAgentSockpuppet at 10:43 PM on February 19 [+] [!]


It's been a while since I could say "Eponysterical."
posted by delfin at 7:56 PM on February 19, 2020 [14 favorites]


Trump tests Barr with more tweets about the Justice Department (WaPo / reprint)
President Trump continued to test his relationship with Attorney General William P. Barr on Wednesday by amplifying conservative allies demanding he “clean house” at the Justice Department and target those involved in the Russia investigation that once threatened his presidency. The grievances shared by Trump in a flurry of morning tweets included claims of a “seditious conspiracy” against him, and attacks on a “criminal gang” at the FBI and the Justice Department.

A day after it was revealed that Barr told people close to Trump that he had considered quitting, the president and his attorney general seemed to reach a detente of sorts. Officials inside the Justice Department said they were watching the situation closely, mindful that a new string of tweets or comments could quickly upend the situation, but there were no indications that Barr would leave imminently.

[...] If Trump continues to tweet, and Barr continues to stay in his job, “I think he is in danger of getting into ‘Boy Who Cried Wolf’ territory,” said Matthew Miller, a former Justice Department spokesman in the Obama administration. “He’s already said the president’s commenting made his job impossible, and the president kept commenting, and then he apparently told people that he was considering resigning if the president didn’t stop. So if the president doesn’t stop now and he doesn’t quit, he looks feckless and insincere.”

[...] Trump, White House officials said, is not entirely receptive to calls to change his behavior, and he has told those around him that he is not going to stop tweeting about the Justice Department. They said Trump considers highlighting what he perceives as FBI and Justice Department misconduct a good political message.
posted by katra at 9:57 PM on February 19, 2020 [5 favorites]


President Trump continued to test his relationship with Attorney General William P. Barr

Note that whether Barr was sincere about his complaints about Trump's tweets (Narrator: He wasn't), Barr was successful in manipulating the media into the narrative that they create friction, and thus ignoring the fact that Trump is loudly calling attention to Barr's corruption.

Do better, media.
posted by Gelatin at 2:37 AM on February 20, 2020 [16 favorites]


Trump, White House officials said, is not entirely receptive to calls to change his behavior...

No shit.
posted by Ben Trismegistus at 9:09 AM on February 20, 2020 [2 favorites]


Guardian: "Delivering her decision on Roger Stone’s sentence, Judge Amy Berman Jackson began, “Unsurprisingly, I have a lot to say.”

Guardian: "Outlining the charges against Roger Stone, Judge Amy Berman Jackson noted both chambers of Congress were controlled by Republicans when he lied to lawmakers, so it’s illogical that Stone would feel the need to protect Trump against an allegedly unfair investigation.
Josh Gerstein (@joshgerstein) Judge says one of Stone's motives was to 'shield' Trump. Notes Stone said he couldn't take 5th because it'd look bad for Trump. Judge notes Congress was GOP-controlled at time Stone lied, so it wasn't an anti-Trump cabal February 20, 2020
Guardian: Judge signals Stone's sentence will be less than original recommendation
Judge Amy Berman Jackson said federal prosecutors’ original sentencing recommendation, which called for seven to nine years in prison for Roger Stone, was “thorough, well-researched and supported.” However, she said she would not have issued that severe of a sentence, regardless of the “unprecedented” actions taken by Justice Department leadership last week.
Guardian: Judge: Stone 'was prosecuted for covering up for the president'
Judge Amy Berman Jackson dismissed the arguments, repeatedly aired by Trump’s allies on cable news and on Twitter, that Roger Stone is being punished for his political views. “He was not prosecuted, as some have complained, for standing up for the president,” Berman said. “He was prosecuted for covering up for the president.”
Guardian: Jackson denounces Stone's actions as she delivers sentence
Judge Amy Berman Jackson defended the congressional investigation into Russian interference and the prosecution of Roger Stone’s case. “There was nothing unfair, phony or disgraceful about the investigation or the prosecution,” Jackson said. “Witnesses do not get to decide for themselves whether Congress is entitled to the facts.” She also argued Stone’s disregard for the truth should worry all those who care about American democracy. “The dismay and disgust at the defendant’s belligerence should transcend party,” Jackson said.
Guardian: Stone sentenced to 40 months Guardian: "Roger Stone has been sentenced to spend three years and four months in prison, followed by two years of supervised release. The former Trump associate will also be required to pay a $20,000 fine. Judge Amy Berman Jackson sentenced Stone to 40 months on the first charge and concurrent sentences on the [six] other charges."
posted by katra at 9:41 AM on February 20, 2020 [19 favorites]


I have my money on “commute the sentence now and issue the pardon on the way out the door“.
posted by Big Al 8000 at 10:32 AM on February 20, 2020 [1 favorite]


Stone is not going to jail. He will file an appeal which may take six months to a year or more. He will not go to jail pending appeal. Trump has no rush to issue a pardon now.
posted by JackFlash at 10:37 AM on February 20, 2020


Roger Stone sentenced to 40 months for lying to Congress, witness tampering amid turmoil between Justice Dept. and Trump on penalty (WaPo)
“The truth still exists, the truth still matters,” Jackson said. “Roger Stone’s insistence that it doesn’t, his belligerence, his pride in his own lies are a threat to our most fundamental institutions, to the foundations of our democracies. If it goes unpunished it will not be a victory for one political party; everyone loses.”

[...] Jackson made clear she thought Stone’s crimes were serious. She called his testimony “plainly false” and “a flat-out lie,” and said his misdirection “shut out important avenues” for Congress to investigate. She said Stone knew “it could reflect badly on president if someone learned” about his efforts to obtain damaging information about Hillary Clinton, who was then running against Trump to be president, from the anti-secrecy group WikiLeaks.

[...] Prosecutors said the longtime GOP operative lied during testimony to the House Intelligence Committee in September 2017 to conceal his central role in the Trump campaign’s efforts to learn about computer files hacked by Russia and made public by anti-secrecy group WikiLeaks. Stone also threatened a witness who was an associate of his in an attempt to prevent the man from cooperating with lawmakers.

[...] Trump injected additional drama into Stone’s sentencing day with an overnight tweet that hinted he could issue a pardon to Stone.
Bill Barr’s Past Statements Say Pardoning Roger Stone Would Be Obstruction (emptywheel)
In a piece on Roger Stone’s sentence today, Politico questions how Bill Barr would regard a Trump pardon for Roger Stone. [...] The piece doesn’t examine Barr’s past claimed beliefs, though. And if Barr had a shred of intellectual consistency, he would view a pardon as a crime.

Start with the three times, in his confirmation hearing, where Barr said offering a pardon for false testimony would be obstruction. [...] Mind you, none of that is going to change the fact that Trump will extend clemency to Stone. It probably just means that Barr will invite some journalist he has known for decades and talk about tweets to distract from the fact that Barr is already on the record saying that what comes next is a crime.
posted by katra at 10:38 AM on February 20, 2020 [14 favorites]


Even if everything goes as well as possible for the US and a Democratic president is elected along with a majority in the Senate, Trump can still pardon every member of his coterie right up until he is replaced. And as JackFlash says, Stone's appeal will likely go on until then. So the sentence just doesn't matter. It's effectively just a formal expression of concern.
posted by Joe in Australia at 10:56 AM on February 20, 2020 [1 favorite]


How Nancy Pelosi Is Forcing Trump and the Republicans Over a Cliff (David Cay Johnston, DCReport)
Republican leaders are highly unlikely to turn on Trump. But Pelosi has ensured that they will pay a price for defending Trump as his conduct worsens. The GOP and Trump cannot easily get a political divorce, thanks to Pelosi, without openly saying they made a terrible mistake in failing to remove Trump.

Fellow Democrats who complain that Pelosi slow-walked impeachment and then agreed to proceed on just two articles instead of a kitchen sink of charges have missed her long-term strategy. The tack continues to play out to the Democrats’ advantage.

By forcing impeachment over national security, Pelosi maneuvered leading Republican senators into a choice between breaking with Trump or spreading Kremlin propaganda to help Trump.

Pelosi’s strategy put the lie to 75 years of Republican claims to be worried about the Kremlin.
By showing that concern about Moscow was a fraud, Pelosi also showed that putting protection of Trump ahead of love of our country is the policy of GOP leaders.

The only question remaining: Are the Democrats savvy enough to get that plain and simple message across to voters and to give the Democrats control of the White House, the Senate and the House in 2020.
posted by ZeusHumms at 10:59 AM on February 20, 2020 [14 favorites]


"Are the Democrats savvy enough..."

