« some sounds for martin | Main | No, he's doing it wrong! »

January 20, 2021

Comments

While it was for the New Yorker, I'm going to posit exposing yourself on a zoom call would do it for the Post or the Times. I think getting Malcolm Gladwell to defend you is optional...

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/12/malcolm-gladwells-defense-of-jeffrey-toobins-work-call-masturbation-needs-work.html

I'm generally against the death penalty, but am wondering:

https://twitter.com/TVietor08/status/1352439668957011969

Trying to turn away from the hate, but it's not easy.

Whatever happened to stocks and pillory? It would be a nice way to honor our Puritan heritage...

again. I didn't bring up Clinton.

again. I didn't bring up Clinton.

Okay! Are you okay?

again. I didn't bring up Clinton

Not sure how you discuss what constitutes valid grounds for a presidential impeachment without going thru the available examples. Which comes down to 1) Trump, 2) Clinton, and maybe 3) Nixon (even if he did resign when told he would get impeached and removed otherwise).

Allege inadequate grounds for impeachment, and you have implicitly brought up all of them.

You forgot about Andrew Johnson, wj. But not sure Marty is thinking about history.

You forgot about Andrew Johnson, wj

I thought about Johnson. But it was sufficiently long ago that exhaustive documentation isn't (so far as I know) available. Nowhere near for what we have these days anyway. So it's harder to get into details about motives of the cast of characters. Therefore, since impure motives are part of the discussion, I decided to omit his particular case.

I know lawyers will cite precedents going back that far. And we'll doubtless hear a couple if Trump raises the argument that he can't be tried after leaving office. But IANAL.

Trial after leaving office has already happened. Senate did not ultimately convict, but explicitly claimed authority to hold a trial. Not that a judgment from 150 years ago is binding, but if one is going to argue against a standing precedent then more than hand waving should be offered. Of course standards in the ObWi court of law are a different thing.

the Senate . . . explicitly claimed authority to hold a trial. Not that a judgment from 150 years ago is binding

I believe there is also a Supreme Court ruling (Nixon** v. United States) that says that the Senate's procedures in an impeachment trial are not subject to judicial review. So if the Senate decides to hold a trial this time, Trump likely can't get the courts to intervene.

** No, a different Nixon.

I thought about Johnson. But it was sufficiently long ago that exhaustive documentation isn't (so far as I know) available.

I do not believe that to be the case. The historiography strikes me as fairly substantial.

Yours,
Just another nebbish with a history degree

Ridiculous to fixate on who brought up Clinton. I brought him up, and my purpose was to show that, despite him having lied, and about something very improper, the grounds for his impeachment were by several orders of magnitude less serious in the context of his conduct as POTUS than any grounds for either of the two impeachments of Trump, which bear directly on his main responsibilities as POTUS, and his oath to protect the constitution. And that the R's who decided to impeach Clinton on those grounds (and spend $40million on the investigation, if I remember correctly) were not accused (quite correctly of course) of trying to nullify his election, or of sedition.

I repeat: words have meanings. If someone chooses to assign arbitrary, novel meanings to words, actually contradictory to their true, established meanings, there is no basis for discussion.

nothing a Democrat does is legitimate, therefore everything a Democratic politician does w.r.t. a Republican executive is seditious.

It's ridiculous to bring up Clinton with the hand waving impeachment for a blow job tripe. Why do you belabor it? It has nothing to do with Trump and I never said they were comparable.

Trump, arguably justified, not definitively by any legal measure, was impeached ultimately for something that happened over half way through his term.

All the investigations before that were basically baseless built on fraudulent FISA warrants by people who refused to accept him as President. The facts support that statement.

For two years we all pretty much agreed we would accept the conclusions of the Mueller report, even me. When it concluded there was not enough evidence to charge anyone for collusion then no one accepted it. The left decided it really did say he was guilty and the right declared it exonerated him. One more place where I smh. It of course did neither.

The request to investigate the Bidens was surely politically motivated, but well within a Presidents purview if there was any actual evidence of wrong doing. That question still seems unanswered.

The sedition charge wouldn't be brought by any prosecutor because it requires interpreting intent of political speech that stops short of clearly calling for violence. I am perfectly happy to have an impeachment trial over it but I think iys not a compelling case.

All said, given the choices, I am pleased Trump lost.

The facts support that statement.

No. They do not.

When it concluded there was not enough evidence to charge anyone for collusion then no one accepted it.

We only have a redacted version of the report. There is also the issue of (checks notes) obstruction of justice. I believe that is still a crime, but you never know these days in GOP la-la land.

More here.

but well within a Presidents purview if there was any actual evidence of wrong doing. That question still seems unanswered.

Ah, yes. The absence of evidence is itself evidence! Nice job, Sherlock. Absent ANY evidence, the only reasonable response to your logical monstrosity is, "(redacted)"

The party of No is at it again. Let's see, if they manage to get and keep a 100% filibuster rate.

And since Manchin has already vowed to vote against changes in the filibuster rules this will not change in the forseeable future.

And the Georgia GOP is rather candid that it will be necessary to change all or almost all voting laws in their state, so they "can win elections again".
"Same procedure as last Dem presidency, Mitch?" "Same procedure as EVERY Dem presidency!" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinner_for_One )

It's not the lack of evidence, it's just not clear yet

https://nypost.com/2020/12/10/how-media-covered-up-the-hunter-biden-story-until-after-the-election/

The facts support that statement.

I call bullshit.

How many FISA warrants? How many were found deficient, let alone 'illegal'? What were the deficiencies or illegalities?

You say the facts support what you've said, I say lay 'em out. And then, we can discuss *the facts*.

Short of that, this is an exercise in he said / she said.

It's an academic topic in any case, because it's been litigated. But if you want to get into it and make the kinds of claims you're making, you need to show you work.

When it concluded there was not enough evidence to charge anyone for collusion then no one accepted it.

Collusion was only part of what Mueller looked into.

Seriously, you are bringing a highly manicured collection of arguments here. And I have no idea what the point of it all is.

What would you like us all to take away from your comments here?

It's not the lack of evidence, it's just not clear yet

The NYPost piece you cite here seems to be the NYPost telling us how everybody else is suppressing the substance of the case against Biden.

The actual substance, whatever it is, fails to appear.

Marty, as a matter of interest, can you confirm whether you accept stories from the NYPost as fact, but not from the NYT?

Marty cites a New York Post editorial posing as journalism as "evidence".

Unreal.

What would you like us all to take away from your comments here?

Both sides! (But especially Democrats...)

Hank Aaron is dead.

I can't think what else.

When it concluded there was not enough evidence to charge anyone for collusion then no one accepted it.

Collusion is not a crime. Conspiracy is a crime.

Mueller: “Based on Justice Department policy and principles of fairness, we decided we would not make a determination as to whether the president committed a crime. That was our decision then and it remains our decision today.”

I enjoyed this: https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/01/witless-ape-rides-helicopter/?fbclid=IwAR2l1am2-uPFAqIWwdrM0VVHPwdQPY_AXF4em3F9VIF7ovu-vI0XLhCXmDY

I do not believe that to be the case. The historiography strikes me as fairly substantial.

Live and learn. That's part of what I'm here for.

But my point was actually that I didn't forget Johnson. Leaving him out was a conscious decision -- albeit appatently based on insufficient information.

If you read it, it quotes the Times and NBC News. It was an interesting read.

If you read it, it quotes the Times and NBC News.

But this is not what I asked. You don't have to answer, naturally, but given that I think you have indicated in the past you do not consider the NYT to be a reliable source of fact, I was wondering if you considered the NYPost to be one.

Henry Aaron, R.I.P.

Terrific player.

Terrific individual.

No evidence!

Say, why is obstruction a crime anyway?

Based on Justice Department policy and principles of fairness, we decided we would not make a determination as to whether the president committed a crime

Of course it doesn’t say “no evidence “. It says they aren’t in the position to determine if there was a crime because their role wasn’t to be prosecutors. They were investigators.

Words mean only what Republicans say? Those days are Over.

The individual article with the quotes from various sources was interesting, if not compelling. It happened to be the Post which I also don't read regularly.

Of course it doesn’t say “no evidence “

The most they could say would be "We haven't been able to find evidence." Of course, it's hard to determine if there is evidence if your subpoenas for documents are ignored. And if witnesses lie or refuse to speak at all because they have been promised pardons.

Meanwhile, tRump encouraged Russia on a television broadcast to find the emails. And Junior met with a Russian representative explicitly on the premise of getting dirt on Clinton from a foreign adversary - explicitly, as in, he put it in writing. Whether or not these things are criminal, they are far below the bar one should expect from a candidate for POTUS or that candidate's high-level campaign staff. But it's a conspiracy theory (having nothing to do with tRump's first impeachment).

Actually, not nothing. It at least establishes tRump's willingness to accept campaign assistance from other nations.

Something to brigjten Donald's day
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/biden-stop-support-saudi-war-crimes-yemen.html

Assuming Jabbabonk gets convicted and Congress afterwards passes a lifetime ban on running for or holding federal office, could the GOP majority in both houses after the next midterm elections simply reverse that [ignoring a likely presidential veto for the sake of argument]? Or would a pardon issued by the next GOP president nullify it (it seems to be widely assumed that the limits in the pardon power only apply to one's own impeachment not to that of somebody else in a different administration)?

Marjorie Taylor Greene filed papers to nullify the election ?

hundreds of Republicans stormed the US Capitol a couple of weeks to literally, explicitly, by their own words, nullify the election.

look, over there, a Democrat! eek!

Assuming Jabbabonk gets convicted and Congress afterwards passes a lifetime ban on running for or holding federal office, could the GOP majority in both houses after the next midterm elections simply reverse that [ignoring a likely presidential veto for the sake of argument]?

the House can undo an impeachment. but i don't know if it can undo a Senate's impeachment conviction.

the House can undo an impeachment. but i don't know if it can undo a Senate's impeachment conviction.

Once delivered to the Senate, how does the House withdraw the articles of impeachment? (I should know to never say never about improbable Congressional procedural matters, but still.) I suppose they could decline to send managers to handle the prosecution if the Senate tried the case. But once the Senate has voted and things are settled, I don't see how either chamber could revisit the matter. My take would be if the Founders intended for impeachment to be reversible, they would have said so.

hmm. that makes sense, too. i guess, ultimately, this is one of those things that is currently theoretical, since it has never been tried.

I refer you to the No Backsies clause.

Well (or rather not), I was gazing two years into the future. ;-)

I don't see how either chamber could revisit the matter.

On the face of the Constitution, no, there is no apparent mechanism to set aside an impeachment, but that probably doesn't matter. Leaving aside technical points, suppose *very, very hypothetically* the House voted out Articles of Impeachment on a sitting president and the Senate convicted unanimously. And then, miraculously, the only witness supporting the Articles of Impeachment recanted and said it was all just a big troll.

IOW, if a conviction was based on evidence later found to be false, it is a certainty that the House and Senate could unring that bell and put everything back to the status quo ante.

Trust me. I'm a lawyer.

Trust me. I'm a lawyer.

Checks for wallet...

In the Teapot Dome scandal, Interior Secretary Fall was found guilty in 1929 of accepting bribes from oil company executive Doheny.

In 1930, Doheny was acquitted of paying bribes to Fall.

Funny, isn't it? Being convicted of accepting bribes that, legally speaking, never occurred. I guess that's what happens when the prosecution can't find concrete evidence of something that everyone knows happened.

T* and his entire campaign were infested with Russian operatives and Russian-adjacent operatives, infested worse than the bedbugs at Trump Tower.

They stonewalled Mueller's investigation. The issue isn't whether they did what they were accused of doing - everyone with an IQ higher than a houseplant knows they did - the issue is that they were successful at sabotaging the investigation before Barr simply shut it down.

But, like Doheny, T* and his supporters can go out into the world and say T* was "fully exonerated."

Even though, like Doheny, they absolutely did what they were accused of doing.

If you accept, and repeat, their claims of total exoneration, then:

1. You have a lower IQ than a house plant.
2. You have the intellectual integrity of a tapeworm.*
3. Both


*Apologies to tapeworms may be in order as, SFAIK, they don't gaslight people.

If you accept, and repeat, their claims of total exoneration, then:

1. You have a lower IQ than a house plant.
2. You have the intellectual integrity of a tapeworm.*
3. Both

If this is directed at my comment, pls revisit the phrase *very, very hypothetically*. Whether your Bill of Particulars is correct or not, I was not referring to Trump, who I would vote to convict in a heartbeat, but rather I was addressing the legal proposition that, once convicted, the House and the Senate could not unconvict. I believe that to be an erroneous proposition of law for the reasons stated.

McK, I wasn't directing my comment at your comment.

Ok, thanks. Sorry for the confusion. I'll take the hit on that one.

seems obvious that the House could undo what a previous House has done. also seems obvious that if this was possible in impeachment that impeachment would become as pointless as censure - if a future bare House majority can overturn it, what's the point?

if a future bare House majority can overturn it, what's the point?

Ok, to be clear, I'm making legal points based on how statutes and stuff are construed, not arguing a political point.

To answer your question: just like laws and even constitutional amendments can be passed and repealed, or repealed by further amendment, e.g. prohibition and the 13th Amendment, an elected body can undo a past act. It doesn't make the previous act pointless, and laws get repealed or amended all the time. Convictions get vacated. Past errors get fixed, sometimes.

So far, there have been three impeachment trials and no convictions. If Clinton had been convicted, could a later Dem Congress not rehear the matter and undo the conviction? Is that clear on the face of the Constitution, either way?

The question I would have in that *extremely unlikely, if not virtually impossible* circumstance is whether the Senate vote to reverse impeachment would require a 2/3's majority.

What is the practical consequence of reversing an impeachment?

Does the impeached person return to office? What happens to whoever took their place? What if the reversal occurs after the impeached person's time in office would have ended?

Assuming they have also been barred from holding federal office in the future, I guess there would be some value in reversing that.

Other than that, I'm not sure I understand what the purpose of the reversal is.

russell - my guess would be, in the event of an impeachment (without conviction) being discovered later as unjustified, a reversal would be considered more of a vindication and reputation-cleanser. Not a whole lot of practical effect, IOW.

seems obvious that the House could undo what a previous House has done

Actually, I don't think it's obvious at all. Or even correct.

It seems to me that an impeachment by the House is somewhat like an indictment by a grand jury. Once the issue has gone to trial in the Senate, the House has no further ability to shape events. (Beyond, I suppose, having all it's managers of the case decline to make the case to the Senate.)

Now whether the Senate can reverse a conviction would be another story.

Other than that, I'm not sure I understand what the purpose of the reversal is.

Other than making someone re-eligible for office, the purpose would be rehabilitative. IOW, cosmetic.

to clear the person's record, set history straight, or something like that.

Not that anyone in his or her right mind would do it but if a future president would like to put Jabbabonk on the Supreme Court, a lifetime ban on holding public office would be slightly inconvenient.
But the second part of my question was, could a later president pardon an impeached and convicted predecessor? There seems to be a dispute whether the 'not in case of impeachement' clause only applies to the administration in office at the time of impeachment (so no pardoning of partners in impeached crime) or if it means that once impeached there can be no pardon at any later time. Or more concrete: had Nixon be convicted could e.g. Reagan have pardoned him (since he was not part of Nixon's administration and thus uninvolved)?

seems obvious that the House could undo what a previous House has done

Actually, I don't think it's obvious at all. Or even correct.

well... that bit was about normal House biz (legislation, rules, etc). ex: no House can make a law another House can't overturn.

Once the issue has gone to trial in the Senate, the House has no further ability to shape events.

i'm thinking more like: what if the GOP gets the House in 2024 and the majority votes to repeal, rescind (or whatever you'd call it) Trump's impeachments. (assume the he isn't convicted for #2, to avoid the thornier question of undoing what the Senate has decided) the question is: can they do it?

can a House say "those previous articles of impeachment were invalid" ?

or, is impeachment forever - unfixable, unpardonable, indelible ?

One thing's for sure: whatever norms would once have automatically excluded any of this, those norms (along with so many others) are now well and truly exploded. The next in the apostolic succession of deplorable GOPers, no doubt more competent and machiavellian than Trump, will feel unconstrained from doing anything that throws red meat to the base.

That is, unless Biden and the Dems can bite the bullet and do e.g. much of what Ezra Klein prescribed, in order to make the people who voted for them believe in them and be prepared to go on voting for them.

IOW, if a conviction was based on evidence later found to be false, it is a certainty that the House and Senate could unring that bell and put everything back to the status quo ante.

Okay, I'll concede that technically this is possible. Sufficient willing majorities in Congress can replace a sitting President with an eligible person of their own choosing. But as you have mentioned consistently, the chances of such a situation arising politically is almost vanishingly small.

But the second part of my question was, could a later president pardon an impeached and convicted predecessor?

I don't think so. Article 2, Section II, "he shall have the power grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment."

what if the GOP gets the House in 2024 and the majority votes to repeal, rescind (or whatever you'd call it) Trump's impeachments. (assume the he isn't convicted for #2, to avoid the thornier question of undoing what the Senate has decided) the question is: can they do it?

can a House say "those previous articles of impeachment were invalid" ?

Highly unlikely, Article I, Section 3, "The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments."

This provision would almost certainly be construed as are other unconditional and exclusive grants of jurisdiction. When the plain language of an exclusive, unconditional grant of jurisdiction does not include the right to appeal, then the forum in question's decision is final and unappealable.

So, the House could--there is nothing preventing it--vote out Articles to Vacate Impeachment (or something of similar import) and the Senate could line its collective bird cage with those Articles or have a trial and decide the issue. That is what "the sole power to try all impeachments" means. The Senate can rehear a prior impeachment trial if it wishes or have the world's shortest trial and vote down the Articles on arrival.

But as you have mentioned consistently, the chances of such a situation arising politically is almost vanishingly small.

Correct, we are discussing the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin. I've always it was three. Cleek probably disagrees.

Correct, we are discussing the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin. I've always it was three.

I'm inclined to the old joke about accountants with the punchline, "How many would you like it to be?"

Correct, we are discussing the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin. I've always (claimed?-ed) it was three.

The correct answer is zero as angels are terrible dancers.

If you read it, it quotes the Times and NBC News. It was an interesting read.

I read it, and the NYT piece. It says that Hunter Biden acknowledges a federal probe into his taxes, which began in 2018. And that he has not commented on the authenticity of the files allegedly taken from his laptop. And, er, that's it.

Well, I suppose if the laptop were a complete lie, HB would have said so.

And I thoroughly disapprove of a vice-president's son accepting overpaid employment which looks like an attempt to buy access to his father. I know Marty feels the same, because of his endless harangues on here about how much he dislikes the Trump family's behaviour.

Still, I don't see anything very interesting in article by the NYP with no new evidence, agreeing with itself.

Something else I want to comment on: our right-wing friends have decried the failure of the rest of us to condemn left-wing violence.

In reality, with one exception, everyone who has commented has been firmly against it. Except that I realise, re-reading a post from months ago someone linked to, that violence, in the minds of our friends in the minority here, includes the tearing down of the statues of Confederate generals.

I am strongly against unlawful violence against the person. I am usually against unlawful violence against property. But if there were a statue of a Nazi general in my town, I can well imagine tearing it down. If there were a sign in Marty's town saying "fuck Marty and all his family", I can even imagine Marty's tearing it down.

How is a statue of a Confederate general any different?

I thoroughly disapprove of a vice-president's son accepting overpaid employment which looks like an attempt to buy access to his father.

But there is not (that I am aware of) any indication that the attempt to buy access to Biden actually worked. Let alone that such access, presuming that it did work, resulted in any actions by the VP. In short, it amounts to guilt by association -- with, perhaps, a caveat, depending on how responsible up think parents are for the failings of their adult children.

No argument, what happened is to Hunter's discredit. But I have yet to see anything that is explicitly to Joe's discredit.

And I thoroughly disapprove of a vice-president's son accepting overpaid employment which looks like an attempt to buy access to his father.

It's my understanding that Hunter's father didn't like it much either, but that he didn't do much about it because 1) he couldn't, 2) he was busy with Vice Presidenting, and 3) he was dealing with the difficult ordeal of his other son in the throws of terminal cancer. At a certain point, people aren't responsible for the mistakes of their adult children.

While we're on statues, my wife (who is about as unpolitical as it gets) recommended this to me.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZqu8ojifhU
Enjoy!

P.S. Needless to say, no Confederate generals are involved.

More foods for thought.

Enjoy your weekend!

So, the House could--there is nothing preventing it--vote out Articles to Vacate Impeachment (or something of similar import) and the Senate could line its collective bird cage with those Articles or have a trial and decide the issue.

but my question is: if the House has impeached and the Senate voted to not punish (either by removal or barring further office), and then a later House votes to overturn the previous impeachment... what does that mean for the impeachment?

the Senate decided the case wasn't made, so a House vote to overturn the impeachment wouldn't be contradicting the Senate in any way. and it wouldn't be an impeachment, so the Senate wouldn't be obligated to take up the bill. but the House has sole power of impeachment anyway, so...

since there is no such thing as an angel, the answer is mu

If there were a sign in Marty's town saying "fuck Marty and all his family", I can even imagine Marty's tearing it down.

but that would be ereasing the history of the proud anti-Marty faction!

they would literally cease to exist!

I can even imagine Marty's tearing it down.

And he might be arrested. While there are no laws against being insulted, there are laws against trespass and damaging property.

So, imagine that your favorite (American) football team loses to their hated rivals by ONE point.

A week later, AFTER the "hated rivals" have advanced to, and played, the championship game, the league reviews the game tapes, and decides that the one of the touchdowns/field goals/etc of the "hated rivals" in the game against your favorite team was invalid.

How is it handled? Removed from the record books? Result overturned? Championship game invalidated and re-run? League officials hauled out and lynched?

mass execution

Once again, an excellent bulletin from Ian Leslie at the Ruffian. In it he talks about Biden's speech:

Biden believes that America needs to heal, that he is the leader to help it do so, and that’s it. That’s why he’s here. He didn’t try and lay out his policy agenda. You never felt like he was going through a list of messages put together by his political staff. He aimed high above normal politics - indeed, the speech might have evaporated into the freezing air were it not for the fact it was so profoundly felt. His language wasn’t flowery or elaborate; it was direct and it was urgent, pressing his audience to feel what he feels. That Lincoln quote, about putting his whole soul into this, was the keystone of a soulful address. Conviction lifted his delivery too. Some passages he declaimed, others he spoke as if to a friend who needs to be put straight. At points he slowed down and let silences in, allowing his sentences to breathe. He took a prayer. The heavy blinking and the fumbled words - traces of his stutter - only served as reminders of what can be achieved through force of will. Now, I think it’s very possible that we will look back in a few years’ time on Biden’s presidency and deem it a failure. Washington is screwed up, America’s political culture is poisoned, and it’s almost certainly beyond the powers of any president to solve these problems. And yes, he’s old. But whatever happens next, I will always find the story of Biden’s wayward progress to that podium a moving one. Half a century in politics, a two-time presidential loser, a reliable source of ridicule, a life battered by death - almost a Quixote-like figure, a man out of time. Yet there he was on Wednesday, this aged knight, slightly wobbly in the saddle, calling for a truce, having gathered up every ounce of himself to vanquish the greatest threat to American democracy since - well I’m not sure when. And I think George Bush is right: nobody else could have done it. Perhaps it took someone who had experienced all of that failure to succeed in that mission. I don’t know how the next four years will go, but as far as I’m concerned, Biden became a great president the moment he took the oath.

As well as a piece on Prince and the making of Kiss, the bulletin also had this link, to what they call "One of the most memorable stories in talk radio history":

https://twitter.com/SECNetwork/status/1351183016455008258

Moving piece, GftNC. Thanks.

As well as a piece on Prince and the making of Kiss,

the Strong Songs podcast i've been listening to has an episode about that song. interesting origin story!

GftNC, that talk radio story is the kind of thing that gives me hope for this country.

And all praise for the Marine Gunnery Sergeant who gave those two guys the smack up side the head that started them down a different path.

I know this has been commented on before, but it still astounds me how the US Military became the most integrated, most racially equitous, institution in the United States.

Thanks go, first and foremost, to Harry Truman, whose directive to integrate the armed forces started things off.

But a weird kind of thanks must also go to the Vietnam War.

So many white boys evaded the draft one way or another, while young men of color just didn't have the same opportunities to evade service.

Young black men went into that meatgrinder, and those who survived wound up learning a wide range of skills (not the least being managerial, logistical, along with the battlefield/military stuff), and rose up in the commander ranks in a way that I think would not have been available to them otherwise.

History can be mighty strange.

Well said, CaseyL. I might add, that is how affirmative action works.

I know this has been commented on before, but it still astounds me how the US Military became the most integrated, most racially equitous, institution in the United States.

It has been a tremendous engine for greater integration and opportunity, but it still has some serious structural problems to solve on that count as well:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/25/us/politics/military-minorities-leadership.html

The upper echelons of every institution in America seem incredibly resistant to integration, and no top-down system is likely to alter this.

as Mitzy Romnoid once said: institutions are people, my friend.

no, Willard said:
"corporations are people: my friends"

russell:

I call bullshit.

How many FISA warrants? How many were found deficient, let alone 'illegal'? What were the deficiencies or illegalities?

I'll delurk for just a bit. Maybe I'm missing something, but the DOJ admitted two of the Carter Page FISA warrants were, shall we say, "deficient" and said they won't use any of the evidence obtained from all four. YMMV on what that means.

And the IG report identified numerous issues with the FISA process with respect to Crossfire Hurricane.

One of those issues, of course, was the alteration of an email by an FBI attorney, Clinesmith, regarding Carter Page to make it look like Page was not a CIA asset with respect to Russia. Clinesmith forwarded an email from a CIA liaison altering the words in the forwarded email to say Page was "not a source" when in fact he had been. You know, all in line with the "Fidelity Bravery Integrity" motto. Clinesmith pleaded guilty but argues for no jail time. Go figure.

All the more problematic, the CIA had already indicated to the FBI in a memo before the FISA applications that Page was an operational contact for the CIA. And that wasn't shared with the FISA court.

But, according to Schiff, all the FISA actions were just fine and the FBI did not omit material information or subvert the FISA process. Oops.

The connection between the FISA process in this instance and the Steele Dossier and its connection to the DNC and Clinton campaign magnifies the above issues IMHO. For some reason I find hard to understand, they do not for many.

bc,

Do you think "the Trump-Russia thing" was a hoax?

Was it fabricated by the Deep State to bring down He, Trump?

The same Deep State that made Comey throw shade on Hillary (twice)?

Just curious.

--TP

Allow me to note that it is entirely possible to agree that unacceptable (not to mention possibly illegal) cooperation between Russia and the Trump campaign occurred. While also accepting that there were serious irregularities in the legal processes which were followed (or not followed). Which means that prosecution, for whatever parts of such cooperation were illegal, becomes problematic. Even though they occurred.

In short, there is a difference between unable to prosecute successfully and innocent.

The investigation into possible co-operation between the Trump campaign and Russian actors began in May 2016, when Pappadopoulos got drunk and told Alexander Downer about all the dirt the Russians had offered him on Clinton.

And proceeded from there. Before Carter Page, before the Steele dossier, before all of that.

Two of the four FISA warrants for surveillance of Page were invalid. Two were not. If you want Clinesmith to do jail time for lying in the FISA application, fine with me. If you want to tighten up the FISA application process to make it more transparent and accountable, that is beyond fine with me. If you think this is the first or last time the feds submitted a squirrelly FISA warrant application, I have news for you. It’s not.

Carter Page was neither the beginning of, nor the main substance of, the investigation. This stuff has been gone over with several fine-toothed combs, by people hostile to Trump, friendly to Trump, and with no particular opinion about Trump. It has consistently been found to be justifiable and well-founded.

If you want to talk about things that ‘seem suspicious’ and about which it is hard to understand why there is not greater concern, start with Roger Stone and Assange. Or Manafort sharing polling data with Klimnik. Or really any of 100 other things. We could be here all night.

Trump is a profoundly dishonest and dishonorable human being. There is no corner of his life, in or out of office, which is not a cesspit of corruption.

Why anybody wastes a minute of their time coming to his defense is beyond me.

Why anybody wastes a minute of their time coming to his defense is beyond me.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

Seems like the proximate culprit.

Meanwhile, Joe Biden has a Peloton trainer and a Rolex. And so the farce begins again.

I guess I’ll be grateful to be living with the usual BS, instead of the extraordinary kind we’ve all been treated to for the last 4 years.

I don’t know if conservatives understand the damage Trump has done to their brand. Along with W before him, for that matter. Your party may not survive this, and if it doesn’t, it will be a fate that is richly deserved.

Get your own sh*t together and then come talk to us about what’s ‘questionable’.

Let's move to Russia where folks give a crap against conservative assholes:

https://www.npr.org/2021/01/23/959923454/protests-swell-across-russia-calling-for-the-release-of-kremlin-critic-alexei-na

russell, there is a difference between defending Trump and pointing out the people doing those things you hand wave away that were illegal were trying to nullify a Ptesidential election. The list of people in the DOJ and Congress that were complicit is not short.

Trump is profoundly dishonest and dishonorable. That doesn't make their actions honorable or honest.

the people doing those things you hand wave away that were illegal were trying to nullify a Ptesidential election.

I’d say that ‘send Clinesmith to jail, fine with me’ falls short of hand waving.

Feel free to share the list of people in the DOJ and Congress who ere ‘complicit’. And then explain exactly what they were complicit in.

The investigation into Trump’s campaign was, amply, justified, as was his first impeachment, as is his current impeachment. The ‘trying to nullify an election’ thing is a lie. Quit dragging it in here.

JFC...

https://www.vice.com/amp/en/article/5dpjqk/no-biden-doesnt-have-a-chinese-handler-hes-a-us-secret-service-agent

The ‘trying to nullify an election’ thing is a lie. Quit dragging it in here.

It's a lie (with subtle differences) also propagated by that reptile, McConnell. As the current piece in the New Yorker headlined Why McConnell Dumped Trump has it:

“Let’s not have any lectures about how the President should immediately, cheerfully accept preliminary election results from the same characters who just spent four years refusing to accept the validity of the last election,” McConnell said. As he surely knew, it was a false equivalence: Democratic politicians had raised many questions about the effects of Russian interference on the 2016 election results, but Hillary Clinton had conceded the race the morning after the vote.

The">https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/02/01/why-mcconnell-dumped-trump?utm_source=nl&utm_brand=tny&utm_mailing=TNY_Daily_012321&utm_campaign=aud-dev&utm_medium=email&bxid=5db81f707e553f7098036138&cndid=59054774&hasha=19519b54b2d38cc2866059c7720835d2&hashb=f73e01651a4802f91758c31e965770ddb4388d80&hashc=8085170f8066ca86199747c8efc1877e994ccb710bd9e1c579c3f21e14fcf5b5&esrc=Auto_Subs&mbid=mbid%3DCRMNYR012019&utm_term=TNY_Daily">The whole piece is worth reading, for more analysis of McConnell and his tactics so far:

Sorry, I must have done something wrong with a href!

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/02/01/why-mcconnell-dumped-trump?utm_source=nl&utm_brand=tny&utm_mailing=TNY_Daily_012321&utm_campaign=aud-dev&utm_medium=email&bxid=5db81f707e553f7098036138&cndid=59054774&hasha=19519b54b2d38cc2866059c7720835d2&hashb=f73e01651a4802f91758c31e965770ddb4388d80&hashc=8085170f8066ca86199747c8efc1877e994ccb710bd9e1c579c3f21e14fcf5b5&esrc=Auto_Subs&mbid=mbid%3DCRMNYR012019&utm_term=TNY_Daily

Why anybody wastes a minute of their time coming to his defense is beyond me.

must oppose Democrats, in all things, at all times.

the people doing those things you hand wave away that were illegal were trying to nullify a Ptesidential election

call Bellemore! someone is doing violence to the language!

JFC...

Can't think of a more appropriate comment for that article. Good that I haven't eaten yet.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad