Pat Cipollone Believes the Golden Rule Is for Chumps
The question and answer phrase of the Senate trial is far more interesting than the presentation of the cases. Both parties are obviously feeding their own side questions to rebut the other, or posing questions they think will make the other stumble (Chief Justice John Roberts has reportedly censored only one kind of question: any question that probes for the whistleblower’s name).
Later last night, the questioning became interesting for the whip count. There were a couple of questions posed by large numbers of Senators on record supporting Trump, including vulnerable swing state Senators like Martha McSally, Thom Tillis, and Cory Gardner, and it was interesting to see who else jumped on questions that obviously served only to suck up to Trump.
Over the course of several questions, there was a discussion on whether Roberts could rule on the appropriateness of witnesses or Executive Privilege. Pat Philbin argued that he could not, on EP (contrary to the rules), in response to which Schiff came back and said he could. Schiff argued that the Democrats would accept Roberts’ views without challenge. Jay Sekulow piped in to say Republicans would not. I keep thinking about how Roberts will be ruling on some of these issues on other appeals, and I think Schiff is playing to him on some questions as much as to the Senate.
Questions being asked by leaners (people like Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins, who have asked a number together, though it seems like Mitt Romney went from leaning to supporting questions) are of particular interest. At one point, Collins asked why the House didn’t include bribery in its articles. Hakeem Jeffries gave an answer that Collins visibly responded to by saying, “he didn’t answer my question,” but Schiff came in shortly after and did answer it, pointing out that all the elements of bribery are included in the abuse of power article. Collins also asked the President’s lawyers what Trump had done on corruption in Ukraine prior to last year, which Philbin didn’t answer and then, when the question was re-asked by Democrats, said he couldn’t answer because it’s not in the record (though he has relied on non-public information elsewhere).
Then there are the alarming answers. Alan Dershowitz was asked, after he argued that if the President thought something that benefitted him personally was good for the country, whether that extended to nuking democratic states because he believed his reelection was good for the country and he agreed in theory.
Pat Philbin answered a question about whether it was okay to accept dirt to win an election. He said it was.
I was most interested, however, in a response Sekulow gave to a question offered by Marco Rubio and others, people who presumably were just feeding softballs to strengthen the President’s argument. They referenced a claimed principle espoused by Dersh and Sekulow, wherein you should always imagine how it would feel if the other party were impeaching a president of your party on the same fact set, which was originally a way to excuse Dersh’s flip-flop on abuse of power and impeachment. Rubio and others asked where the limiting factors on this would be — basically an invitation to repeat what Trump’s lawyers have said in the past, that you shouldn’t impeach within a year of an election or some such thing. Except Sekulow would not offer general principles. Instead of referencing the election — the right answer to the softball question — he focused on the claimed uniqueness of this impeachment (which is bullshit in any case). In other words, given an opportunity to answer a question about principles that would adhere beyond this impeachment, Sekulow answered that his Golden Rule only applies ot this impeachment.
Like Bush v Gore only applied to handing the election to GOP not any future precedent
Sekulow admits what every congresscritter knows: there is No set of rules for the GOP, and a harsh set of rules for Democrats. Glad he made that clear.
Well, ignoring how they are morally bankrupt — at least they’re consistent?
That’s called “The Barr Principle.”
Is saying the President can do anything he believes is in his interest really a legal argument? A person can utter those sentences, but it negates the entire Constitution. I guess they think 2016 was the last Presidential election and the impeachment is a wake.
Wait, what? Did Dershowitz say it would be okay to nuke blue states? Or is this snark?
I read that to mean other countries, even democracies. I haven’t read or watched coverage of it, though.
Snark, surely. Dersh qualified that it’s fine as long as it’s not illegal. His argument is wrong, but he is correct that public and self interest on the part of politicians is difficult to disentangle. It maybe is even dangerous to try, until it’s so obvious that everyone agrees, e.g. Trump hands Turkey a win, and we learn that it’s because Turkey threatened to seize or demolition Trump Tower Istanbul
“Dersh qualified that it’s fine as long as it’s not illegal.” Haven’t we been hearing arguments for some years to the effect that anything the President does is legal? I have an uncomfortable feeling that we are getting into Fuhrerprinzip teritory.
I think Nixon was the first to try that argument, when he claimed that it’s not illegal if the President does it.
that is so ridiculous. So if the President murders his wife because its cheaper than a divorce its O.K.? its O.K. for him to take up robbing banks, its O.K. Drunk driving, why not, walking into a Cabinet meeting and shooting the lot of them, its O.K. Don’t these people get it, the U.S.A. is a democracy. when the U.S.A. had a revolution it was to get rid of an absolute monarchy and now they want to re establish one again, except one with no manners or ability to dress appropriately.
The GOP stopped supporting democracy back around 1964, when they discovered that the majority of people think that civil rights and voting shouldn’t be restricted to white males.
Dershowitz completed his circular argument by saying that if a politician acts in the belief that his election is a public good, what he does cannot be illegal, or at least impeachable.
He didn’t qualify it by demanding that the belief be objective, reasonable, or made in good faith. A mad belief would do – because every politician he knows thinks their election is a necessary and saving grace for the body politic.
Dershowitz might be attempting to distract from the charges, by arguing as outrageously as his client acts. To score a win for his client, he would happily throw out democratic government. His argument is a bargain with the Devil, who never hesitates to collect his due.
Dershowitz states the necessary conclusion, that the President’s election is in the national interest, as an element in the premise.
Sure a President could undertake a public policy decision to lend war material to an ally, which he thinks will help him the election, by going to the public and letting Congress know, in return for increased public support.
But that isn’t close to what Trump did, and the benefit wasn’t increased public support. Instead it was a secret innuendo that Joe Biden and Hunter Biden were involved in the shady deals happening in Ukraine.
Under Dershowitz’ theory the President could just suspend voting in states were he could not fix the vote and lower the number needed to create an EC majority. And I think that is the ground he is plowing.
Voting is organized by the states (which delegate most of it to local bodies). How could a president suspend voting? States don’t need to follow his commands. Or do you suspect Trump will let tanks roll?
Trmp has made it clear that if he could, he’d wall off NYC, Chicago, L.A., San Francisco, Baltimore…. (Read Cory Doctorow’s “Little Brother” for a view of what that might be like.) He’s made it clear that “his people” are the rural voters who want things to never change for themselves. Cities and towns – even in rural areas – are more liberal and less likely to buy his lies.
Dershowitzs’ and Philbins’ comments are rich, indeed, given Barrs’ world tour seeking to discredit foreign information provided by our intelligence partners, and all the whining and crying about “tapping my wires”, the “dodgy dossier”, Fusion GPS, etc, etc, ad nauseum.
By Dershowitzs’ logic, totally ok if in 2015 Obama became concerned about the risk Trump posed to the country and arranged for SDNY to prosecute him for tax fraud, banking fraud, money laundering…and Hiliary is president, and Trump is in prison. That’s where I would have gone if I were Schiff.
“When the President does it, that means it’s not illegal.” —President Richard Nixon, in a 1977 interview with David Frost
Dershowitz said “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.”
Now this man isn’t stupid (though his ego may be bigger than his brain) so he must mean something vaguely plausible in a legal sense.
I think he accepts that a quid pro quo involving a million dollars is the kind of quid pro quo that can result in impeachment. Similarly, I assume, as regards a bag of diamonds worth a million dollars. But information about a rival cannot be worth a million dollars?
I meant to say a million dollars to put to the re-election campaign, sorry.
No, it’s not vaguely plausible in a legal sense.
It prepares the ground for the next crop to be sown: the election was illegal and the President has the right set aside the election.
The comparable precedent was the Supreme Court saying, Congress cannot prevent slavery in the territories. That was preparation for ruling states cannot regulate the use of slave ownership within their borders.
And the nation dissolved just before it happened.
Dershowitz is merely paraphrasing George in Seinfeld: “It’s not a lie if you believe it”
https://seinfeldmemes.com/its-not-a-lie-if-you-believe-it/
Imagining Dershowitz in ruby slippers clicking his heels together as he says three times, “There’s no place like home…”
No matter how much he believes otherwise, the man and his client are blights on humanity.
I think it should be pointed out, every time Dersh pontificates upon the Constitution and its meaning, that he’s a *criminal* attorney, is speaking outside his field, and should not be treated as an expert on it.
This *is* criminal law, though — we’re talking about Richard Nixon’s criminal behavior underpinning the Watergate break-in and the subsequent conspiracy and obstruction to cover up the crime.
Nixon was told in a unanimous decision by the 1974 SCOTUS the president is not above the law and executive privilege does not convey unqualified, unlimited immunity shielding unlawful acts by the executive.
Beyond the question of criminal or constitutional law, this goes to the core of this country’s existence as a democratic republic: the revolution was fought against a monarch claiming unlimited power. The United States of America exists because the founders rejected monarchical autocracy in principle. This is American History and American Government, grade school edition.
Thanks for the refresher, Rayne. My sense is that this is part of a much larger play, and that a lot of these folks are clueless as well as amoral.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/angelauyeung/2020/01/28/jeff-bezos-threw-a-party-after-the-annual-alfalfa-club-dinner-so-what-exactly-is-the-alfalfa-club/
[FYI, link edited to remove tracking. /~Rayne]
Thanks, Rayne, and apologies for making more work for you–will be more vigilant going forward! Just thought it was interesting that Gates (whose company was just awarded a huge government “cloud” contract–i.e. taxpayer money–which Bezos’ company is contesting) showed up with a bunch of Trumpettes to kiss Bezos’ ring Saturday night.
yes, but Dersh is talking about the Constitution and what was intended, which is not something he seems to be familiar with, but that’s his role in this lot of bad legal advisors.
Dershowitz, echoing Donald Trump and Roy Cohn, believes that in service to a client, there are no limits to what a defense lawyer can do or argue if it gets his client off. In turn, he argues that there are no limits to what a politician might do to seek or retain office.
Dershowitz would impose a Gresham’s law on politics. If a politician can do no wrong, because he believes his election would serve a public interest, it would attract the most venal, the most deluded, the most violent people into government.
The violence of Dershowitz’s argument is as profound as the corruption of his client. The votes may favor Trump, because he has already corrupted his party. But that albatross should hang around the necks of the GOP for a generation, condemning them to wander in the wilderness lamenting their crimes.
Well written.
I disagree with the last sentence though. While I wish the GOP a long regeneration in opposition, it would induce corruption if Dems could rule for 20 years or more. Either GOP turns around faster, or we need a third party.
We have other parties. Their leaders and members don’t seem to grasp the concept that organization is fundamental to their growth. The Green Party has nearly been de-listed in a number of states because its numbers are so thin and no one in those states is doing the necessary organizing.
Bernie Sanders is a perfect example of what happens to Democratic Socialists (~50K members) and Greens (~250K members) who don’t want to do the work of building a party; same for Rand Paul, who’d rather be a Libertarian (~512K members) but can’t be arsed to do what’s needed to build that party. They hover around the fringes of existing parties to act as spoilers, using the existing two major parties’ infrastructure without having to do more work on their own.
It’s also faster to subsume a hollowed-out party; progressives did it in 2006-2008 to the Democratic Party, but the DNC fucked them by simply killing what got Obama elected. Tea Party did the same to the GOP in 2009-2010, but once their shadow impetus for organizing was removed — Obama — the Tea Party forgot all about taxes. These should serve as keys to fixing this mess, assuming Team Trump doesn’t figure out how to drive a stake through what remains of American democracy.
Top editors at the NY Times and NPR have said this is their official policy.
It’s even worse in practice, actually. They say that without a smoking gun of intent to lie, Trump cannot be called out on a lie.
Which is a more stringent standard than needed in court — if an accountant claims a fictional kid as a dependent on his taxes, there is no need to get a recording of him admitting that he is pretending Harry Potter is his third kid to defraud the IRS.
Isn’t that the standard definition of lie: make others believe something you know isn’t true? If the last condition is missing, you know less but you ain’t lying.
My favorite moment was late in the day when Roy Blunt (R-MO & #4 in the GOP leadership) sent a question to the Chief Justice, “on behalf of myself, Senator McCaskill, . . .” and laughter immediately consumed the chamber. “Senator McSALLY,” he went on, correcting himself, no doubt rather red-faced.
It occurred to me that the laughter went on a bit too long, suggesting that everyone was pretty punchdrunk and happy for a bit of unintentional levity.
I was only half listening yesterday, but reacted strongly to Cipollone’s fear mongering “argument” using his made up theory that there is a “golden rule of impeachment”.
I found it this morning: [my transcription, emphasis in original]
VIDEO: https://www.c-span.org/event/?468632/senate-impeachment-trial-day-9
1:17:51 [about 8:43 PM ET]
SASSE question to CIPPOLLONE:
I think the DANGER to our Republic lies in the fact that EVERY Republican senator is AFRAID to step outside the party line.
I guess they have reason to BELIEVE the HEADS ON PIKES threat.
That is what I don’t get. what are they afraid of? they might be voted out of office next election, but lots of politicians have been and had good lives after that.
Are they afraid some one is going to beat them up? well a beating you can get over, trust me. It hurts like hell, but you live.
Now if its the head on a pike? Like really, they haven’t done that in years O.K. decades and perhaps a century or more. In a country with as many guns as there are in the U.S.A. I certainly wouldn’t be afraid of that, just walk around with a shot gun. all is good. if people bury their principles because they are afraid, the world would/will be a very bad place. You have to stand up or the thugs win. Its always been my position. the worst they can do is kill you. That isn’t the worst thing which can happen. Its all over then, why worry.
Back some decades ago, Australian politicians voted for gun control knowing some of them would loose the next election. They did what they thought was right for their country. Guess some Aussies had more integrity and principles than Republicans.
Like I said yesterday:
If we NEED a partisan impeachment—THAT’s what’s dangerous!
The follow-up question to that should have been, and if he says it again should be, “Who becomes president when the sitting president is convicted and removed from office?” Because most of us know the answer is “the vice-president”.
The problem is, however, that Pence seems to have been in the loop, knowing which laws were broken and not saying anything against it in public. If Trump is impeached for his crimes, could Pence be a successful candidate in November?
Mr. Schiff, responding to Dershowitz’s argument: “His would be a descent into constitutional madness.”
That’s the goal — a self-perpetuating coalition of right wing senators, state governments and judges using a hollowed out Constituion to rule autocratically, preferably but not necessarily with the help of a president and the House.
Useful to remember that Dick Cheney spent a career trying to undo the restraint imposed on Richard Nixon and the forcing of him from office lest he face formal impeachment and removal. Dick Cheney’s minority response to the House’s Iran-Contra report in 1987 was a blueprint for how to do it, starting with Just Saying No to Congress.
Also a blueprint was Bill Barr’s success in stonewalling from 1989-1993 Lawrence Walsh’s formal investigation of Iran-Contra. That included Barr persuading George Bush Sr. to pardon not one or two of his intimates, but six of them. They included the former SecDef, National Security Adviser, Asst. SecState for Central America, and three senior CIA officials.
That happily avoided Bush also having to pardon himself, or to step down early and have the competence-challenged Vice President Dan Quayle do it, in the manner of Gerald Ford and Richard Nixon.
What we’ve got here is not failure to communicate. It is a Republican Party that has been metastasizing into this thing for decades.
Not to be repetitive and boring, but as the Gaslight Nation Gals (Andrea Chalupa and Sarah Kendzior) have been saying seemingly forever, the GOP is now a wholly-owned subsidiary of a Transnational Crime Syndicate.
Right! Thanks for remembering all of that and setting it out here. It’s vital.
1] https://twitter.com/ChrisMurphyCT/status/1222916325678419968
11:15 AM · Jan 30, 2020
2] [John Hudson is now on Pompeo’s trip to UKRAINE “My latest from Air Force Mike“:
https://twitter.com/John_Hudson/status/1222930163148587008
12:10 PM · Jan 30, 2020
Really useful resource from PBS:
LIVE: What are your senators asking at the impeachment trial? Follow this chart
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/live-what-are-your-senators-asking-at-the-impeachment-trial-follow-this-chart
Jan 30, 2020 1:06 PM
My goodness Philbin is quite irritating.
Twisting words.
—related to Regis I bet.
https://twitter.com/LisaDNews/status/1222947483162152961
1:19 PM · Jan 30, 2020
!!!
I really wished that Roberts had admonished the Senators, after getting that question again today, that they will be excused from further participation in the trial if they persist in asking for legally-barred information.
(I also think he should have done that yesterday.)
Wyden’s question now!
https://www.c-span.org/video/?468707-1/senate-impeachment-trial-day-10
I don’t know if Senate Intelligence Committee member Wyden‘s question might be somehow related to this comment I made yesterday…but here it is:
https://www.emptywheel.net/2020/01/28/sdny-prosecutors-protect-trumps-privacy-to-enter-into-a-joint-defense-agreement-with-the-russian-mob/#comment-825166
OMG it’s a campaign rally!
Herschmann is gagging when trying to explain how Donald Trump has “the best interests of the American people in mind.”
Herschmann: God Bless Him. Keep Doing It. Stop Harassing Him. Join US. This, about the most divisive, self-obsessed, greedy, incompetent president to sit on the throne since the Robber Barons ruled the West.
No wonder Herschmann couldn’t read his script without gagging.
Holy crap!
Gardener must have opened his eyes long enough to read some emails and listened to some messages.
He asked a decent question.
I think Nadler missed a moment
Damn
The fatal deficiency, Mr. Cipillone, is in the Senate’s procedures that deprive it of access to fact witnesses, documents, and other evidence, which would allow it to do its constitutional duty. The faults you ascribe to the House are nothing in comparison. Your manner, in fact, is more insulting to the Senate than the House’s claimed failings.
Philbin: refers to the president as the “chief law enforcement officer“.
I don’t remember hearing that before these proceedings.
I thought that was Prosecutor General Barr’s official job.
Murkowski: where’s the line between enhanced interrogation and torture?
ie: how do we know political activity is corrupt?
I still think McConnell’s got this wrapped up, but this is just fucking insane. I think there’s a chance–a small one, granted, but that’s more than I thought 24 hours ago–that this might be so crazy that if I were a Republican Senator, I’d want to go through the Kabuki of calling a few witnesses just to put some time between this and the final vote. At a minimum, I’d think about kicking the final vote to Monday, but then that would leave the media with the whole weekend to splice this all together into a bite-sized form that every voter would be able to sit through. Jesus.
I would assume that they need to wrap this up immediately.
Their master has a Hannity interview during the superbowl on Sunday and these loyal soldiers know that if they fail to give the thing in the white house a glorious win for his tv time there are things far worse in store for them than having their heads on a pike.
There is also a slight chance for shoes to start dropping from the sky.
I’d like the ghosts of Franklin, Jefferson, and Madison to visit all of the senators who are going to vote against witnesses and for acquittal. Tonight, staying until sunrise. Preferably with their walking sticks.
Im amazed that a supposedly smart guy like Dersch can spout that crap with a straight face. I guess we ought to be happy that at least he left his underwear on.
Jeffries: That’s the 5th avenue standard of presidential accountabilty.
Loefgren giving a great answer.
Loefgren is giving a great answer about the differences in her three impeachment experiences.
Dersh’s fantastic arguments have long made him an outlier. But every one of these defense counsel is following his lead, to the effect that there is little or nothing a defense lawyer cannot do to get his client off the hook,
Consider: Nixon won in 1968 by treacherously undercutting the Viet Nam peace talks and in 1972 with the help of a team of shady characters and “plumbers”. Reagan/Bush I only won the elections in 1980, 84 and 1988 due to treachery involving Iran/Contra and Iraqgate and the kneecapping of Gary Hart and Ted Kennedy. Roger Stone was involved in many of the dirty tricks of this era. Bush II lost the popular vote in 2000 and only got Florida’s electoral votes through the treachery of Kathleen Harris and his brother, Jeb! Electoral hijinks in Ohio gave Bush II a narrow victory in 2004 over Kerry and of course, fatass Trump lost the popular vote bigly in 2016 but ‘won’ thanks to Russian social media onslaughts in key swing states like Pennsylvania and Michigan.
In summary, Republicans have not won a presidential election, fair and square without cheating like Hell, since Dwight Eisenhower won election in 1956!!
You might want to be more careful: we didn’t hear about some of this stuff until after the elections were over.
Jay Sekulow continues the defense counsel’s ploy of failing to distinguish between what is required at the indictment phase, and what’s required during the trial phase.
It is irrelevant at the trial phase how many witnesses appeared during the indictment phase. Witnesses at the trial phase should be fact witnesses regarding the charges. Hunter and Joe Biden are not fact witnesses regarding the charges. John Bolton is. Plus, selecting witnesses at trial is not a function of bothsiderism – you get one, we get one. It’s a function of what the witnesses know relative to the charges in the indictment.
6:10 JEFFRIES: talks about all the conspiracy theories
This is America’s most exclusive political club, and this is what you bring?
CIPOLLONE brings the lies.
Inigo says, “I don’t think unprecedented means what Mr. Philbin thinks it means.”
Ari Melber again raises Chris Matthews from the media grave. Does he hand out holy water and wafers, too, to his other panelists, in case Chris gets a little thirsty?
Ironically, Matthews talks about “putting a stake” into the heart of this [Trump] administration. I’m waiting for Professor van Helsing, and waiting….
Dinner, with pointy chopsticks and something with garlic sauce?
JEFFRIES: Why did the President wait until 2019 to pretend he had concerns about corruption in Ukraine?
HIRONO!
8:18 MURKOWSKI Why should this body not call Bolton
PHILBIN dissembles.
8:23 SCHATZ [et al] Can the WH really not [Angus] KING’s hypothical would be wrong?
PHILBIN whinewhinewhinehine
https://twitter.com/matthewamiller/status/1223057437894287360
8:36 PM · Jan 30, 2020
https://twitter.com/emptywheel/status/1223060231976103938
8:47 PM · Jan 30, 2020
I was reading this article this morning, too.
!!!
I’d bet that his wife wishes he’d get himself clipped. 10 kids is more than anyone in an industrialized country needs.
Well, she probably does not have much of a say in it…no matter what she thinks.
I hope she doesn’t have to have any more. (Family a couple of doors over was Catholic and had 10 or 11 that I remember. The last one lived only a few days – spina bifida. Some of the other Catholic families in the neighborhood had only a few kids; most families had three or four.)
I know two families that each had 12 children.
Gosh, I think there’s a good Vatican II joke in here somewhere (thinking also of a family with a more progressive sib that had the ‘regular’ few kids, vs. a more ‘traditional’ one who had the dozen kids, or nearly so).
Trump Impeachment Trial Turns Spotlight On White House Lawyer Cipollone
https://www.npr.org/2019/12/23/790227250/trump-impeachment-trial-turns-spotlight-on-white-house-lawyer-cipollone
December 23, 20195:00 AM ET
9:07 BLUMENTHAL why did trump want to “take her out” [Yovanovitch]
SCHIFF: Yovanovitch was at a ceremony for a dead anti-corruption fighter [a woman] when she was called home.
NPR just reported that Susan Collins WILL vote for witnesses. Lisa Murkowski wants to “review her notes” before announcing her decision .
That means McTurtle has the votes to prevent witnesses…unless several people change their mind before the vote is held.
Yep. Collins would not have dared vote Yes unless McConnell had the votes to prevent calling witnesses. It’s another piece of performance art from the Maine Senator, who ought to be playing out her final term in government.
Exactly, PJ and earl.
Lamar Alexander is a no
https://twitter.com/Olivia_Beavers/status/1223093718376423424
Not a surprise, after that last question that Murkowski was also in on.
Basically, he’s buying the Dersh theory of government. I want all these people out of government ASAP.
Exactly. McConnell has played the press like they are violins. It has all been bullshit from the start of Pelosi sending the idiotic limited “articles” of impeachment over.
What a fucking joke. It is almost like people, and the credulous press do not understand just how hard and bad they have been jobbed.
What a joke.
What got me was Alexander’s statement, which ends with this paragraph:
Has he forgotten that he’s supposed to be representing the governed, the people he wants to do the deciding? Did every effing GOP-T senator forget what their job is and why they’re there?
Yes, that is the problem.
Also, that is before even considering that “the consent of the governed” was in favor of Clinton by nearly 3 million votes.
The argument that the popular vote screamed for Trump is one of the biggest lies in the history of humanity.
Alexander, who does not face the challenge of re-election, opted to stay in the middle of the GOP herd rather than contemplate life alone, without wingnut welfare. His argument is fatuous. He is a coward.
Funny you say that.
I thought it was just me being me after after 1 beer more than my usual 1 beer, but after they read his statement I felt like I’d been gut punched and my first instinct was a bewildered “but what about us?”
Now I am trying to remember when politics was really about us?
70% of Americans want witnesses.
Sure, some want Biden and the whistle blower but my point is 70% of Americans want to know what the hell happened.
How dare they?
AFAICT the GOP stopped supporting democracy in 1964, when the Civil Rights Act was passed. They stopped pretending to support democracy when Clinton got elected in 1992. And with Shrub, they started actively demolishing it.
Oh I knew we were getting jobbed, it’s just the specific language and claims they are all making, which is making me sick.
But yes also the press and hanging on Susan Collins’ statement, like that means *anything* but bs, puts it over the top of ridiculousness.
Given what we saw after the Mueller testimony, and now with the execrable performance by the GOP here does anyone really believe that Individual-1 won’t do something else to show everyone he’s boss? It would be something on the order of pulling the USA out of NATO to align with Putin and Xi in an emperor’s club.
The GOP will do what they are told because the Soviet assistance in the last two elections only needs to be broadcast widely for the pitchforks to come out. So, it is really about self-preservation, but let’s remember they put themselves there and throw them a lifeline with an anvil.
I also think that the investigations go on and the House renews the impeachment process during the summer. It’s not like they wouldn’t have something serious to talk about given Individual-1’s threats to Schiff, Parnas, Bolton, the stuff they left out this time, new bombshells etc., and it’s worth billions in attack ads. I also think that even Pelosi understands that the GOP wants to rule, not govern, and MMMcT has something like 400 bills to work on after these passed the House. Pelosi can just say they’re waiting until the Senate catches up.
Make the courts rule on privilege, make the Palace and their GOP toadies publicly show their true colors on the record and preferably under oath. It will make electing the Ds much easier.
Apologies if someone else pinged on this, but apparently Cipillone was present for the Bolton meeting, according to Bolton. IANAL, but it would seem to me that it’s not unknown to have compromised lawyers in corruption cases like this, even if all that was done was to float the idea to see if it was legal.
With that said, though, I would guess that Mr. Schiff would like to summon Cipillone for a chat and possible criminal referral for lying to the Senate (at least).
some of those questions and answers were the best comedy routines I’ve heard in years. These people graduated from first tier universities? Must have forgotten their history lessons. OMG it was funny, at some level. At another level, it scary as hell. What they were basically saying its o.k. to have an absolute monarchy, with Trump as the king. Now I may be a Canadian but I do know why the Americans had a revolution and that old King Charles lost his head to an axe/sword and why. it is beyond me why “leaders” of a country would want to subvert their own political system to keep Trump in office. don’t these idiots know how to stage a bloodless revolution, you vote out the one who is a danger to your country. Nothing to loose, just do it.
Some of those answers, if the President deems it in the best interest of the country????? Does a President speak to God. Only England still sort of has that type of thing, i.e. the monarch is the head of the Church of England. Trump isn’t some brilliant individual, he can’t remember who invented what, gets lost in his conversations and can’t even remember all his lies. First thing I ever was taught, its always to tell the truth, don’t have to remember lies. If you’re going to be a liar, you have to have an excellent memory. because you can’t write them down to remember them. This guy has told over 16K lies since he came to office. How can the Republicans support some one like that?
I truly don’t know how the U.S.A. will get through this and how things will go in the next federal election. Sitting just a few miles from the border it is scary from time to time. Then of course you hear other American politicians and you know its going to be o.k.
O.K. I’m over the rant, thank you for this blog and the articles and comments.
When I was young used to hear LBJ passed leg. because he had the dirt on the politicians, so it leaves that me wondering what does Trump have on these bozos. (O.k> that isn’t professional, but having seen some of the questions and answers it boggles the mind. It just blows me away. How did the U.S.A. get to this point? I now how it got to this point, watched it, but just the same,
I don’t know: I assume it’s a combination of kompromat and straight-up bribery. And they are probably very much afraid of what Trmp and his followers can do to them if they don’t toe that line.
I figured out as a kid the worst which could happen was verbal abuse and getting beat up. Both are survivable.
As an adult I realized they could kill you, but really, then its over. With any luck if they kill you, they go to jail, oh right it o.k. if you’re the president and kill some one, well from what the president’s lawyers are trying to peddle.
My guess is that Trump sees only one of two choices. He can cheat like hell to win, and join the other dictators running the Philippines, Brazil, and Russia.
Or, he can risk losing and leave office in the normal course. He might then have to contemplate further investigation, prosecution, and imprisonment. His orange makeup would be replaced by an orange jumpsuit and shaven head. Unlike Wilson Fisk, his status and wealth would swirl down the drain, along with his sanity.
I think Donny would rather nail himself to the cross. At least then, he could claim to have joined the other gods who pretended to be human in order to do his father’s bidding.
If nothing else, this sham of an impeachment trial is a reminder that we need to put on a large pot of coffee and buckle up for a bumpy ride. It’s likely to be more Nantucket sleigh ride than Currier and Ives print.
It seems like every day, something alarming happens. Incursions on liberties, rights, entitlements here, transnational extortion there.
Then the rhetoric these past two days just ties all the prior acts, large and small, up in a bundle of Way Fucking Worse. For us to carry on that bumpy sleigh ride, I guess.
One item from today: Marcy retweeted this mega-thread on all of the creative ways Trump admin seeks to destroy Medicaid, and the lives of those who might depend upon it, by a thousand cuts:
Nicholas Bagley: “The big-picture view is that states can: 1. slash provider payments w/o seeking permission 2. limit access to prescription drugs 3. share in savings if they agree to a cap on medicaid spending”
https://twitter.com/nicholas_bagley/status/1222895535851368448
Also things like:
Yamiche Alcindor: “ICYMI, cause I sure did. Allies of Pres Trump have begun holding events in black communities where they praise the president as they hand out *tens of thousands of dollars in cash* to attendees. First giveaway took place last month in Cleveland. [link to: Trump allies are handing out cash to black voters – POLITICO ]”
https://twitter.com/Yamiche/status/1222661466559537154
“A Trump campaign spokesperson tells @meredithllee of events where allies of Pres Trump are handing out cash in black communities: “These events are not affiliated with or sanctioned by the President’s campaign.””
Sidenote: hmm, I wonder why Ohio…
And:
Kyle Griffin: “The Treasury Department announced earlier this week that it was lifting sanctions on three companies connected to Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska. Deripaska is an ally of Vladimir Putin. [Bloomberg link]”
https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1222912355815714816
Plus, the butterfly habitat savior was found dead in a well in Mexico.
(link re butterfly guy:)
David Beard: “There are only a few hilltops in Mexico where the monarch butterflies go. Homero Gómez González spent years trying to protect their habitat from loggers and criminal groups. “It hasn’t been easy,” he said last month His body was just discovered in a well….” https://twitter.com/dabeard/status/1222700759818604545
“As mayor, Homero Gómez González watched his monarch paradise become a @UNESCO World Heritage Site, and he worked with the @WWF to protect it, in hopes of developing it for ecotourism, not logging. #RIP…”
^ thread has links to WaPo, tweet video by Homero Gómez González
They might want to check the money. Trevour Noah was having fun with the news that the police found a million dollars in counterfiet money, all in $1 bills, all made in China. omg,
Given how cheap Trump is, is the money real? My first question would be.
I wouldn’t think they’d bother with $1s. $20s, even $10s, would give them much more of a return on that investment.
. . . more like “One Hoss Shay” . . .
Individual-1 doesn’t know who is playing in the Super Bowl on Sunday. Egads.
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2020/1/31/1915396/–Two-very-interesting-teams-Donald-Trump-doesn-t-know-who-s-playing-in-the-Super-Bowl
Trmp doesn’t care, because for him it’s another opportunity to show himself off to
the peasantshis adoring followers.Guess we’ll need the Carter Center.
https://www.cartercenter.org/peace/democracy/index.html
“Novelists tell that piece of truth hidden at the bottom of ever lie.” Italo Calvino
Not sure what lawyers tell, but Phil Philbin was shuffling a lot of legal tarot cards last night.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/2020/01/30/metro/trump-impeachment-trial-lawyer-patrick-philbin-has-boston-ties/
Ban the bastard in Boston!
Slightly off topic, but can anyone explain what the frothers are frothing about when they froth about Schiff and the Atkinson transcript? I did a google search but all that came up were stories on frothy right “news” sources like Town Hall and the Washington Examiner and such. Thanks in advance.
Not even one patriot remaining on the GOP side or someone on the inside that will do the right thing and expose the criminal behavior.
I wish there was at least one who would speak or free up documents that need sunlight.
this article by george conway III is the most carefully laid out, logical dissection of the sophistical trump defense i have read:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/george-conway-dont-let-the-defense-fool-you-this-impeachment-is-all-about-corruption/2020/01/30/c3417c58-43a6-11ea-b503-2b077c436617_story.html?
as for the specific points of law conway asserts, that can be evaluated by lawyers.
Really interesting Sekulow is grandson of an immigrant from Volyn Oblast, Ukraine.
25 minutes ago:
BREAKING Trump Told Bolton to Help His Ukraine Pressure Campaign, Book Says
The president asked his national security adviser last spring [early May] in front of other senior advisers [Mulvaney, Giuliani, Cipollone to pave the way for a meeting between Rudolph Giuliani and Ukraine’s new leader.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/31/us/politics/trump-bolton-ukraine.html
Jan. 31, 2020, 12:00 p.m.
And when did Rudy start working for the State Department?
This lot needs to be turfed out and put behind bars.
Here’s a great photo by Charlie Savage, via nycsouthpaw:
https://twitter.com/charlie_savage/status/1223298851878121474
12:35 PM · Jan 31, 2020
Great thread about this from Susan Simpson
https://twitter.com/TheViewFromLL2/status/1223292881470984193
12:12 PM · Jan 31, 2020
DRUG DEAL
Let’s call Cippolone as a witness under the crime-fraud exception.