Sadly that's a question that can be answered without reading further.
posted by mcstayinskool at 11:03 AM on February 20, 2020 [10 favorites]


John Bolton rebuked for withholding Trump testimony in new public event (Guardian)
Bolton, speaking alongside Susan Rice at a lecture series at Vanderbilt University, was taken to task by his co-speaker, who served as national security adviser under Barack Obama.

Rice criticized Bolton for refusing to testify before the House of Representatives during the impeachment hearings. It later emerged that Bolton has documented, in a forthcoming book, evidence regarding Trump and Ukraine that Democrats had sought him to provide on the record.

“I can’t imagine withholding my testimony with or without a subpoena,” Rice said at the Vanderbilt event, according to CNN reporter Jennifer Hansler. “I would feel like I was shamefully violating the oath that I took to defend the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic.”

[...] At the Vanderbilt event, Bolton said, according to the Vanderbilt Hustler student newspaper: “I said I would testify if subpoenaed. My position is exactly the same as Joe Biden.”

Rice reportedly responded: “Except Joe Biden didn’t have firsthand knowledge about what transpired with Ukraine.”

[...] “When I was the sitting national security adviser in 2016, I was called to testify in front of the House select committee about Benghazi,” Rice said, according to the Hustler. “The last thing I wanted to do was take time away from my duty as national security adviser. But I did so voluntarily. I wasn’t subpoenaed.”
posted by katra at 11:17 AM on February 20, 2020 [17 favorites]


Trump tests Barr with more tweets about the Justice Department

Imperial tweets be damned. What does the world think of Trump – and consequently of America and the rest of our so-called leadership – for listening to (and tolerating) his ridiculous, rabble-rousing threats and whining? He’s not a President, he’s a perpetrator.
posted by cenoxo at 11:17 AM on February 20, 2020 [7 favorites]


Guardian: Schiff warns Stone pardon would be 'breathtaking act of corruption'
House intelligence committee chairman Adam Schiff said Roger Stone’s sentence was “justified” and warned that a presidential pardon in the case would be a “breathtaking act of corruption.”

Adam Schiff (@RepAdamSchiff) Roger Stone was found guilty of lying to Congress and threatening a witness. He did it to cover up for Trump. His sentence is justified. It should go without saying, but to pardon Stone when his crimes were committed to protect Trump would be a breathtaking act of corruption. February 20, 2020
Trump world now awaits Roger Stone pardon (Politico)
Indeed, Trump has maintained interest in Stone’s legal situation from the get go, and the president’s public comments at several key moments along the way have drawn scrutiny from legal experts who warned they could be construed as presidential interference. In December 2018, for example, Trump faced questions that he was witness tampering after he lauded Stone’s statement pledging not to testify against Trump. [...] Nearly two months later, when special counsel Robert Mueller unveiled the Stone indictment, Trump complained about the manner of Stone’s arrest and asked why a number of top law enforcement officials didn’t face similar legal scrutiny.
posted by katra at 12:19 PM on February 20, 2020 [1 favorite]


Imperial tweets be damned. What does the world think of Trump – and consequently of America and the rest of our so-called leadership – for listening to (and tolerating) his ridiculous, rabble-rousing threats and whining? He’s not a President, he’s a perpetrator.
I can hardly speak for the world, but in my little corner of it, the respect for the American presidency is long gone. Journalists have begun to note that he is untruthful every single time they cite him (because there might be some naive people who haven't noticed). This is both on the right and the left. The very far right still support Trump, but they are challenged on it. The mainstream conservatives try to explain why American Republicans are supporting him, but with little success (and again, they are not giving excuses for Trump).
posted by mumimor at 12:23 PM on February 20, 2020 [7 favorites]


Not to abuse the edit window:
I live in a country that has been extremely loyal to the US since WWII, regardless of which political party was in power.
An important Social Democratic leader has recently admitted to being a US agent in his youth. For the Danish government to distance itself from the US is a huge leap and I have to say a cause of anxiety and lack of direction across the political establishment.
posted by mumimor at 12:27 PM on February 20, 2020 [14 favorites]


At the Vanderbilt event, Bolton said, according to the Vanderbilt Hustler student newspaper: “I said I would testify if subpoenaed.

A normal person reading this will think he meant “I will do your thing if you just take this little step to make it official.”

IANAL, but I think his lawyer would say that “if subpoenaed” has to mean “if I receive a valid subpoena” (because an invalid subpoena isn't a subpoena at all); and only a court can decide whether a subpoena is valid. In other words, his offer actually means “I will testify if I am forced to do so after an extensive appeals process if the alternative is being punished for contempt of court”. It's really no concession at all.

My apologies for spelling this out if it was obvious, but the fact that Bolton keeps repeating it makes me think that he expects his audience to accept his statement at face value.
posted by Joe in Australia at 12:36 PM on February 20, 2020 [9 favorites]


Bolton meant "if subpoenaed by Republicans in the Senate." Bolton had refused to testify if subpoenaed by Democrats in the House.
posted by JackFlash at 12:44 PM on February 20, 2020 [15 favorites]


Imagine That Donald Trump Has Almost No Control Over Justice – Congress should transform the department into an independent agency untouched by the president’s whims, New York Times Opinion, Cass R. Sunstein, Feb 20, 2020:
In view of the intensifying controversy over the politicization of the Department of Justice under Attorney General William Barr and its potential weaponization at the hands of President Trump, it is worth reviving a proposal that has not been seriously discussed since the Watergate era: Congress should transform the Justice Department into an independent agency, legally immunized from the president’s day-to-day control.

The United States government has two kinds of agencies. Most of them are “executive.” They are essentially the president’s agents and subject to his will. This is true for the president’s cabinet, including the Departments of State, Defense, Agriculture, Commerce, Transportation — and Justice.

Other agencies are made “independent” by law. Their heads are appointed by the president, but it is generally agreed that he cannot direct them to do as he wishes or control their day-to-day operations. This is true for the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Communications Commission. It is also true for the Federal Trade Commission, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Social Security Administration, the Consumer Product Safety Commission and the National Labor Relations Board.

Many people think that under the Constitution, the executive branch is “unitary,” in the sense that the president must be in control of all those who carry out federal law. But since 1935, the Supreme Court has rejected this view, allowing Congress to ensure that these agencies, and many others, operate independently of the president.

The best reason to make an agency independent is to reduce the likelihood that its decisions will be affected by political considerations or the president’s self-interest.
...
America will survive Trump, but the scales of Lady Justice need to be rebalanced (and explicitly protected from executive politics) as much as possible. They shouldn’t be turned into any party’s see-saw after a presidential election.
posted by cenoxo at 12:53 PM on February 20, 2020 [15 favorites]


The whole Barr vs. Trump thing looks to me to be just another part of the smokescreen, with no real substance. Trump won't punish Barr, because Barr won't do anything Trump doesn't want done. That includes "complaining" about Trump's tweets. It's not worth even discussing it.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 12:53 PM on February 20, 2020 [8 favorites]


it is generally agreed that he cannot direct them to do as he wishes or control their day-to-day operations

We've seen time and again over the last three years that "generally agreed" doesn't mean shit. We need laws.
posted by kirkaracha at 2:07 PM on February 20, 2020 [14 favorites]


After a congressional briefing on election threats, Trump soured on acting spy chief (WaPo)
President Trump erupted at his acting director of national intelligence, Joseph Maguire, in the Oval Office last week over what he perceived as disloyalty by Maguire’s staff, which ruined Maguire’s chances of becoming the permanent intelligence chief, according to people familiar with the matter.

Trump announced on Wednesday that he was replacing Maguire with a vocal loyalist, Richard Grenell, who is the U.S. ambassador to Germany. Maguire had been considered a leading candidate to be nominated for the post of DNI, White House aides had said. But Trump’s opinion shifted last week when he heard from a GOP ally that the intelligence official in charge of election security, who works for Maguire, gave a classified briefing last Thursday to the House Intelligence Committee on 2020 election security.

It is unclear what the official, Shelby Pierson, specifically said at the briefing that angered Trump, but the president erroneously believed that she had given information exclusively to Rep. Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.), the committee chairman, and that the information would be helpful to Democrats if it were released publicly, the people familiar with the matter said. Schiff was the lead impeachment manager, or prosecutor, during Trump’s Senate trial on charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.
Russia Backs Trump’s Re-election, and He Fears Democrats Will Exploit Its Support (NYT)
Intelligence officials warned House lawmakers last week that Russia was interfering in the 2020 campaign to try to get President Trump re-elected, five people familiar with the matter said, in a disclosure that angered Mr. Trump, who complained that Democrats would use it against him.

The day after the Feb. 13 briefing to lawmakers, Mr. Trump berated Joseph Maguire, the outgoing acting director of national intelligence, for allowing it to take place, people familiar with the exchange said. Mr. Trump cited the presence in the briefing of Representative Adam B. Schiff, the California Democrat who led the impeachment proceedings against him, as a particular irritant.
posted by katra at 2:20 PM on February 20, 2020 [5 favorites]


We've seen time and again over the last three years that "generally agreed" doesn't mean shit. We need laws.

We already have the laws, with respect to many commissions, boards, etc. As cenoxo's link mentions, we even have the case law to back it up. Unfortunately, we also have a panel of judges on the Supreme Court who in many cases feel unbound by precedent and seem supportive of the unitary executive magical thinking.
posted by wierdo at 2:55 PM on February 20, 2020 [1 favorite]


the entire sunstein editorial cenoxo linked above is worth reading, considering and forwarding to senators and representatives. we'll have to keep an eye on the CFPB case, and advise our congresspersons to account for any ensuing holding in drafting their bills.
posted by 20 year lurk at 3:10 PM on February 20, 2020


the entire sunstein editorial cenoxo linked above is worth reading, considering and forwarding to senators and representatives.

With a sticky note, perhaps, that says "ITMFA," because we don't need to accept Sunstein's unfounded proposition that there is no other way to address these abuses of power. The president is not the chief law enforcement officer, and it is an abuse of his power for him to act like it.
posted by katra at 3:59 PM on February 20, 2020 [6 favorites]


Russia Backs Trump’s Re-election, and He Fears Democrats Will Exploit Its Support (NYT)

Why the 2020 Election Will Be A Mess: It’s Just Too Easy for Putin (Alex Finley, John Sipher and Asha Rangappa, Just Security)
FBI Director Christopher Wray testified to the House Judiciary Committee last week that Russia’s disinformation campaign to interfere in the 2020 election is underway. This isn’t surprising, given that Russian active measures are about the long game: Ex-KGB officer and Russian President Vladimir Putin’s goal was never simply to place a Manchurian candidate in the Oval Office, but rather to permanently destabilize the West, damage U.S. credibility, and undermine those very things that make democratic countries special.

Putin aimed for chaos, and Donald Trump was the chaos candidate in 2016. But Putin will continue to attack, namely because his objectives haven’t changed and the United States has not done anything to defend or deter him from this course of action. The only difference this time around is that, after four years of Trump, generating chaos will be even easier to achieve, as Trump and his surrogates have adopted the same playbook. Republicans know they are working in parallel with Russian intelligence, even if they are not working hand in hand. Republicans may insist to themselves there is a difference, but practically speaking, there isn’t. The only way to neutralize this threat is through public awareness of Russia’s tactics and increased civic participation: To that end, read on.

[...] Putin does not care if Trump wins. He simply wants to weaken the U.S. Making the country question the outcome of the most sacred part of democracy is a good way to do it.

But it is also incumbent on us not to overreact to Russian actions aimed at outraging us, or to become so despondent by assaults on our institutions that we give up. The only defense against the onslaught of disinformation and fomentation—no matter the source—is a return to provable fact. And the only antidote to the political situation we find ourselves in is informed participation in the political process.
posted by katra at 4:20 PM on February 20, 2020 [14 favorites]


it is generally agreed that he cannot direct them to do as he wishes or control their day-to-day operations
We've seen time and again over the last three years that "generally agreed" doesn't mean shit. We need laws.


He's talking there about independent federal agencies like Federal Reserve Board, which are protected by law. At the DoJ there's no legal barrier to Trump directing Barr's day-to-day operations or firing him for any reason or no reason. By contrast, he can't legally fire the Federal Reserve Board and install his personal toadies. And, you may notice, he hasn't done that, despite tweeting loudly about how interest rates are too high. He really is constrained.

Sunstein wants a law that would move the DoJ into this sort of independent status that would actually make it illegal to fire the Attorney General (or anyone under him, like the director of the FBI) without cause.
posted by BungaDunga at 7:33 PM on February 20, 2020 [6 favorites]


it is generally agreed that he cannot direct them to do as he wishes or control their day-to-day operations

This is also already true for the DOJ, and that is why there is so much outrage in response to the recent abuses (for example, over 2600 former DOJ officials calling for Barr to resign, noting "Governments that use the enormous power of law enforcement to punish their enemies and reward their allies are not constitutional republics; they are autocracies"), so I disagree with Sunstein's implication that Trump's abuse of power is something for which there is no recourse without changing the structure of the government.

The DOJ is already supposed to operate independently, particularly post-Watergate, and these are not just 'norms.' It is an understanding that if the president behaves like Trump has, it is an abuse of power, and that is what impeachment can address. We do not need to accept Guiliani and the GOP's defense that a law must be in place to restrain the president, because we already know from the recent impeachment that "abuse of power" covers more than unlawful conduct and also includes malfeasance that strikes at the heart of our democracy.
posted by katra at 8:38 PM on February 20, 2020 [3 favorites]


didn't we impeach him for abuse of power like, two, three weeks ago tho?
posted by 20 year lurk at 9:06 PM on February 20, 2020 [3 favorites]


Impeachment 2.0: Power To The People?
posted by Anoplura at 9:11 PM on February 20, 2020


and these are not just 'norms.' It is an understanding that if the president behaves like Trump has, it is an abuse of power

Isn't that literally what a norm is? An understanding that we've all acted upon but which lacks the force of law? (re: doj)
posted by Justinian at 9:28 PM on February 20, 2020 [6 favorites]


Can Donald Trump Be Impeached? (Andrew Sullivan, NYT Book Review, Mar. 12, 2018)

IMPEACHMENT A Citizen’s Guide By Cass R. Sunstein
199 pp. Harvard University. Paper, $7.95.

CAN IT HAPPEN HERE? Authoritarianism in America Edited by Cass R. Sunstein
481 pp. Dey St./Morrow. Paper, $17.99.
Where does this leave us with respect to Donald Trump? Sunstein smartly doesn’t answer the question directly — instead teasing out various hypotheticals with some similarities to our current concerns. Here are a few: directing the Justice Department to prosecute someone for political reasons; pledging in advance to pardon anyone in law enforcement who commits a crime; using the F.B.I. or C.I.A. to get evidence of criminality against a political opponent; egregiously defaulting on his core presidential responsibilities; secretly bribing others in a direct quid pro quo or similarly receiving bribes; and secretly cooperating with a foreign power to promulgate false information against a political opponent. Sunstein thinks each of these is an impeachable offense — as they almost certainly are.
Sunstein on impeachment (Harvard Gazette, Oct. 30, 2017)
One misconception is that if the president hasn’t committed a crime, he can’t be impeached. That’s wrong. If the president goes on vacation for six months in Moscow, he’s impeachable, though that’s no crime. If he abuses the pardon power, he is impeachable, even if he has not committed a crime.
posted by katra at 10:27 PM on February 20, 2020 [8 favorites]


Q&A with Cass Sunstein on “Impeachment: A Citizen’s Guide” (Ryan Goodman, Just Security, Oct. 23, 2017)
One thing I learned is that impeachment must be understood in light of the American Revolution; the Declaration of Independence is a bit like Articles of Impeachment. At the constitutional convention, the whole idea of a powerful president was immensely controversial – to many people, it seemed a betrayal of the principles for which the Revolution had been fought. (The fetus of monarchy, some called it.) Impeachment was a necessary safeguard. Without impeachment, no ratification (I think).

With respect to your question: On abuse of power as a prerequisite for impeachment, my interpretation of the impeachment clause and its scope comes from essentially everything in the framing and ratification debates. Impeachment was universally understood to be a response to abuses of official power. Hamilton in The Federalist Papers is just one of numerous examples.

[...] In some cases, it might not be so easy to distinguish between abuses of power and private acts, but mere knowledge that your official position will protect you doesn’t get you into the category that concerned Hamilton, Madison, and others, or that got farmers in Concord, Mass. to take up arms on April 19, 1775. Think about what the American Revolution was fought for, and you’ll have a good clue of what impeachment is all about.
posted by katra at 10:42 PM on February 20, 2020 [8 favorites]


fetus of monarchy

A 233-year gestation. Imagine. Does that mean the 19th century was all morning-sickness?
posted by Grangousier at 1:17 AM on February 21, 2020


wow you do good work, katra. thanks (again and ongoing)!
posted by 20 year lurk at 9:00 AM on February 21, 2020 [11 favorites]


A 233-year gestation. Imagine. Does that mean the 19th century was all morning-sickness?

The Trump administration is a shorter term, but our Founders do sound very pro-choice.

In the meantime, there have been updates to this article: Russia Backs Trump’s Re-election, and He Fears Democrats Will Exploit Its Support (NYT)
In a tweet on Thursday evening, Mr. Schiff said that it appeared that Mr. Trump was “again jeopardizing our efforts to stop foreign meddling” with his objections to the briefing. [...] Both Republicans and Democrats asked the intelligence agencies to hand over the underlying material that prompted their conclusion that Russia again is favoring Mr. Trump’s election.

[...] How soon the House committee might get that information is not clear. Since the impeachment inquiry, tensions have risen between the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the committee. As officials navigate the disputes, the intelligence agencies have slowed the amount of material they provide to the House, officials said. The agencies are required by law to regularly brief Congress on threats.

[...] And some current and former intelligence officials expressed fears that Mr. Grenell may have been put in place explicitly to slow the pace of information on election interference to Congress. The revelations about Mr. Trump’s confrontation with Mr. Maguire raised new concerns about Mr. Grenell’s appointment, said the Democratic House committee official, who added that the upcoming election could be more vulnerable to foreign interference.

Mr. Trump, former officials have said, is typically uninterested in election interference briefings, and Mr. Grenell might see it as unwise to emphasize such intelligence with the president.
posted by katra at 9:06 AM on February 21, 2020 [3 favorites]


NSC aide who worked to discredit Russia probe moves to senior ODNI post (Politico)
Kash Patel, a former top National Security Council official who also played a key role as a Hill staffer in helping Republicans discredit the Russia probe, is now a senior adviser for new acting Director of National Intelligence Richard Grenell, according to four people familiar with the matter. [...]

He had previously worked as Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.)’s top staffer on the House Intelligence Committee and was the lead author of a report questioning the conduct of FBI and DOJ officials investigating Russia’s election interference. Republicans later used the report to bolster arguments that the probe was a plot to take down President Donald Trump.

Grenell, who has not served in any U.S. intelligence agency and will also continue as the U.S. ambassador to Germany, will not require Senate confirmation to serve as acting director. Nor will Patel in his new role. [...] Intel Chairman Richard Burr (R-N.C.) has remained conspicuously silent on the president’s choice of Grenell as acting director.

Burr’s counterpart Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia, blasted the selection of Grenell, and said it was “an effort to sidestep the Senate’s constitutional authority to advise and consent on such critical national security positions. The selection of Patel is likely to raise hackles further among Democrats, who often tangled with the former Nunes staffer when he worked on Capitol Hill.

ODNI’s Principal Executive Andrew Hallman, who has been performing the duties of the principal deputy director of national intelligence, will be leaving the office as soon as Friday, according to three people familiar with the matter. It’s not clear whether Hallman, who is weighing his next steps, will go back to the CIA.
posted by katra at 9:53 AM on February 21, 2020 [2 favorites]


Kash Patel may be familiar to political junkies as the guy who, according to impeachment testimony, Trump thought was the top NSC person on Ukraine even though he wasn't.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 10:01 AM on February 21, 2020 [4 favorites]


Guardian: White House reportedly targeting 'Never Trumpers' in administration
Trump’s newly installed head of the Presidential Personnel Office, Johnny McEntee, is reportedly instructing administration officials to identify “Never Trumpers” and block them from promotion.

Axios reports:
Johnny McEntee called in White House liaisons from cabinet agencies for an introductory meeting Thursday, in which he asked them to identify political appointees across the U.S. government who are believed to be anti-Trump, three sources familiar with the meeting tell Axios. ...

But McEntee suggested the most dramatic changes may have to wait until after the November election.

Trump has empowered McEntee — whom he considers an absolute loyalist — to purge the ‘bad people’ and ‘Deep State.’

McEntee told staff that those identified as anti-Trump will no longer get promotions by shifting them around agencies.
As a reminder, McEntee was previously fired from the White House by former chief of staff John Kelly because he had been denied a security clearance, partly due to an online gambling problem.
posted by katra at 10:04 AM on February 21, 2020 [11 favorites]


Rohrabacher confirms he offered ... pardon... (Michael Isikoff, Yahoo News)
White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham immediately denounced the claim about a pardon discussion with Assange as a “complete fabrication,” adding that the president “barely knows Dana Rohrabacher” and has “never spoken to him on this subject or almost any subject.”

Rohrabacher said that not only did talk of a Trump pardon take place during his meeting, but he also followed up by calling then White House chief of staff John Kelly to discuss the proposal. He did not, however, ever speak to Trump about it, he said.

“I spoke to Julian Assange and told him if he would provide evidence about who gave WikiLeaks the emails I would petition the president to give him a pardon,” Rohrabacher said. “He knew I could get to the president.”
posted by 20 year lurk at 10:43 AM on February 21, 2020 [6 favorites]


WaPo opinion piece on Trump's efforts to quash talk of Russian interference in the 2020 elections:
Don’t mince words. Trump is abetting an attack on our country.
posted by Nerd of the North at 2:45 PM on February 21, 2020 [10 favorites]


Over in the UK. Boris Johnson is still refusing to publish our own report of Russian interference in our elections, despite it being given clearance by the appropriate committees. He won't say why.

#onestory
posted by Devonian at 4:23 PM on February 21, 2020 [20 favorites]


He won't say why.

Which is functionally identical to saying why.
posted by Etrigan at 5:00 PM on February 21, 2020 [7 favorites]


Bernie Sanders briefed by U.S. officials that Russia is trying to help his presidential campaign, Washington Post, Feb. 21, 2020.

Those tricksy Russkies playing both sides now, they’re just incorrigible. Pick a candidate card, any card, but note who’s shuffling the deck.

I’m betting The Imperial Donald – being a True Patriot and the Greatest President, rightfully exonerated by the Senate – accuses Sanders (or any other traitorous Democrat) of not being able to win in 2020 without asking for and receiving Russian help. The louder their denials, the guiltier they are.
posted by cenoxo at 6:28 PM on February 21, 2020 [4 favorites]


Sanders condemns Russian interference in 2020 elections (Politico)
“Unlike Donald Trump, I do not consider Vladimir Putin a good friend,” the statement said.
posted by katra at 6:55 PM on February 21, 2020 [7 favorites]


In one incident, a series of realities about Trump’s presidency seem to be confirmed (Philip Bump, WaPo)
What happened last week seems to be straightforward.

An intelligence official briefed the House Intelligence Committee on assessments establishing that Russia would work to aid President Trump’s reelection in November. That briefing was relayed to Trump by his loyal ally, Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), leading Trump to reportedly believe that only committee chairman Rep. Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.) had received the information. In a meeting the next day, Trump blew up at then-acting director of national intelligence Joseph Maguire about the briefing. Maguire was removed from his position Thursday.

Why was Trump angry? According to sources who spoke with The Washington Post, it was at least in part because Trump thought that the information being provided to the committee could be used against him and, further, was a continuation of what Trump has constantly argued is a false narrative about Russia’s efforts to boost his candidacy in 2016. [...]

During the impeachment, we were assured that his interactions with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky were centered on concern about the republic and not his reelection. We were asked to assume that what appeared on the surface to be obvious requests for investigations that would bolster Trump politically — including one aimed at undermining the finding that Russia had interfered in 2016 — were instead largely focused on aiding the American people.

In this new incident, we have a demonstration that the most natural assumptions about Trump’s motivations were correct. An intelligence official warns a legislative-branch committee about a threat to U.S. elections, and Trump’s response is to rage about how the warning is a risk to himself politically. Informing Schiff that Russia might want Trump to win may have been to Trump an unacceptable handing of a political talking point to a sworn enemy and not the proper functioning of the government.

That it could be a useful talking point for Schiff is Trump’s own fault, of course. Trump could actively reject Russian interference and have taken concrete steps to block their interference, but he hasn’t. Democrats can use that disinclination as a cudgel against him.
posted by katra at 7:13 PM on February 21, 2020 [25 favorites]


Trump’s Efforts to Remove the Disloyal Heightens Unease Across His Administration (Peter Baker, NYT)
And Johnny McEntee, a 29-year-old loyalist just installed to take over the Office of Presidential Personnel and reporting directly to Mr. Trump, has ordered a freeze on all political appointments across the government. He also convened a meeting to instruct departments to search for people not devoted to the president so they can be removed, according to people briefed about the session, and informed colleagues that he planned to tell cabinet secretaries that the White House would be choosing their deputies from now on.

“Trump appears to be launching the biggest assault on the nation’s civil service system since the 1883 Pendleton Act ended the spoils system,” said Paul C. Light, a New York University professor who has studied presidential personnel.

But career professionals are not the only ones in the cross hairs. Also facing scrutiny are Republican political appointees considered insufficiently committed to the president or suspected of not aggressively advancing his agenda. [...] Mr. Trump has long been obsessed with loyalty, a view only exacerbated by his impeachment and the various investigations over the last three years that have convinced him that he is surrounded by a deep-state enemy within that is leaking, lying and sabotaging his presidency.

[...] According to data compiled by Kathryn Dunn Tenpas, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, turnover among what she calls Mr. Trump’s “A team,” meaning his senior staff, has hit 82 percent, more in three years than any of the previous five presidents saw in their first four years. Moreover, the Trump administration has been notable for a high level of serial turnover, with 38 percent of the top positions replaced more than once.

[...] John C. Rood, who was removed as under secretary of defense for policy, did not speak out publicly but had written internal emails skeptical of the freeze on security aid to Ukraine that was at the center of the impeachment inquiry. In National Security Council staff meetings, however, Mr. Rood was a constant voice of skepticism over the administration’s troop reductions in Syria, its pending peace deal with the Taliban and other issues. With Mr. McEntee’s arrival, that dissenting voice was no longer welcome, said a person familiar with the matter.
posted by katra at 11:44 AM on February 23, 2020 [4 favorites]


Responding to news of Russian interference, Trump sends chilling message to U.S. intelligence community (Shane Harris, Ellen Nakashima and Josh Dawsey, WaPo)
Intelligence officers pride themselves as apolitical fact-finders who follow the rule of “speak truth to power.” But President Trump has tacked on a new coda: “Do so at your peril.”

[...] Current and former national security officials were appalled but not surprised by [acting director of national intelligence, Joseph] Maguire’s unceremonious dispatch. “[I]n this administration, good men and women don’t last long,” retired Adm. William H. McRaven, who led the raid that killed Osama bin Laden and is one of Maguire’s closest friends, wrote in an opinion piece for The Washington Post on Friday. “Joe was dismissed for doing his job: overseeing the dissemination of intelligence to elected officials who needed that information to do their jobs,” McRaven wrote.

[...] A House intelligence committee official worried that Trump “has installed a new acting DNI to protect himself and interfere politically in the crucial work of the intelligence community, leaving our elections more vulnerable to foreign interference than ever.”

The decision to move another Trump loyalist, Kash Patel, into a senior advisory position at the intelligence director’s office further cemented that impression. Patel, a former aide to Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) and most recently the top counterterrorism official on the National Security Council, has infuriated CIA and FBI personnel over his efforts to prove a conspiracy in the intelligence community to bring down the president by investigating his campaign’s possible ties to Russia in 2016.

U.S. intelligence agencies unanimously concluded that in 2016, Russia leaked emails from the Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign as part of an effort to harm her candidacy and boost Trump, a finding that has long riled Trump and congressional Republicans. The recent analysis that Russia is again trying to help Trump inflamed a long-sensitive nerve.
posted by katra at 11:57 AM on February 23, 2020 [6 favorites]


...[Johnny McEntee] also convened a meeting to instruct departments to search for people not devoted to the president so they can be removed...
...Also facing scrutiny are Republican political appointees considered insufficiently committed to the president or suspected of not aggressively advancing his agenda...


Purge (WP):
In history, religion and political science, a purge is a removal or execution of people who are considered undesirable by those in power from a government, another organization, their team leaders, or society as a whole. A group undertaking such an effort is labeled as purging itself. Purges can be either nonviolent or violent; with the former often resolved by the simple removal of those who have been purged from office, and the latter often resolved by the imprisonment, exile, or murder of those who have been purged...
Citizens, comrades, kameraden, it is not enough to merely cheer, wave a flag, or wear a lapel pin. Such symbolic gestures are better than nothing, but – having sworn (and signed) a personal oath of allegiance to our Great Leader – you must always advance and evangelize his prophetic reign under the guidance of our Grand Old Party.

Performance reviews will emailed to you before monthly Party rallies in your agency, workplace, town, or city. Remember that you are required to participate in online evaluations of your fellow co-workers and supervisors: please use the link on the Party’s home page, or download the app there.

May God bless America.
posted by cenoxo at 1:05 PM on February 23, 2020 [6 favorites]


Trump embarks on expansive search for disloyalty as administration-wide purge escalates (Toluse Olorunnipa, Ashley Parker and Josh Dawsey, WaPo, Feb. 21, 2020)
President Trump has instructed his White House to identify and force out officials across his administration who are not seen as sufficiently loyal, a post-impeachment escalation that administration officials say reflects a new phase of a campaign of retribution and restructuring ahead of the November election. [...] What began as a campaign of retribution against officials who participated in the impeachment process has evolved into a full-scale effort to create an administration more fully in sync with Trump’s id and agenda, according to several officials familiar with the plan. It is unclear whether civil servants will be targeted as well, but it would be harder to dislodge them than removing political appointees. Civil servants, however, could be sidelined in other ways.

[...] Mulvaney used a speech this week at the Oxford Union in Britain to inveigh against the “deep state,” and he lamented that the administration could not fire more agency employees who do not implement the president’s orders. He referred to some of testimony of the witnesses who participated in Trump’s impeachment inquiry. Bureaucrats who want to make policy instead of implementing it “should put their name on the effing ballot and run” for office, he said during remarks to a group of several hundred people, according to audio of a speech obtained by The Washington Post.

Trump’s family members have been among the main champions of the effort to force out officials who have not proved their devotion to Trump. Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law and a senior adviser in the White House, has played a central role in the push, concentrating more power in the West Wing and working to combat leaks, officials said.

[...] Meanwhile, administration officials are conducting a search for the “Anonymous” author of a tell-all book about Trump titled “A Warning,” according to White House trade adviser Peter Navarro, who told CNN on Friday that the search had become a “vocation with everybody.”
posted by katra at 2:52 PM on February 23, 2020 [3 favorites]


...in sync with Trump’s id...

We already know how that will turn out.
posted by cenoxo at 3:37 PM on February 23, 2020 [1 favorite]


Sen. Murphy calls Trump ‘a gift to Russia’ (Politico)
"Of course, it stands to reason that they want Donald Trump reelected because he has been a gift to Russia,” Murphy[, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee,] said. "He has essentially ceded the Middle East to Russian interests. He has accomplished more in the undermining of NATO than Russia has in the last 20 years. And he continues to effectively deny that they have an ongoing political operation here in the United States that, by and large, is intended to support Donald Trump and his allies." [...] "What we know is that NATO is weaker today than ever before," Murphy responded. "The fact that Donald Trump has questioned whether or not the United States would even come to the defense of a NATO ally in the future is an invitation to Russia to continue to probe at our borders."

Murphy also responded to comments made by O'Brien on Sunday that it's "no surprise" Russian wants to help get Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders elected president. "Well, our national security adviser should stay out of politics. And that is a political statement," Murphy said.

The Washington Post reported Friday that Sanders was briefed by U.S. officials on Russia's attempt to help his campaign as part of an effort to interfere with the Democratic primaries. Sanders condemned Russian interference, telling Russian President Vladimir Putin that if he is elected president, "trust me, you are not going to be interfering in American elections."
Russia Is Said to Be Interfering to Aid Sanders in Democratic Primaries (Julian E. Barnes and Sydney Ember, NYT)
Republicans have disputed that Russia supports Mr. Trump, insisting that Mr. Putin simply wants to broadly spread chaos and undermine the democratic system. They have also argued that Mr. Sanders’s gestures of peace toward the Soviet Union at the end of the Cold War might make him appealing to Mr. Putin.

But some current and former officials expressed doubt that Russian officials think that Mr. Sanders has a hidden affinity for Moscow. Instead, they said that a Russian campaign to support Mr. Sanders might ultimately be aimed at aiding Mr. Trump. Moscow could potentially consider Mr. Sanders a weaker general election opponent for the president than a more moderate Democratic nominee, according to two people familiar with the matter.
posted by katra at 3:43 PM on February 23, 2020 [6 favorites]


Judge swats down Roger Stone’s effort to disqualify her as publicity stunt (Rachel Weiner, WaPo)
“Given the absence of any factual or legal support for the motion for disqualification, the pleading appears to be nothing more than an attempt to use the Court’s docket to disseminate a statement for public consumption that has the words ‘judge’ and ‘biased’ in it,” wrote U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson of the District of Columbia.

Stone’s motion sought to disqualify Berman Jackson for referring during Thursday’s sentencing to “the jurors who served with integrity under difficult circumstances.” He is still challenging one juror as biased.

[...] She said her comment was “very general” but added that it would not be disqualifying even if she had spoken specifically of the pending motion, saying: “If parties could move to disqualify every judge who furrows his brow at one side or the other before ruling, the entire court system would come to a standstill.”

Legal experts took an equally dim view of the motion before Berman Jackson’s ruling, saying it was probably designed to appeal to the president rather than the courts.
posted by katra at 7:28 PM on February 23, 2020 [6 favorites]


Exclusive: Trump's "Deep State" hit list (Jonathan Swan, Axios)
The Trump White House and its allies, over the past 18 months, assembled detailed lists of disloyal government officials to oust — and trusted pro-Trump people to replace them — according to more than a dozen sources familiar with the effort who spoke to Axios. [...] A well-connected network of conservative activists with close ties to Trump and top administration officials is quietly helping develop these "Never Trump"/pro-Trump lists, and some sent memos to Trump to shape his views, per sources with direct knowledge. Members of this network include Ginni Thomas, the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, and Republican Senate staffer Barbara Ledeen.

[...] "I think it's a very positive development," said Rich Higgins, who served on Trump's National Security Council in 2017. H.R. McMaster removed Higgins after he wrote a memo speculating that Trump's presidency faced threats from Marxists, the "Deep State," so-called globalists, bankers, Islamists, and establishment Republicans. (This was long before the full scope of the FBI's Russia investigation was known to Trump and his aides.) Higgins told me on Sunday he stands by everything he wrote in his memo, but "I would probably remove 'bankers' if I had to do it over and I would play up the intel community role — which I neglected."

[...] Shortly before withdrawing the nomination of the former D.C. U.S. attorney for a top Treasury role, the president reviewed a memo on Liu's alleged misdeeds, according to a source with direct knowledge. [...] The Liu memo is not the first such memo to reach the president's desk — and there's a common thread in Groundswell, a conservative activist network that's headed by Thomas and whose members include Ledeen. [...] Members of Groundswell, whose members earlier led the successful campaign to remove McMaster as national security adviser, meet on Wednesdays in the D.C. offices of Judicial Watch, a conservative legal group that has led the fight against the Mueller probe.

Judicial Watch's president is Tom Fitton. He's a regular on Fox News, and Trump regularly retweets his commentary on the "Deep State."

[...] As the New York Times' Peter Baker wrote on Saturday, "in some of the most critical corners of the Trump administration, officials show up for work now never entirely sure who will be there by the end of the evening — themselves included."

Groundswell is an influential driver of that uncertainty. Its members have been working toward this moment for three years. They have lists. They have memos. And they have the president's ear.
posted by katra at 8:03 PM on February 23, 2020 [8 favorites]


Awful new details about Trump’s purge should alarm us all (Greg Sargent, WaPo Opinion)
President Trump’s ongoing purge of his administration is rapidly getting worse, so it’s urgent that we accurately frame what’s really driving it, to avoid letting it get shrouded in a story line about Trump’s unchecked emotions and pathologies.

So let’s be clear: Trump is not merely purging officials to sate his anger at those who crossed him — that is, as backward-looking retribution against disloyalty. Rather, the real driver here is that Trump is removing officials who committed the sin of trying to defend the rule of law from his efforts to corrupt it. This is forward-looking: It clears the way for more such corruption of the rule of law and sends a message to others about what awaits them if they stand in the way of this as it continues to devolve.

Two new reports about Trump’s ongoing purge underscore this with great clarity. First, Axios reports that in the view of Trump’s aides, the president has “crossed a psychological line” regarding the “deep state.” He has concluded multiple agencies are filled with “snakes,” and he wants them rooted out. [...] That Trump was angered by Liu’s failure to prosecute McCabe gains support from a second report, a deep New York Times dive into tensions roiling the Justice Department amid Attorney General William Barr’s intervention on behalf of Trump confidant Roger Stone. [...]

When Trump demands that the Justice Department do his political bidding and/or rages at it for failing to do so, the press tends to treat this as flowing from an actual belief on Trump’s part: He really thinks a “deep state” cabal is out to get him, and he’s fighting back.

But this is a fundamental error. Trump is raging at officials who constitute an obstacle to his own active, ongoing corruption of the rule of law. And it’s working: The Justice Department actually is carrying out his corrupt bidding in many ways.

[...] The purges are not just revenge. They are designed to remove people who defend the rule of law against Trump’s very deliberate corruption and degradation of it. Those are the “snakes” that Trump wants ousted. And we have no idea how much worse it could all get.
posted by katra at 11:12 AM on February 24, 2020 [26 favorites]


If you are a crook, everyone carrying out the rule of law is out to get you.
posted by benzenedream at 1:22 PM on February 24, 2020 [28 favorites]


The Führerprinzip (see links in WP article, emphasis mine):
...German for "leader principle") prescribed the fundamental basis of political authority in the governmental structures of the Third Reich. This principle can be most succinctly understood to mean that "the Führer's word is above all written law" and that governmental policies, decisions, and offices ought to work toward the realization of this end.[1] In actual political usage, it refers mainly to the practice of dictatorship within the ranks of a political party itself, and as such, it has become an earmark of political fascism.
...
The ideology of the Führerprinzip sees each organization as a hierarchy of leaders, where every leader (Führer, in German) has absolute responsibility in his own area, demands absolute obedience from those below him and answers only to his superiors.[2] This required obedience and loyalty even over concerns of right and wrong.[2] The supreme leader, Adolf Hitler, answered to God and the German people. Italian philosopher Giorgio Agamben has argued[citation needed] that Hitler saw himself as an incarnation of auctoritas, and as the living law or highest law itself, effectively combining in his persona executive power, judicial power and legislative power. After the campaign against the alleged Röhm Putsch, Hitler declared: "in this hour, I was responsible for the fate of the German nation and was therefore the supreme judge of the German people!"[3]...
...
When Hitler finally came to absolute power, after being appointed Chancellor and assuming the powers of the President when Paul von Hindenburg died, he changed his title to "Fuehrer and Reich Chancellor", and the Führerprinzip became an integral part of German society. Appointed mayors replaced elected local governments. Schools lost elected parents' councils and faculty advisory boards, with all authority being put in the headmaster's hands.[8] The Nazis suppressed associations and unions with elected leaders, putting in their place mandatory associations with appointed leaders...
...
Hermann Göring told Nevile Henderson that "When a decision has to be taken, none of us counts more than the stones on which we are standing. It is the Führer alone who decides".[11] In practice, the selection of unsuitable candidates often led to micromanagement and commonly to an inability to formulate coherent policy. Albert Speer noted that many Nazi officials dreaded making decisions in Hitler's absence. Rules tended to become oral rather than written; leaders with initiative who flouted regulations and carved out their own spheres of influence might receive praise and promotion rather than censure....
Perhaps, as Trump claimed, only he can do it, but he can’t do it all by himself. American underlings get bored and leave, and bureaucratic passivity (coupled with not-my-job decision making) will slow government to a crawl, no matter how many executive orders Trump signs. Hitler’s mad vision of a 1000 year reich only lasted 12 years: the Imperial Wannabe Donald’s reign will be even less.
posted by cenoxo at 8:29 PM on February 24, 2020 [11 favorites]


It's good you are optimistic. But Hitler had an ideology, and what he wanted was order, all the way down. God help those who couldn't guess what that order was. Trump just wants corruption all the way down, which is much easier to achieve. Plenty of over-militarized corrupt regimes have long lives.
posted by mumimor at 11:24 PM on February 24, 2020 [8 favorites]


Going after Sotomayor, specifically, for noting that SCOTUS has been acting as a rubber stamp for Trump's "emergency" stay requests.

And good for her for doing so. Roberts knows that SCOTUS' legitimacy for helping Republicans implement their agenda is fostering the illusion that the court is impartial, and the harder it is for him to thread that needle, the better.
posted by Gelatin at 5:03 AM on February 25, 2020 [11 favorites]


The Führerprinzip (see links in WP article, emphasis mine):

Sing along with me!
Everybody's working toward the Führer....
posted by thelonius at 5:53 AM on February 25, 2020


I hope to be singing songs that have "Bye Bye" in the title.
posted by ZeusHumms at 6:33 AM on February 25, 2020 [1 favorite]


the sotomayor dissent.
Claiming one emergency after another, the Government has recently sought stays in an unprecedented number of cases, demanding immediate attention and consuming limited Court resources in each. And with each successive application, of course, its cries of urgency ring increasingly hollow.

...

Stay applications force the Court to consider important statutory and constitutional questions that have not been ventilated fully in the lower courts, on abbreviated timetables and without oral argument. They upend the normal appellate process, putting a thumb on the scale in favor of the party that won a stay. ... They demand extensive time and resources when the Court’s intervention may well be unnecessary—particularly when, as here, a court of appeals is poised to decide the issue for itself.
the emergency _is_ president horrorshow.
posted by 20 year lurk at 8:46 AM on February 25, 2020 [14 favorites]


Trump lashes out at liberal supreme court justices and demands recusals (Amanda Holpuch, Guardian)
Sotomayor’s dissent was written in the style justices use after losing a divided ruling. It depicted accurately how the Trump administration has asked the supreme court to intervene in cases playing out in lower courts at a higher rate than George W Bush and Barack Obama combined. [...] Sotomayor was critical of the court allowing this to happen, and wrote that such interventions usually fall in the Trump administration’s favor.
Trump Demands 2 Liberal Justices Recuse Themselves From His Cases (Peter Baker, NYT)
Justice Sotomayor did not overtly accuse Republican-appointed justices of being biased in favor of Mr. Trump, as the president asserted, but complained that the court “is partly to blame for the breakdown in the appellate process,” because it “has been all too quick to grant the government’s” reflexive requests. She added: “Perhaps most troublingly, the court’s recent behavior on stay applications has benefited one litigant over all others,” a reference to the Trump administration.

The five justices who voted in the majority in the case were all appointed by Republicans, but Justice Sotomayor did not frame her disagreement in partisan terms, and her dissent was written in much the same way as others by justices who lose divided rulings.

Mr. Trump did not seem familiar with what Justice Sotomayor actually wrote but instead seemed to be reacting to a headline that characterized her statement in a far balder, more political way than she had. Asked by a reporter what exactly he found inappropriate, Mr. Trump demurred, saying “you know what the statement was.” When the reporter accurately summarized part of the justice’s dissent, the president said, “No, I don’t think that was it.”

[...] The justices are highly unlikely to comply with Mr. Trump’s latest demand that they recuse themselves from the many cases involving him that come before their court. But the president’s attack raised the temperature of his continuing assault on the law enforcement and justice systems, which he has tried to bend to his will in increasingly bold ways.
posted by katra at 9:08 AM on February 25, 2020 [7 favorites]


Trump Demands 2 Liberal Justices Recuse Themselves From His Cases (Peter Baker, NYT)

Stay tuned for an interview with Chief Justice Roberts about how Trump's outbursts are making his job* harder.

*Of rubber-stamping the Republican agenda while preserving a veneer of legitimacy, of course.
posted by Gelatin at 9:25 AM on February 25, 2020 [13 favorites]


Marcy Wheeler has a great summary of the various types of Russian interference in 2016, and what we can expect for 2020: here. This is explicitly the kinds of interference that Trump claims didn't happen, fired Maguire over, and blamed Ukraine for.
posted by suelac at 2:23 PM on February 25, 2020 [12 favorites]


Trump calls Stone juror ‘totally biased’ while prosecutors, defense attorneys are debating new trial (Spencer S. Hsu, Matt Zapotosky, WaPo)
Jackson ultimately ended the hearing without a decision after taking testimony from three jurors on the panel — including the forewoman. The judge is expected to issue a ruling soon. Trump’s attorney general, William P. Barr, has warned him publicly and privately to stop tweeting about Justice Department criminal cases, though Trump proved again Tuesday that the advice has fallen on deaf ears. [...]

The hearing was only partially public — with reporters allowed to listen to an audio feed — after Jackson expressed concern about jurors’ safety following comments from Trump and others. [...] “This is indisputably a highly publicized case in which the president himself shone a spotlight on the jury,” Jackson said, adding, “Any attempt to harass or intimidate jurors is completely antithetical to our system of justice.” [...]

“She failed to disclose evidence regarding her strong views of Mr. Stone and the political issues in this case,” [Stone defense attorney Seth] Ginsberg said. The judge, though, seemed skeptical. She drew a distinction between animus against Stone and commentary on other political topics, and noted that the forewoman did not hide in her questionnaire that she had views on Trump.

Growing heated at one point, Jackson pointed out that during jury selection it was she, the judge, who pressed the potential juror about her ability to remain impartial, and that Stone’s defense attorney said he had no questions. That defense attorney, Robert C. Buschel, said “Thank you” and sat down, never challenging the juror’s selection, Jackson asserted. Stone’s attorneys also conceded during the hearing that neither they nor his jury consultants ran a Google search on the juror, despite knowing for days she was likely to be among the first selected, citing “cost-slash-strategic” considerations.

[...] The Supreme Court standard for juror qualification is that they need not “be totally ignorant of the facts and issues involved. … It is sufficient if the juror can lay aside his impression or opinion and render a verdict based on the evidence presented in court.”
posted by katra at 6:55 PM on February 25, 2020 [5 favorites]


This shit has to stop.

Here's hoping for November 2020
posted by Windopaene at 7:46 PM on February 25, 2020 [3 favorites]


GOP senators rip Trump administration over coronavirus; CDC issues dire warning, markets fall (Igor Derysh, Salon)
Republican senators [and Democratic senators] confront Trump administration officials as stock market drops 1,900 points in two days
Criticism includes not budgeting enough for anti-coronavirus effort (2.5 versus estimates of 6 billion dollars); leaving key roles unfilled and cutting back on existing programs designed for disease control; moving money earmarked for fighting ebola to fight coronavirus; and a lack of basic intel on the disease.
Trump has repeatedly tried to downplay the virus. Supporters such as Rush Limbaugh have claimed that the alarm over the virus is a plot to "bring down" Trump, and Fox Business host Charles Payne blamed the stock market slide on Bernie Sanders' victory in the Nevada caucuses. The president has pushed a widely disputed claim that the virus would "go away" once the weather gets warmer. "We're probably down to about 10" cases, Trump falsely claimed during a press conference in India on Tuesday.
posted by ZeusHumms at 8:28 AM on February 26, 2020 [2 favorites]


Here's the close of yesterday's newsletter from National Treasure Heather Cox Richardson:

None of today’s news is good: a serious disease, a sliding economy, an incompetent administration, an autocratic president. But all of these elements are creating an instability that will shake forces loose. It is times like these that throw all the cards up in the air. While it is scary to experience that chaos, it is also a time of great possibility. We can step back and let autocrats grab all the cards for themselves and consolidate their power. But we don’t have to. This sort of shock gives us the ability to catch the cards ourselves and reorder them on the table in entirely new patterns, ones that can build a different future.
posted by Lyme Drop at 8:30 AM on February 26, 2020 [11 favorites]


Lawsuit: Trump Admin Using Coronavirus as Political Weapon to Punish California and ‘Reward’ Red States (Colin Kalmbacher, Law and Crime)
President Donald Trump is using the Coronavirus as a political weapon to reward his allies and punish his enemies, according to court documents filed on Monday morning.

City leaders in Costa Mesa, California are currently engaged in a volley of words and legal briefs with the Trump administration in general–and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in particular–over a plan to move several dozen Coronavirus patients from a military lockup facility to a civilian-run facility.

Local officials there are backed up by their counterparts in Orange County, as well as state and federal officials representing California.

The feud has been simmering for awhile–though the legal battle itself is only a few days old–as the woefully unprepared Trump administration scrambles to control the deadly outbreak.

The plan from Trump’s HHS to transfer the 50-plus patients out of military custody to a state-run facility have been vociferously opposed from the start–but the latest filings add an entirely new political dimension rife with themes of reward and retribution.
posted by ZeusHumms at 8:35 AM on February 26, 2020 [5 favorites]


It's a bit like Bush and Katrina. Incompetent presidents are incompetent, but it takes an emergency for people to realize it, because they are busy with everyday life.
posted by mumimor at 9:04 AM on February 26, 2020 [15 favorites]


Highlighting part of a prior comment: In Extraordinary Move, Judge Brings In Jurors To Blow Up Stone’s Claims Of Misconduct (Tierney Sneed, TPM)
In a remarkable hearing Tuesday, three members of Roger Stone’s jury were brought in to testify about claims Stone has made about juror misconduct that he said warrants a new trial.

[…]

Stone’s gambit appears aimed at getting the attention of the President who many believe will ultimately pardon his longtime friend.

Before the jurors were brought in for their questioning, Stone’s attorneys admitted that they did not Google the names on a list of potential jurors that was provided to them during the juror process.

Stone attorney Robert Bushel confirmed that the team had not taken this step. The judge noted that it was “regular practice” for parties to use so-called jury panel lists to do internet research on potential jurors that could be sat for trial.
posted by ZeusHumms at 11:54 AM on February 26, 2020 [5 favorites]




70 former U.S. senators: The Senate is failing to perform its constitutional duties (70 former U.S. senators; WaPo OpEd)
posted by ZeusHumms at 12:05 PM on February 26, 2020 [10 favorites]


Notably, the signatories to that letter include former senator from and governor of Alaska Frank Murkowski (R), father of inveterate fence-sitter Lisa Murkowski.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 12:25 PM on February 26, 2020 [11 favorites]


Stone attorney Robert Bushel confirmed that the team had not taken this step. The judge noted that it was “regular practice” for parties to use so-called jury panel lists to do internet research on potential jurors that could be sat for trial.

Well it will be quite a trick if Stone doesn't get pardoned, due to ineffective counsel.
posted by rhizome at 12:45 PM on February 26, 2020


Democrats aren't facing the big question: What will they do if Trump won't leave office? (Chauncey DeVega, Salon)
Many debates, many useless questions: But here's the big one the Democratic contenders can't or won't answer
posted by ZeusHumms at 8:50 PM on February 26, 2020


The “what if Trump doesn’t leave office” question is also why having the Democrats take the senate is as or more important than presidency. Senators transition before the Presidents inauguration, so in theory they can impeach the sitting president. (I believe it’s house, then senate).
posted by mrzarquon at 9:27 PM on February 26, 2020 [5 favorites]


Taking the Senate is huge.If the Dems get the trifecta, there's a couple of things they need to do quickly. First is to use the Congressional Review Act to reverse as many things as possible that Trump might do in the last days of his administration (and any other things they can reverse since the GOP played fast and loose with it in their last turn with the House majority.) Then the second is to ditch the Congressional Review Act. Leave it in place and the next time the GOP gets the levers of power, they're going to start erasing progressive achievements again.
posted by azpenguin at 9:36 PM on February 26, 2020 [3 favorites]


Democrats aren't facing the big question: What will they do if Trump won't leave office? (Chauncey DeVega, Salon)

I'm pretty sure the Just Security article cited in the Salon post provides an answer to the question of why the Dems aren't amplifying Trump's institution-bashing propaganda:
Trump’s penchant for conspiracy theories and instinct for lying has signaled to a large part of the population that they should not trust officialdom, and has also conditioned us all to be wary of anything we learn. It doesn’t help that the president himself sometimes pushes the narrative that the vote will be rigged, priming us for his possible rejection of the results should he lose in November.
There has been a lot of recent news about 'purges' in the federal government, as Trump is apparently scared of "snakes" all around him, which can be seen as a signal of just how tenuous a grip on power he actually feels like he has. Also, the recent impeachment showed us that there are people who believe in our democratic institutions and will stand up for them, even in the face of threats to their safety and the impossible odds of the GOP-controlled Senate.

Trump is doing a lot of damage to democratic norms, and buying into a fear that he would refuse to leave and it would be possible for him to stay seems like exactly the kind of fear-mongering conspiracy theorizing that helps his cause. One of the reasons I'm so supportive of impeaching him again, and again, and as many times as it takes, is because the impeachment process creates an evidentiary record and helps establish facts for the American people.
posted by katra at 9:53 PM on February 26, 2020 [12 favorites]


Yes, pre-worrying about "what OTHER batshit thing might Trump do" seems bad on the substance and ill-advised as a communications strategy. "What if Trump doesn't leave office" is maybe item #96 on the list of immediate questions Democratic leaders should be focused on right now.
posted by PhineasGage at 10:00 PM on February 26, 2020 [6 favorites]


it is not a question for the democratic party but for all us citizens.

if he were to lose the election and decline to vacate the office, there is no reason to imagine he would be amenable to impeachment, nor any proper mechanism for that: can you even impeach a non-president dictating from the white house while an elected president waits at the gates? to suggest that he could then be impeached concedes that he would still be president. he would not.
posted by 20 year lurk at 10:07 PM on February 26, 2020 [2 favorites]


I'm suggesting that another impeachment happen now, so the evidence is collected and publicized in advance of the election. It would be a way to help undermine the legitimacy of any attempt to direct a branch of government that he is no longer entitled to control, assuming he loses the election.
posted by katra at 10:17 PM on February 26, 2020 [4 favorites]


If he refuses to leave office, he should be treated like any other rando who strolls into the White House with delusions of grandeur.

Whether that happens depends on how thoroughly he has corrupted the military and secret service by that time. Which is why I cheer every time he alienates yet another institutional group.
posted by benzenedream at 10:18 PM on February 26, 2020 [4 favorites]


I'm suggesting that another impeachment happen now

oh. my bad. worth a try. not terribly sanguine at the prospect, though.
posted by 20 year lurk at 10:24 PM on February 26, 2020 [1 favorite]


There may be no alternative but another impeachment, given the apparent risks of inaction, e.g. (Politico)
“We have an enemy of the United States that is conducting information warfare against us and our executive leadership doesn’t want to hear it, doesn’t want the Congress to hear it, and doesn’t want the people to hear it,” said former acting DNI David Gompert, who said he was “aghast” at the hiring of Grenell. “We now have a situation where the principal objective, evidently, of this acting DNI is to ensure that information about Russian interference and Russian preference for this particular president does not get out.” [...]

Over the last six months, Trump’s impulse to manipulate the flow of intelligence appears to have grown stronger, current and former officials say. One former U.S. official, who wished to remain anonymous, noted that prior to Trump’s acquittal, the intelligence community spent the last few months negotiating with the White House over what information about Ukraine, relevant to the impeachment investigation, could be provided to Congress. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, has complained openly about the CIA and NSA’s supposed capitulation to White House demands that certain intelligence not be provided to lawmakers.
And how obvious the abuse of power (Foreign Policy) appears to be:
A final data point may help to explain what Trump wants out of Grenell and any permanent successor. The New York Times reported on Thursday that Trump was infuriated to learn that intelligence officials briefed congressional overseers this month on Russian efforts to advance Trump’s reelection prospects. Trump reportedly berated Maguire, the acting director of national intelligence, in an episode that some speculated led to Maguire’s dismissal and Grenell’s appointment. If the report is accurate, there is little question regarding the propriety of the decision to brief lawmakers on the intelligence. In fact, the intelligence community has for nearly four decades been required by law to keep Congress “fully and currently informed” of matters relevant to its oversight. That Trump took umbrage at the decision underscores that he seeks a director of national intelligence who will protect his personal interests, even when those collide with the law.
Emphasis added.
posted by katra at 10:35 PM on February 26, 2020 [16 favorites]


Democrats aren't facing the big question: What will they do if Trump won't leave office?

The answer to this doesn't depend on Trump. They'll do the same thing they do any time an ordinary citizen is in the White House without permission, security will escort them off the premises and/or hand them off to Capital Police.

It's only an actual problem if Trump gets enough people to defend him from arrest to cause a civil war, basically.

So either the framing of this question is really supposed to be, "What Trump loses and tries to start a civil war?" OR, as it reads now, it's supposed to be more like, "Do Democrats know who to call about trespassers on White House grounds?"

If it's the latter it's a stupid question and a waste of time, if it's the former that's an irresponsibly subdued way to frame the question.
posted by VTX at 6:44 AM on February 27, 2020 [9 favorites]


Democrats aren't facing the big question: What will they do if Trump won't leave office?

To me, that reads as irresponsible, alarmist clickbait as well as another way to shit on Democrats for no reason. Salon, please cut it out.
posted by Bella Donna at 7:10 AM on February 27, 2020 [16 favorites]


To me, that reads as irresponsible, alarmist clickbait as well as another way to shit on Democrats for no reason. Salon, please cut it out.

It's almost refreshing to see there are some ways the Internet hasn't changed since the 1990s.
posted by Gelatin at 7:17 AM on February 27, 2020 [4 favorites]


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

New impeachment FPP:

ITMFA VI: Again & Again

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
posted by katra at 7:57 AM on February 27, 2020 [6 favorites]


« Older “roguelike” does not mean the same thing in 2020...   |   Adam Savage Tests Boston Dynamics' Spot Robot! Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments