The █████████ Mueller Report
April 17, 2019 9:26 PM Subscribe
Attorney General William Barr to hold press conference Thursday as Mueller report expected to drop (CNN) Your guide to Mueller's report on Trump: What's in it, what's not and what comes next (NBC); Marcy Wheeler’s primer How to Read the Mueller Report (“The first step is to know what is supposed to be in there and what isn't supposed to be in there -- something a lot of people get wrong.”); Justice Dept. to release two versions of redacted Mueller report (CNN); 25 Subplots to Watch in the Mueller Investigation (Politico); Memo to the Press: How Not to Screw Up on the Mueller Report (Lawfare); Maxing It Out for Trump Josh Marshall (TPM) on how the fix is in. This is the US politics megathread.
• William Barr Round-up:
• Ben Taub's epic-length Guantánamo’s Darkest Secret (New Yorker) "as the world’s most powerful democracy, the United States had 'the means to uphold and pressure other countries to uphold human rights. But instead the United States is stating to the world very clear and loud that democracy does not work—that when you need to get down and dirty, you need a dictatorship. That dictatorship was built in Guantánamo Bay.'"
• ProPublica has issued an in-depth investigation into the Trumps' fraudulent claims in their real estate deals since the mid-2000s Here Are the Trump Projects Where Ivanka and Her Dad Misled Buyers: Read the Trumps’ false statements — and what the actual facts were.
• Gina Haspel Relies on Spy Skills to Connect With Trump. He Doesn’t Always Listen. (NYT) "Gina Haspel was trying to brief President Trump early in her tenure as the C.I.A. director, but he appeared distracted. Houseflies buzzing around the Oval Office were drawing his attention, and ire."
• Mitch McConnell, Never a Grandstander, Learns to Play by Trump’s Rules (NYT) "Two factors have made [McConnell's reliance on White House intermediaries] less attractive: the arrival of Mick Mulvaney, a former Freedom Caucus hard-liner in the House, as acting White House chief of staff and the diminished clout of Vice President Mike Pence as a dealmaker. […] Mr. McConnell’s approach is rooted in his personal political realities: He cannot afford to have the president, whose support with the party’s base remains solid, turn on him. He is also up for re-election next year, in a state enthralled with Mr. Trump."
• Mick Mulvaney’s Master Class in Destroying a Bureaucracy From Within (NYT) "'The bureau was constructed really deliberately to protect ordinary people,' says Lisa Donner, the head of Americans for Financial Reform. 'He’s taken it apart—dismantled it, piece by piece, brick by brick.'"
• NASA's administrator lavishly praised an influential Evangelical ministry during its $10,000-a-table fundraiser. Some experts say his speech violated the Constitution. (Business Insider)
• Post-Mueller report likely to target Russia dossier author Steele (Politico) "Several people interviewed by the Inspector General’s office over the past year tell POLITICO that Horowitz’s team has been intensely focused on gauging Steele’s credibility as a source for the bureau. One former U.S. official left the interview with the impression that the Inspector General’s final report “is going to try and deeply undermine” Steele, who spent over two decades working Russia for MI6 before leaving to launch his own corporate intelligence firm."
• Bill Weld: I'm in GOP Primary to Beat Trump, Not Just Weaken Him (Politico); Trump's GOP Critics in Senate Mum on Weld 2020 Bid (CNN)
• The Trump-Putin Relationship, as Dictated by the Kremlin—Why does the White House cede control of the narrative to the Russians? (The Atlantic) "Why do so many of Trump’s positions bewilderingly align with Putin’s, including chastising U.S. spies, dismissing NATO as “obsolete,” and questioning the value of the European Union? What explains Trump’s affinity for Putin, and the extensive secrecy that has shrouded their interactions since 2017?"
• The Debate We May Be Having Tomorrow: If Trump Obstructed Justice to Hide Compromise By Russia, Could That Be a Crime? (Emptywheel.net) "I want to prepare for the possibility that tomorrow we’ll be debating whether a President can obstruct justice to prevent voters from learning how badly he and his dumb son compromised themselves in a foreign intelligence operation in the course of running a presidential election to get rich."
Today is the 819th day of the Trump administration. There are 564 days until the 2020 elections.
Previously in U.S. Politics Megathreads: “There will be plenty of unfavorable things about the president“
Elsewhere on MetaFilter: Paying a lot more and getting a lot less (US Tax Day); The Terrifying Rise of the Abortion Abolition Movement; Copy. Paste. Legislate. (Bill Mills); Charles Koch Institute Trains Future Journalists; As American As Apple Pie (Iowa Democratic Socialists); OnceUponATime's Active Measures site
MeFi Chat • Unofficial PoliticsFilter Slack • Venting Thread for catharsis and sympathizing • Political Humorizing Thread for jokes and one-liners • Help fund the site • Next FPP draft • Thanks to Doktor Zed and ZeusHumms for helping to create this thread.
• William Barr Round-up:
Should William Barr Recuse Himself From Mueller Report? Legal Experts Say Attorney General's Ties to Russia Are Troubling (Newsweek) • Judge in FOIA case says he may want to review DOJ redactions of Mueller report after release—"The attorney general has created an environment that has caused a significant part of the American public to be concerned," U.S. District Court Judge Reggie Walton said. (CNN)• Immigration Round-up:
Attorney General Barr just handed ICE more power to keep asylum seekers in detention (Vox) • Border Patrol Holds Hundreds of Migrants in Growing Tent City Away From Prying Eyes (Daily Beast)—"The situation is unhealthy. People are in a confined space, they’re not getting showers, their clothes are dirty, babies are not getting Pampers like they should be." • Under Trump, immigration enforcement dominates Homeland Security mission—"A former senior administration official said Trump sometimes called cybersecurity “the cyber” and said that dealing with it, or talking about it, would only get you in trouble." • Denials of U.S. immigrant visas skyrocket after little-heralded rule change (Reuters)• Polling Round-up:
Navigator Research Poll: Most Americans don’t think Mueller report will clear Trump (Politico) • AP-NORC Poll: Many want Congress to probe Trump-Russia (Associated Press) • Nearly 4 in 10 voters believe Trump’s campaign was spied on (Politico/Morning Consult) • Trump’s Tax Time Troubles—Most say Congress should get full Mueller report (Monmouth University) "Trump’s overall job rating stands at 40% approve and 54% disapprove."IN OTHER HEADLINES:
• Ben Taub's epic-length Guantánamo’s Darkest Secret (New Yorker) "as the world’s most powerful democracy, the United States had 'the means to uphold and pressure other countries to uphold human rights. But instead the United States is stating to the world very clear and loud that democracy does not work—that when you need to get down and dirty, you need a dictatorship. That dictatorship was built in Guantánamo Bay.'"
• ProPublica has issued an in-depth investigation into the Trumps' fraudulent claims in their real estate deals since the mid-2000s Here Are the Trump Projects Where Ivanka and Her Dad Misled Buyers: Read the Trumps’ false statements — and what the actual facts were.
• Gina Haspel Relies on Spy Skills to Connect With Trump. He Doesn’t Always Listen. (NYT) "Gina Haspel was trying to brief President Trump early in her tenure as the C.I.A. director, but he appeared distracted. Houseflies buzzing around the Oval Office were drawing his attention, and ire."
• Mitch McConnell, Never a Grandstander, Learns to Play by Trump’s Rules (NYT) "Two factors have made [McConnell's reliance on White House intermediaries] less attractive: the arrival of Mick Mulvaney, a former Freedom Caucus hard-liner in the House, as acting White House chief of staff and the diminished clout of Vice President Mike Pence as a dealmaker. […] Mr. McConnell’s approach is rooted in his personal political realities: He cannot afford to have the president, whose support with the party’s base remains solid, turn on him. He is also up for re-election next year, in a state enthralled with Mr. Trump."
• Mick Mulvaney’s Master Class in Destroying a Bureaucracy From Within (NYT) "'The bureau was constructed really deliberately to protect ordinary people,' says Lisa Donner, the head of Americans for Financial Reform. 'He’s taken it apart—dismantled it, piece by piece, brick by brick.'"
• NASA's administrator lavishly praised an influential Evangelical ministry during its $10,000-a-table fundraiser. Some experts say his speech violated the Constitution. (Business Insider)
• Post-Mueller report likely to target Russia dossier author Steele (Politico) "Several people interviewed by the Inspector General’s office over the past year tell POLITICO that Horowitz’s team has been intensely focused on gauging Steele’s credibility as a source for the bureau. One former U.S. official left the interview with the impression that the Inspector General’s final report “is going to try and deeply undermine” Steele, who spent over two decades working Russia for MI6 before leaving to launch his own corporate intelligence firm."
• Bill Weld: I'm in GOP Primary to Beat Trump, Not Just Weaken Him (Politico); Trump's GOP Critics in Senate Mum on Weld 2020 Bid (CNN)
• The Trump-Putin Relationship, as Dictated by the Kremlin—Why does the White House cede control of the narrative to the Russians? (The Atlantic) "Why do so many of Trump’s positions bewilderingly align with Putin’s, including chastising U.S. spies, dismissing NATO as “obsolete,” and questioning the value of the European Union? What explains Trump’s affinity for Putin, and the extensive secrecy that has shrouded their interactions since 2017?"
• The Debate We May Be Having Tomorrow: If Trump Obstructed Justice to Hide Compromise By Russia, Could That Be a Crime? (Emptywheel.net) "I want to prepare for the possibility that tomorrow we’ll be debating whether a President can obstruct justice to prevent voters from learning how badly he and his dumb son compromised themselves in a foreign intelligence operation in the course of running a presidential election to get rich."
Today is the 819th day of the Trump administration. There are 564 days until the 2020 elections.
Previously in U.S. Politics Megathreads: “There will be plenty of unfavorable things about the president“
Elsewhere on MetaFilter: Paying a lot more and getting a lot less (US Tax Day); The Terrifying Rise of the Abortion Abolition Movement; Copy. Paste. Legislate. (Bill Mills); Charles Koch Institute Trains Future Journalists; As American As Apple Pie (Iowa Democratic Socialists); OnceUponATime's Active Measures site
MeFi Chat • Unofficial PoliticsFilter Slack • Venting Thread for catharsis and sympathizing • Political Humorizing Thread for jokes and one-liners • Help fund the site • Next FPP draft • Thanks to Doktor Zed and ZeusHumms for helping to create this thread.
The Debate We May Be Having Tomorrow: If Trump Obstructed Justice to Hide Compromise By Russia, Could That Be a Crime?
Please can we not be having that debate? It's obviously a crime, or should be one, and I don't understand anyone who thinks it shouldn't be. The president should not be immune to the law. It's not a complicated or controversial idea. I'm too tired to have to defend obviously good ideas on top of all the other shit going on.
I mean, obviously america is pretty terrible right now and the way we're getting rid of Trump is at the ballot box, not in a prison jumpsuit (or at least, at the ballot box first).
posted by axiom at 9:46 PM on April 17, 2019 [15 favorites]
Please can we not be having that debate? It's obviously a crime, or should be one, and I don't understand anyone who thinks it shouldn't be. The president should not be immune to the law. It's not a complicated or controversial idea. I'm too tired to have to defend obviously good ideas on top of all the other shit going on.
I mean, obviously america is pretty terrible right now and the way we're getting rid of Trump is at the ballot box, not in a prison jumpsuit (or at least, at the ballot box first).
posted by axiom at 9:46 PM on April 17, 2019 [15 favorites]
Should be a crime is not the same thing as being a crime, unfortunately.
However, I've always thought the "collusion" angle was a red herring. It didn't help that Mr. Trump was denying it before anyone was accusing him of it.
No, to me the question has always been, Did the Trump campaign benefit from foreign activity that was illegal? And the public record on that has long been, Yes.
Say you buy a car stereo that's been boosted. You may never have "colluded" with the thief, but you did benefit from their low, low prices.
By framing this as a question of "collusion," Mr. Trump has done a splendid job of distracting the debate from the reality that a hostile power has helped place someone in office. They may not have been the only reason that person gained office, but they did help, "collusion" or not. And, like buying a hot stereo, there should be consequences for that.
So we go full circle - should be isn't will be.
posted by aurelian at 10:04 PM on April 17, 2019 [31 favorites]
However, I've always thought the "collusion" angle was a red herring. It didn't help that Mr. Trump was denying it before anyone was accusing him of it.
No, to me the question has always been, Did the Trump campaign benefit from foreign activity that was illegal? And the public record on that has long been, Yes.
Say you buy a car stereo that's been boosted. You may never have "colluded" with the thief, but you did benefit from their low, low prices.
By framing this as a question of "collusion," Mr. Trump has done a splendid job of distracting the debate from the reality that a hostile power has helped place someone in office. They may not have been the only reason that person gained office, but they did help, "collusion" or not. And, like buying a hot stereo, there should be consequences for that.
So we go full circle - should be isn't will be.
posted by aurelian at 10:04 PM on April 17, 2019 [31 favorites]
Here's Ruben Bolling's two cents via Tom the Dancing Bug.
posted by BiggerJ at 10:17 PM on April 17, 2019 [15 favorites]
posted by BiggerJ at 10:17 PM on April 17, 2019 [15 favorites]
It seems fairly likely that there will be evidence that Trump and his team lied and otherwise engaged in various obstructions. But I guess the main question is going to revolve around whether Mueller should have indicted -- or someone else should now indict -- a sitting president for lying about an underlying non-criminal activity (assuming we accept Mueller's judgment that the underlying activity was non-criminal). This is going to a tough one to argue in the court of public opinion, because Republican hypocrisy (so much hypocrisy...) notwithstanding, it's tough to argue that it's a big-time crime to lie in order to hide something you feared was illegal but in fact turned out not to be. I certainly hope there's more in it than that, but even a strong case for obstruction is probably not going to change very many minds who already believe (based on Mueller's own words) that there was no underlying crime to obstruct.
The analogy with Clinton seems pretty close: the impeachment charges were for perjury and obstruction, and everyone pretty much agreed he had perjured himself, but one's fervor came from how one perceived the underlying "crime": the law agreed it wasn't illegal to have the affair, but Republicans still thought it was immoral and thus that the perjury was also a terrible crime, whereas Democrats thought the underlying "crime" was minor and certainly not illegal, and therefore figured that the obstruction was, although real, minor and a gotcha. The end result was that the middle, who sided with Democrats in thinking that the underlying crime was minor and thus the perjury was minor, supported Clinton. By analogy, I fear that that the middle, who may side with Mueller in feeling that the underlying Russian activity was non-criminal and thus may feel that the obstruction, though real, is also trivial, is therefore more likely to side with Trump than with the Democrats who are incensed by their feeling that the crime (and certainly the criminal) is very bad and therefore the obstruction is very bad.
posted by chortly at 10:32 PM on April 17, 2019 [12 favorites]
The analogy with Clinton seems pretty close: the impeachment charges were for perjury and obstruction, and everyone pretty much agreed he had perjured himself, but one's fervor came from how one perceived the underlying "crime": the law agreed it wasn't illegal to have the affair, but Republicans still thought it was immoral and thus that the perjury was also a terrible crime, whereas Democrats thought the underlying "crime" was minor and certainly not illegal, and therefore figured that the obstruction was, although real, minor and a gotcha. The end result was that the middle, who sided with Democrats in thinking that the underlying crime was minor and thus the perjury was minor, supported Clinton. By analogy, I fear that that the middle, who may side with Mueller in feeling that the underlying Russian activity was non-criminal and thus may feel that the obstruction, though real, is also trivial, is therefore more likely to side with Trump than with the Democrats who are incensed by their feeling that the crime (and certainly the criminal) is very bad and therefore the obstruction is very bad.
posted by chortly at 10:32 PM on April 17, 2019 [12 favorites]
So, Newsweek notes that Barr did business with Russia's Alfa Bank and he received dividends from Vector Group, a holding company with deep financial ties to Russia. Just a reminder here that the mysterious server pings going from Trump Tower went to Alpha Bank (and a company owned by Betsy Devos).
Without getting all tied up in my red string, I'm beginning to think that everyone on the GOP side may actually be compromised.
How much of the report is being redacted to protect Barr, or previous clients of Barr, as well as 45 and his family?
posted by SecretAgentSockpuppet at 10:35 PM on April 17, 2019 [52 favorites]
Without getting all tied up in my red string, I'm beginning to think that everyone on the GOP side may actually be compromised.
How much of the report is being redacted to protect Barr, or previous clients of Barr, as well as 45 and his family?
posted by SecretAgentSockpuppet at 10:35 PM on April 17, 2019 [52 favorites]
By framing this as a question of "collusion," Mr. Trump has done a splendid job of distracting the debate
Only through poorly-thought-out reactions to Barr's memo and facilitation from an amazingly vast majority of the press, though. Not only does the word “collusion” not even appear in the Barr memo, and hence the memo doesn't even remotely claim “no collusion”, the memo doesn't say no crimes were committed by Trump or the campaign, and even to the extent it says “no conspiracy” it only refers to a small particular category of conspiracies.
So, like, even Trump's hand-picked corrupt AG guy pulling his fake-summary trick (which Barr has done before) and bending every rule as far as he could was unable to represent the report as exonerating of anything but the tiniest fraction of what the word “collusion” might mean in this context, but everyone in the damned world loudly repeated Trump's “No collusion!” claim at every opportunity.
If members of the media had actually examined what the Barr memo said in regards to the nebulously-defined concept of “collusion” we'd actually have been better off... the plasticity of the concept in a counterintelligence context should actually have been evaluated as the double-edged sword it is and it should've been virtually impossible to exonerate anyone of it in the public mindset. But both sides, butteremails.
That's only the first move in the post-Mueller-report game, though, and it's the final move that matters.
posted by XMLicious at 10:47 PM on April 17, 2019 [12 favorites]
Various folks on legal twitter have been pointing out that House Dems' strongest grounds to subpoena the unredacted report would be as part of impeachment proceedings against Barr. Certainly makes sense to me.
posted by bcd at 10:49 PM on April 17, 2019 [33 favorites]
posted by bcd at 10:49 PM on April 17, 2019 [33 favorites]
The analogy with Clinton seems pretty close: the impeachment charges were for perjury and obstruction, and everyone pretty much agreed he had perjured himself, but one's fervor came from how one perceived the underlying "crime": the law agreed it wasn't illegal to have the affair, but Republicans still thought it was immoral
Don't want to derail into 20th-century stuff here but we really need to not go along with the pretense that Republicans actually think this is immoral.
Contemporaneous to that impeachment process, Newt Gingrich was cheating on his second wife with his two-decades-younger third-wife-to-be and many other Republicans were cavorting in sin as they pretended to moral outrage. And now, of course, the President and self-identified Nationalist leader of the Republican party, put there by both the base as well as politicians at every level, is also a twice-divorced 130k-apiece serial philanderer. IOKIYAR.
Republicans are auto-electorally-enthusiastic philanderophiles, for anyone who might be misled into thinking Trump is some kind of exception in history in that regard.
posted by XMLicious at 11:12 PM on April 17, 2019 [43 favorites]
█████████ █████ █████ ███████████████ █████████ █ ██████ ███ pancakes ██████ █████████ ██████████████.
posted by mazola at 11:19 PM on April 17, 2019 [99 favorites]
posted by mazola at 11:19 PM on April 17, 2019 [99 favorites]
Yes, the reason Republicans thought Clinton's acts were immoral wasn't due to some abstract moral code but a bunch of partisan bigotry with a continual application of IOKIYAR exceptions for their own side. But if Clinton's approval rose due to impeachment,* it was potentially because a small subset of the public changed their judgment of him, arguably based on a sense that the underlying crime was minor and thus the obstruction was minor and thus the impeachment was unfair; and similarly, this tiny silver may have likewise been convinced by Mueller that the underlying crime is minor and thus, whatever we discover tomorrow, may likewise decide that that obstruction is minor.
[* As I've argued here before, I personally think that the impeachment probably had no effect whatsoever on Clinton's approval and its rise was just due to the economy, and similarly I think that whatever happens tomorrow will have very little effect on anything and thus none of it matters too much. Or more broadly, public opinion data is so noisy that we will never learn what the true effect of any of this stuff is. But in any case, none of that should stand in the way of a little recreational speculation...]
posted by chortly at 11:58 PM on April 17, 2019 [1 favorite]
[* As I've argued here before, I personally think that the impeachment probably had no effect whatsoever on Clinton's approval and its rise was just due to the economy, and similarly I think that whatever happens tomorrow will have very little effect on anything and thus none of it matters too much. Or more broadly, public opinion data is so noisy that we will never learn what the true effect of any of this stuff is. But in any case, none of that should stand in the way of a little recreational speculation...]
posted by chortly at 11:58 PM on April 17, 2019 [1 favorite]
Let's get something completely CLEAR. Please! Uhm, let's please remember, in all the hoop-la, and spread this far and wide, keep this in mind... Note: This is NOT the Mueller Report - it is yet another redacted cover-up summary. Don't let the media and pundits make this something it is NOT! Let's call it William Barr's most recent novel, file in the fiction section...(Loosely based on a real story, only the facts have been changed to protect the guilty...)
posted by WinstonJulia at 12:27 AM on April 18, 2019 [39 favorites]
posted by WinstonJulia at 12:27 AM on April 18, 2019 [39 favorites]
To predict how the current admin will react to any given situation, just ask "What Would Al Capone Do?"
posted by benzenedream at 12:35 AM on April 18, 2019 [5 favorites]
posted by benzenedream at 12:35 AM on April 18, 2019 [5 favorites]
I'm beginning to think that everyone on the GOP side may actually be compromised.
It's been apparent ever since so much dark money started flowing through SuperPACs, years now. This was the weird tension that defined the end of John "Campaign Finance Reform" McCain's career, the temptation to so. much. money! The RNC is fueled the same way the NRA's been fueled, and the real estate markets in NYC and London have been fueled, and Deutchbank has been fueled—with money that needed an end-around US sanctions and/or laws.
What's got my addled soul worried since 2016 or so (and especially since January 2019) is that the DNC stepped in dirty SuperPAC too, inadvertently or not, and are getting keen on pretending they can't smell the stench.
posted by carsonb at 1:02 AM on April 18, 2019 [35 favorites]
It's been apparent ever since so much dark money started flowing through SuperPACs, years now. This was the weird tension that defined the end of John "Campaign Finance Reform" McCain's career, the temptation to so. much. money! The RNC is fueled the same way the NRA's been fueled, and the real estate markets in NYC and London have been fueled, and Deutchbank has been fueled—with money that needed an end-around US sanctions and/or laws.
What's got my addled soul worried since 2016 or so (and especially since January 2019) is that the DNC stepped in dirty SuperPAC too, inadvertently or not, and are getting keen on pretending they can't smell the stench.
posted by carsonb at 1:02 AM on April 18, 2019 [35 favorites]
█████████ █████ █████ ███████████████ █████████ █ ██████ ███ pancakes ██████ █████████ ██████████████.
Makin' pancakes, makin' bacon pancakes?
So, general strike? I'm ready to build tents and make tea and coffee. I don't really know what else to do. Is there a pause button somewhere? If yes, is there a rewind button?
posted by loquacious at 2:06 AM on April 18, 2019 [10 favorites]
Makin' pancakes, makin' bacon pancakes?
So, general strike? I'm ready to build tents and make tea and coffee. I don't really know what else to do. Is there a pause button somewhere? If yes, is there a rewind button?
posted by loquacious at 2:06 AM on April 18, 2019 [10 favorites]
...the law agreed it wasn't illegal to have the affair, but Republicans still thought it was immoral.
----------
Don't want to derail into 20th-century stuff here but we really need to not go along with the pretense that Republicans actually think this is immoral.
Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that while they may not actually have believed it was immoral, their public position was that it was immoral.
posted by The Underpants Monster at 2:45 AM on April 18, 2019 [13 favorites]
----------
Don't want to derail into 20th-century stuff here but we really need to not go along with the pretense that Republicans actually think this is immoral.
Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that while they may not actually have believed it was immoral, their public position was that it was immoral.
posted by The Underpants Monster at 2:45 AM on April 18, 2019 [13 favorites]
NowThis on Twitter: What if Fox News covered Trump the way it covered Obama? It would look like this. (Video)
posted by young_simba at 4:43 AM on April 18, 2019 [35 favorites]
posted by young_simba at 4:43 AM on April 18, 2019 [35 favorites]
Okay, I'll bite - how do I read the redacted text above?
posted by parki at 4:49 AM on April 18, 2019 [4 favorites]
posted by parki at 4:49 AM on April 18, 2019 [4 favorites]
Just wanted to say +1 on the post title and the perfect balance of word-count and information in said post. Well done. Also to say good luck, and we're all counting on you.
posted by petebest at 5:02 AM on April 18, 2019 [19 favorites]
posted by petebest at 5:02 AM on April 18, 2019 [19 favorites]
Heh heh, George Stephanopoulos (WH Communications Director under Clinton for a few months, on Good Morning America just now) had a Freudian slip and referred to Barr's upcoming presentation of the “edited” version of the Mueller report, rather than “redacted.”
posted by XMLicious at 5:10 AM on April 18, 2019 [21 favorites]
posted by XMLicious at 5:10 AM on April 18, 2019 [21 favorites]
Buzzfeed’s Zoe Tillman reports live from the DoJ:
Just in case the abnormality of Barr’s press conference wasn’t apparent, here’s this exchange from Twitter:
Preet Bharara: “My recollection is that the media got the relevant documents at the start of or slightly before even garden variety DOJ press conferences, not after.”
George Conway: “Also @PreetBharara when DOJ has press conferences about investigations, don’t they usually have present some of the people who actually worked on the investigation?”
Preet Bharara: “Usually. Or always.”
* Rosenstein’s in full-blown CYA mode, per Newsweek.
posted by Doktor Zed at 5:17 AM on April 18, 2019 [15 favorites]
From DOJ spox Kerri Kupec: In his remarks at 9:30am, AG Barr will address executive privilege (whether it was invoked), White House + DOJ interactions over the last several weeks, and the redaction process.(ABC’s Katherine Faulders notes, “At 7:18am, Robert Mueller was seen arriving at the special counsel's office, per @erica_yueh who spotted him.”)
How is Barr feeling today? "Calm," Kupec says.
Here is what we KNOW:
- Barr will have a presser at 9:30am. DAG Rosenstein* will be there, but isn't expected to speak.
- Congress will get CDs with the redacted Mueller report between 11am-12pm
- The report will be posted online *sometime* after it's delivered to the Hill
Here is what we DON'T KNOW:
- The contents of the Mueller report
Just in case the abnormality of Barr’s press conference wasn’t apparent, here’s this exchange from Twitter:
Preet Bharara: “My recollection is that the media got the relevant documents at the start of or slightly before even garden variety DOJ press conferences, not after.”
George Conway: “Also @PreetBharara when DOJ has press conferences about investigations, don’t they usually have present some of the people who actually worked on the investigation?”
Preet Bharara: “Usually. Or always.”
* Rosenstein’s in full-blown CYA mode, per Newsweek.
posted by Doktor Zed at 5:17 AM on April 18, 2019 [15 favorites]
Rick Perry is Said to Plan His Exit (Bloomberg)
Perry, an Air Force veteran who was previously Texas’s longest-serving governor, has enjoyed a good rapport with President Donald Trump. Trump personally asked Perry if he’d take over as Homeland Security secretary, before the president asked Kirstjen Nielsen to resign earlier this month, two of the people said. Perry declined, they said.posted by box at 5:25 AM on April 18, 2019 [6 favorites]
Trump is being totally calm since the report completely exonerates him. 9 tweets so far, including 6 retweets of nut job org Judicial Watch railing about Clinton’s email and spying crimes.
How long before Barr appoints a special prosecutor to investigate Clinton, Steele, the FBI and Mueller’s team to distract from the “exoneration.” Might be a decent chance he announces this morning.
posted by chris24 at 5:26 AM on April 18, 2019 [14 favorites]
How long before Barr appoints a special prosecutor to investigate Clinton, Steele, the FBI and Mueller’s team to distract from the “exoneration.” Might be a decent chance he announces this morning.
posted by chris24 at 5:26 AM on April 18, 2019 [14 favorites]
“You don’t know if this is an aberration or not, if Trump is something outside, and he’s going to lose, and we’ll forget,” Mr. Caro said. “Or, is he the first of the mad Roman emperors?”
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 5:38 AM on April 18, 2019 [12 favorites]
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 5:38 AM on April 18, 2019 [12 favorites]
"...so nobody on mueller's crack team of legal and tactical geniuses had the forethought to, i dunno, make a PDF of the report and leak it in case barr and company decided to whitewash things?"
Assuming that this works like any old plot-predicting exercise, Of Course a Mastermind like Mueller would wait until the doctored report is out before striking with a counter move. Or: expect that PDF tomorrow (and Bran on the Iron throne).
posted by Namlit at 5:46 AM on April 18, 2019 [3 favorites]
Assuming that this works like any old plot-predicting exercise, Of Course a Mastermind like Mueller would wait until the doctored report is out before striking with a counter move. Or: expect that PDF tomorrow (and Bran on the Iron throne).
posted by Namlit at 5:46 AM on April 18, 2019 [3 favorites]
I've been watching a lot of content the past few days from David Hoffman's YouTube channel and it has helped me to realize that for all the ways our lives have changed since the 70s (and before), they really haven't changed at all in my lifetime at least in terms of the overarching problems the entire spectrum of society must face.
posted by wierdo at 5:47 AM on April 18, 2019 [13 favorites]
posted by wierdo at 5:47 AM on April 18, 2019 [13 favorites]
WaPo:
posted by T.D. Strange at 6:25 AM on April 18, 2019 [20 favorites]
It will reveal that Mueller decided he could not come to a conclusion on the question of obstruction because it was difficult to determine Trump’s intent and some of his actions could be interpreted innocently, the people said.nycsouthpaw: If this is accurate, it makes the decision not to seek an interview with Trump seem like a choice by the investigators to just not do their job. fwiw *I* don’t think it’s terribly difficult to determine Trump’s intent. But if I did, I’d def want to sit down with him. He can be very forthcoming in interviews.
posted by T.D. Strange at 6:25 AM on April 18, 2019 [20 favorites]
Former ASG Neal Katyal posted a thread for Barr's release of the redacted Mueller report:
posted by Doktor Zed at 6:27 AM on April 18, 2019 [25 favorites]
5 RULES FOR WHEN NEWS ABOUT MUELLER REPORT COMES OUT.See you all in MeFi Chat for the hot takes.
1. Believe only the text of the Report, not others’ characterizations of it. This WH in particular spins “up” as “down” (like the Nunes documents).
2. Ask what the scope of the Report is. Is it just conspiracy with Russia? Does it include, for example, the campaign finance allegations, where federal SDNY prosecutors have said the President ordered the commission of felonies?
It’s almost never happened in American history that federal Prosecutors have said a sitting President orchestrated the commission of felonies.
3. Examine whether the Report is limited to criminal acts. Some of the most egregious allegations against Trump, like lying to the American people about his business dealings with Russia before the 2016 election and saying he had no biz in Russia, are not necessarily criminal.
Others, like being beholden to the Kremlin out of self interest, may be. Has Mueller only resolved the latter? If not, expect Congress to be taking all of that up.
4. Ask whether Mueller has actually resolved anything. Has he said there are other avenues to investigate for matters within the scope of his Report, such as a sit-down interview with Trump? Again, Congress may investigate further — but also don’t forget about state prosecutors.
5. Ask yourself, if the American people knew in 2016 what Mueller’s Report says,even if the Report says Mueller won’t indict the President, Trump would have won the election. Does this President have the judgment&transparency appropriate to serve as the nation’s highest official?
Don’t focus on the one-line spin. Focus on the facts, judgments, and limitations in the Mueller Report.
And ask yourself, if Trump had just been honest and forthcoming about all of this, we could have spared this long ordeal. END
posted by Doktor Zed at 6:27 AM on April 18, 2019 [25 favorites]
How long before Barr appoints a special prosecutor to investigate Clinton, Steele, the FBI and Mueller’s team to distract from the “exoneration.” Might be a decent chance he announces this morning.
On that note: “Spying Is a Judgment”: After Mueller, Will Trump Get His Grand Inquisition? (Abigail Tracy, Vanity Fair). "Comey and McCabe appear to be in the crosshairs of the attorney general’s ominous new investigation. How far could it go?"
On that note: “Spying Is a Judgment”: After Mueller, Will Trump Get His Grand Inquisition? (Abigail Tracy, Vanity Fair). "Comey and McCabe appear to be in the crosshairs of the attorney general’s ominous new investigation. How far could it go?"
Veterans of the Justice Department are now expressing concerns that Barr—once viewed as the “institutionalist” the department needed—may be preparing to exact revenge against the president’s perceived enemies with politically motivated investigations. “What I find so disturbing is this statement by the attorney general, who, in the same breath, admits that he hasn’t carried out the investigation yet, but who characterizes it as criminal and inappropriate,” said Patrick Cotter, a former assistant U.S. attorney.posted by ZeusHumms at 6:28 AM on April 18, 2019 [14 favorites]
The issue isn’t that the D.O.J. shouldn’t conduct internal audits to ensure staff are complying with departmental policy, these sources say. Indeed, the Trump-Russia probe was “a very atypical, historical, large investigation,” said Cotter. But the attorney general’s word choice in discussing court-authorized surveillance raised a massive red flag. “Spying is a pejorative. Spying is a judgment. Spying is a condemnation,” Cotter continued. “It is an insult, and he shouldn’t have said it.”
The connotation of the word is such that sources I spoke with suggested Barr must have picked the word deliberately. “Anyone is human, and anyone can have a slip of the tongue,” said Elliot Williams, a former high-ranking D.O.J. official. But the distinction between lawfully authorized and illegal surveillance is “so fundamental to the job of attorney general, and so fundamental to anyone who has studied law enforcement or worked in law enforcement.” Spying, said Williams, “is such a radioactive term, and such a sensitive concept, that that was surprising, to say the least, to come from someone with his background.”
Cotter, too, considers the source. “This is not some guy on talk radio. This is the attorney general of the United States testifying before Congress. Everybody’s words matter, but his words matter a lot,” he told me.
See you all in MeFi Chat for the hot takes.
Will share amusing takes in the Political Humor thread.
posted by ZeusHumms at 6:30 AM on April 18, 2019 [4 favorites]
Will share amusing takes in the Political Humor thread.
posted by ZeusHumms at 6:30 AM on April 18, 2019 [4 favorites]
It is my understanding that the purpose of the Special Counsel investigation was to find out about Russian interference in our election (and beyond, I guess).
It seems like all anyone is interested in is whether or not Trump is guilty of some of this. I guess this is part of the horse-race reporting, but I'm concerned that, if it's somehow possible Trump did not knowingly do anything illegal, then the whole thing will disappear, even though Russia seems to have not stopped doing these things.
posted by MtDewd at 6:32 AM on April 18, 2019 [8 favorites]
It seems like all anyone is interested in is whether or not Trump is guilty of some of this. I guess this is part of the horse-race reporting, but I'm concerned that, if it's somehow possible Trump did not knowingly do anything illegal, then the whole thing will disappear, even though Russia seems to have not stopped doing these things.
posted by MtDewd at 6:32 AM on April 18, 2019 [8 favorites]
Good God, could Rosenstein look any more like a hostage?
posted by Harry Caul at 6:35 AM on April 18, 2019 [11 favorites]
posted by Harry Caul at 6:35 AM on April 18, 2019 [11 favorites]
The slow-rising central horror of "Watergate" is not that it might grind down to the reluctant impeachment of a vengeful thug of a president whose entire political career has been a monument to the same kind of cheap shots and treachery he finally got nailed for, but that we might somehow fail to learn something from it.— Hunter S. Thompson (Rolling Stone, 1973)
posted by Barack Spinoza at 6:39 AM on April 18, 2019 [135 favorites]
House Democrats subpoena 9 major banks while probing Trump’s finances — including six US firms and three foreign lender[s] (Alex Henderson, AlterNet)
[According to the Wall Street Journal,] the banks range from Wells Fargo, JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Morgan Stanley and Citgroup to Deutsche Bank and Capitol One. Other banks subpoenaed include Royal Bank of Canada and Toronto-Dominion Bank.posted by ZeusHumms at 6:40 AM on April 18, 2019 [17 favorites]
The Attorney General: "[Despite their understandable frustration] The White House fully co-operated with the Special Counsel's investigation."
Does that include the time that Trump demanded that Don McGahn fire the Special Counsel?
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 6:47 AM on April 18, 2019 [26 favorites]
Does that include the time that Trump demanded that Don McGahn fire the Special Counsel?
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 6:47 AM on April 18, 2019 [26 favorites]
As the #Country waits for the #MuellerReport, know this...it does not matter how #Barr #RedactedMuellerReport. @MichaelCohen212 has 7 days, 70 hours, + 100 pages of what #TeamMueller knows and can fill in the bulk of the redactions. Nice try Mr. @POTUS. #Truth We will tell it all - @LannyDavis, Michael Cohen's attorney
Soon I will be ready to address the American people again...tell it all...and tell it myself!
@MichaelCohen212
posted by petebest at 6:48 AM on April 18, 2019 [5 favorites]
Soon I will be ready to address the American people again...tell it all...and tell it myself!
@MichaelCohen212
posted by petebest at 6:48 AM on April 18, 2019 [5 favorites]
Despite outbreaks, GOP opposing Democrats' efforts to tighten vaccine laws (Igor Derysh, Salon).
When did vaccines become politicized? Amid a measles outbreak, suddenly Republicans support anti-vaxxersposted by ZeusHumms at 6:48 AM on April 18, 2019 [15 favorites]
Bills to restrict exemptions for immunizations passed through legislative committees in Washington, Colorado and Maine this month without a single Republican supporter, Politico reports. Washington is currently dealing with one of the biggest measles outbreaks in the country. Democratic lawmakers are seeking to limit immunization exemptions on religious and philosophical grounds.
Republicans in New York, New Jersey and Arizona are also opposing Democratic-sponsored bills that would make it harder for parents to get exemptions from vaccinating their kids. Republicans in Mississippi and West Virginia have instead introduced bills that would expand vaccine exemptions in those states, Politico reported.
btw all, today's my birthday, the first time it's coincided with a big day in this hellsaga. Crossing fingers that the report is actually my cake. (is that how we do this?)
posted by martin q blank at 6:51 AM on April 18, 2019 [45 favorites]
posted by martin q blank at 6:51 AM on April 18, 2019 [45 favorites]
Happy birthday, MQB!
posted by slater at 6:54 AM on April 18, 2019 [6 favorites]
posted by slater at 6:54 AM on April 18, 2019 [6 favorites]
When did vaccines become politicized? Amid a measles outbreak, suddenly Republicans support anti-vaxxers
It's a new thread, so a good time for my occasional citation of cleek's law, one of the best summations of modern movement conservatism's depravity:
And that's from 2010, when Republicans were mainly about obstructing Obama.
posted by Gelatin at 6:57 AM on April 18, 2019 [37 favorites]
It's a new thread, so a good time for my occasional citation of cleek's law, one of the best summations of modern movement conservatism's depravity:
Today’s conservatism is the opposite of what liberals want today, updated daily.
And that's from 2010, when Republicans were mainly about obstructing Obama.
posted by Gelatin at 6:57 AM on April 18, 2019 [37 favorites]
That was disgraceful, and the press were pissed.
It closed with Barr refusing to answer the question: (paraphrase) “What do you say to those who think you are just spinning an unseen report in favor of the president?” and Rosenstein breaks into a grin as they walk offstage.
posted by Barack Spinoza at 6:59 AM on April 18, 2019 [32 favorites]
It closed with Barr refusing to answer the question: (paraphrase) “What do you say to those who think you are just spinning an unseen report in favor of the president?” and Rosenstein breaks into a grin as they walk offstage.
posted by Barack Spinoza at 6:59 AM on April 18, 2019 [32 favorites]
Live tweeted thread from @ddale8 / Daniel Dale for those just wanting the highlights from the Barr PR gig.
posted by Buntix at 7:00 AM on April 18, 2019 [6 favorites]
posted by Buntix at 7:00 AM on April 18, 2019 [6 favorites]
Now the real question: how many more weeks will Democrats offer Barr to produce the full report before issuing a subpoena? 1? 12? 100?
posted by T.D. Strange at 7:01 AM on April 18, 2019 [9 favorites]
posted by T.D. Strange at 7:01 AM on April 18, 2019 [9 favorites]
I'm watching on NBC, and they are pushing back big time. Saying there are several people who have been indicted already. That Barr's speech is unprecedented
posted by mumimor at 7:01 AM on April 18, 2019 [11 favorites]
posted by mumimor at 7:01 AM on April 18, 2019 [11 favorites]
@mkraju, quoting Barr: Report lays out 10 accounts of Trump actions over obstruction. Barr says that “the deputy attorney general and I” determined that there was NOT sufficient evidence to establish that Trump obstructed justice. Barr says Trump had “non-corrupt motives”. Barr disagreed w/Mueller: “Although the Deputy Attorney General and I disagreed with some of the Special Counsel’s legal theories and felt that some of the episodes examined did not amount to obstruction as a matter of law, we did not rely solely on that in making our decision”
Sounds like his argument boils down to "the President is allowed to declare something to be a witch hunt and obstruct if it bothers him." That disagreement with Mueller's legal conclusions is the space to watch.
@emptywheel: Good news, boys and girls. If you grow up to be President you can't obstruct justice so long as you're frustrated.
The press conference ended as he was being asked about the propriety of this effort to come out and spin the report by saying "no collusion" over and over again before any of us can read it.
@kylegriffin1: Nicolle Wallace on Barr's 'no collusion' remarks: "No legal presentation presents its conclusion 6 times. A political messenger ... underscores the central message, particularly if it's on shaky ground, multiple times." She calls it "an extraordinary thing to witness."
@pbump: I did a shot each time Rod Rosenstein moved any individual muscle and I've never been more sober.
And now we wait.
posted by zachlipton at 7:01 AM on April 18, 2019 [48 favorites]
Sounds like his argument boils down to "the President is allowed to declare something to be a witch hunt and obstruct if it bothers him." That disagreement with Mueller's legal conclusions is the space to watch.
@emptywheel: Good news, boys and girls. If you grow up to be President you can't obstruct justice so long as you're frustrated.
The press conference ended as he was being asked about the propriety of this effort to come out and spin the report by saying "no collusion" over and over again before any of us can read it.
@kylegriffin1: Nicolle Wallace on Barr's 'no collusion' remarks: "No legal presentation presents its conclusion 6 times. A political messenger ... underscores the central message, particularly if it's on shaky ground, multiple times." She calls it "an extraordinary thing to witness."
@pbump: I did a shot each time Rod Rosenstein moved any individual muscle and I've never been more sober.
And now we wait.
posted by zachlipton at 7:01 AM on April 18, 2019 [48 favorites]
Has Barr done enough to be indicted himself?
posted by ZeusHumms at 7:02 AM on April 18, 2019 [22 favorites]
posted by ZeusHumms at 7:02 AM on April 18, 2019 [22 favorites]
wow how the narcissism has crept into Barr w/ regard to the President being so sad and angry about the investigations and when he got questioned by reporters on why Trump's emotions were so important he was like it is a Fact this investigation has Angered God.
I mean I get they have to address his emotional state when he was busy obstructing but the reporter was right that it was weird to foreground how sad Trump was and how mean the press was to him.
posted by angrycat at 7:04 AM on April 18, 2019 [10 favorites]
I mean I get they have to address his emotional state when he was busy obstructing but the reporter was right that it was weird to foreground how sad Trump was and how mean the press was to him.
posted by angrycat at 7:04 AM on April 18, 2019 [10 favorites]
It's hard to understand why Barr took this job. Maybe he was just in a bad place, and really needed a pardon.
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 7:05 AM on April 18, 2019 [10 favorites]
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 7:05 AM on April 18, 2019 [10 favorites]
It seemed to me that Barr was very careful in his statement about what "illegal" meant in the context of WikiLeaks, before saying that no one from the campaign "illegally" coordinated with WikiLeaks. Given what we already know about Roger Stone and WikiLeaks, that section of the report should make for interesting reading.
posted by ContinuousWave at 7:05 AM on April 18, 2019 [6 favorites]
posted by ContinuousWave at 7:05 AM on April 18, 2019 [6 favorites]
From Nadler just now:
It is clear Congress and the American people must hear from Special Counsel Robert Mueller in person to better understand his findings. We are now requesting Mueller to appear before @HouseJudiciary as soon as possible.
posted by bcd at 7:07 AM on April 18, 2019 [73 favorites]
It is clear Congress and the American people must hear from Special Counsel Robert Mueller in person to better understand his findings. We are now requesting Mueller to appear before @HouseJudiciary as soon as possible.
posted by bcd at 7:07 AM on April 18, 2019 [73 favorites]
In light of Bill Barr's recent remarks I just want to remind people that the following six members of the Trump campaign have been convicted or indicted in court of crimes relating to Russia.
Senior Campaign Foreign Policy Advisor George Papadopoulos
Former US National Security Advisor for the Trump administration Michael Flynn
Deputy Campaign Manager Rick Gates
Campaign Chairman Paul Manafort
Donald Trump's personal lawyer Michael Cohen.
Campaign Advisor Roger Stone
All of them knew that Russia was helping Trump and all of them lied about it.
Manafort was sharing proprietary campaign polling data with a man connected to Russian intelligence.
In addition an American named Richard Pinedo has been convicted of selling the Russian trolls Americans' bank account information. (Pinedo said that he's been threatened since pleading guilty: "I've been told that if I ever leave the country, the Russians will poison me.”)
So when Barr says that there was no finding of any "collusion" by any Americans, he is lying.
posted by OnceUponATime at 7:10 AM on April 18, 2019 [109 favorites]
Senior Campaign Foreign Policy Advisor George Papadopoulos
Former US National Security Advisor for the Trump administration Michael Flynn
Deputy Campaign Manager Rick Gates
Campaign Chairman Paul Manafort
Donald Trump's personal lawyer Michael Cohen.
Campaign Advisor Roger Stone
All of them knew that Russia was helping Trump and all of them lied about it.
Manafort was sharing proprietary campaign polling data with a man connected to Russian intelligence.
In addition an American named Richard Pinedo has been convicted of selling the Russian trolls Americans' bank account information. (Pinedo said that he's been threatened since pleading guilty: "I've been told that if I ever leave the country, the Russians will poison me.”)
So when Barr says that there was no finding of any "collusion" by any Americans, he is lying.
posted by OnceUponATime at 7:10 AM on April 18, 2019 [109 favorites]
@charlie_savage [transcript attached]: Embedded in Barr remarks is an important qualifier: Trump campaign collusion with WikiLeaks could not be an illegal conspiracy because WL publication of the emails was not a crime since WL didn't help hack them.
I think this is a key bit on the "what's criminal vs what's acceptable for a President" front. But beyond that, it means the entire defense seems to rest on WikiLeaks. Barr's statement says the report "did not find that any person associated with the Trump campaign illegally participated in the dissemination of the materials." So they legally participated (see also: Robert Stone)? And the only thing making that not criminal is that the publisher didn't participate in the criminal hacking? So the only thing making that not criminal rests on Julian Assange, the guy just indicted for participating in criminal hacking in another situation?
posted by zachlipton at 7:11 AM on April 18, 2019 [12 favorites]
I think this is a key bit on the "what's criminal vs what's acceptable for a President" front. But beyond that, it means the entire defense seems to rest on WikiLeaks. Barr's statement says the report "did not find that any person associated with the Trump campaign illegally participated in the dissemination of the materials." So they legally participated (see also: Robert Stone)? And the only thing making that not criminal is that the publisher didn't participate in the criminal hacking? So the only thing making that not criminal rests on Julian Assange, the guy just indicted for participating in criminal hacking in another situation?
posted by zachlipton at 7:11 AM on April 18, 2019 [12 favorites]
The Media Today: Reporters prepare to speedread the Mueller report (Jon Allsop, Columbia Journalism Review)
posted by ZeusHumms at 7:12 AM on April 18, 2019 [1 favorite]
posted by ZeusHumms at 7:12 AM on April 18, 2019 [1 favorite]
Given what we already know about Roger Stone and WikiLeaks, that section of the report should make for interesting reading.
Get out your ruler. As Stone’s case is still ongoing, that part of the report is likely to be among the redacted portions.
posted by notyou at 7:12 AM on April 18, 2019 [4 favorites]
Get out your ruler. As Stone’s case is still ongoing, that part of the report is likely to be among the redacted portions.
posted by notyou at 7:12 AM on April 18, 2019 [4 favorites]
I'm beginning to wrap my head around what the Attorney General just did. He argued that you can tell the President didn't have a malign intent to obstruct the Mueller investigation, simply based on his public treatment of the Mueller investigation. Barr's argument is: Just take a look at all the nice things the President has said about the Mueller investigation, and you'll surely agree there's no chance the President wanted to obstruct it.
That is what just happened on this damn timeline.
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 7:12 AM on April 18, 2019 [38 favorites]
That is what just happened on this damn timeline.
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 7:12 AM on April 18, 2019 [38 favorites]
It's hard to understand why Barr took this job. Maybe he was just in a bad place, and really needed a pardon.
I'm sure it's not so hard to understand if you're maybe . . a Mercer, a Koch, Alfa Bank, or any of assorted Russian oligarchs.
posted by Harry Caul at 7:13 AM on April 18, 2019 [8 favorites]
I'm sure it's not so hard to understand if you're maybe . . a Mercer, a Koch, Alfa Bank, or any of assorted Russian oligarchs.
posted by Harry Caul at 7:13 AM on April 18, 2019 [8 favorites]
Marcy Wheeler's live-tweeting of Barr's press conference is a dose of (snarky) sanity:
While the anti-vax movement is very much homegrown Western stupidity and virtually every public debate becomes politicized these days, Putin's troll propaganda machine has been amplifying it for a while now.
posted by Doktor Zed at 7:15 AM on April 18, 2019 [34 favorites]
—Once again, Barr is quoting sentence fragments, not entire sentences.When did vaccines become politicized?
—Now Barr using a word that Mueller did not: Cooperation.
—Reminder: 3 Trump campaign officials unknowingly worked with IRA trolls.
—Reminder: Mueller did find evidence Stone successfully optimized release of stolen emails.
—The way Barr just avoided implicating Stone there was really really really corrupt.
—Funny: Barr doesn't mention the ongoing investigations into Manafort, per prosecutors.
—So the report was redacted by March 29.
The President has been delaying since then, then, not just Barr.
—Barr's not answering the real question: The Q is whether Mueller didn't come to conclusion because it's not constitutionally proper.
—Rosenstein makes a weird side-eye look when Barr claims that Mueller was okay with Barr making the decision.
While the anti-vax movement is very much homegrown Western stupidity and virtually every public debate becomes politicized these days, Putin's troll propaganda machine has been amplifying it for a while now.
posted by Doktor Zed at 7:15 AM on April 18, 2019 [34 favorites]
Columbia Journalism Review has a Mueller report live blog, in which they currently note Vice News is going read the whole thing out loud in a livestream, and that NPR is directing their news room to not say "Mueller Time".
posted by ZeusHumms at 7:16 AM on April 18, 2019 [3 favorites]
posted by ZeusHumms at 7:16 AM on April 18, 2019 [3 favorites]
When you’re too corrupt for even FOX.
Michael M. Grynbaum (NYT)
Chris Wallace on Fox: "The Attorney General seemed almost to be acting as the counselor for the defense, the counselor for the president, rather than the Attorney General, talking about his motives, his emotions... Really, as I say, making a case for the president."
posted by chris24 at 7:18 AM on April 18, 2019 [35 favorites]
Michael M. Grynbaum (NYT)
Chris Wallace on Fox: "The Attorney General seemed almost to be acting as the counselor for the defense, the counselor for the president, rather than the Attorney General, talking about his motives, his emotions... Really, as I say, making a case for the president."
posted by chris24 at 7:18 AM on April 18, 2019 [35 favorites]
Has Barr done enough to be indicted himself?
Seems like giving Trump's personal lawyer a copy of the report earlier in the week is kinda dodgy...
Mueller report: Barr accused of helping Donald Trump ahead of release [bbc]
Seems like giving Trump's personal lawyer a copy of the report earlier in the week is kinda dodgy...
Mueller report: Barr accused of helping Donald Trump ahead of release [bbc]
Speaking at a press conference before the release, Mr Barr described redactions to the report as "limited".posted by Buntix at 7:19 AM on April 18, 2019 [7 favorites]
He also confirmed Mr Trump's personal lawyers got a copy of the redacted report earlier this week and said members of congressional committees from both parties would be given almost completely unredacted copies to review.
Congress readies for Mueller Report to be delivered on CDs (Taylor Hatmaker, TechCrunch)
posted by ZeusHumms at 7:19 AM on April 18, 2019
posted by ZeusHumms at 7:19 AM on April 18, 2019
Reporter: "Why is Robert Mueller not here, it's his report?"
Barr: "No its not, it's a report he did for me as the Attorney General"
It takes a special kind of person to show up at the 11th hour and claim ownership of a 2 year endeavor.
posted by jasondigitized at 7:19 AM on April 18, 2019 [106 favorites]
Barr: "No its not, it's a report he did for me as the Attorney General"
It takes a special kind of person to show up at the 11th hour and claim ownership of a 2 year endeavor.
posted by jasondigitized at 7:19 AM on April 18, 2019 [106 favorites]
Any benefit of the doubt given to Rod Rosenstein should now have evaporated as he literally stood behind today's debacle. Why did Rosenstein appoint a Special Counsel? He did it to cover his ass. He's very good at it. That's why he is still employed.
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 7:21 AM on April 18, 2019 [7 favorites]
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 7:21 AM on April 18, 2019 [7 favorites]
I assume someone will look into whether this is important, but Barr said he shared the redacted report with Trump's personal lawyers under rules relating to an "Independent Counsel," but Mueller was appointed under the Special Counsel rules, not the Independent Counsel rules.
posted by stopgap at 7:21 AM on April 18, 2019 [22 favorites]
posted by stopgap at 7:21 AM on April 18, 2019 [22 favorites]
Here's a transcript of Barr's remarks. I want to look at this bit:
@samstein: I simply don’t understand how you can actually claim that Trump "took no act that in fact deprived the Special Counsel” of witnesses when Trump REFUSED TO SIT DOWN FOR AN INTERVIEW WITH THE SPECIAL COUNSEL!!
posted by zachlipton at 7:25 AM on April 18, 2019 [73 favorites]
In assessing the President’s actions discussed in the report, it is important to bear in mind the context. President Trump faced an unprecedented situation. As he entered into office, and sought to perform his responsibilities as President, federal agents and prosecutors were scrutinizing his conduct before and after taking office, and the conduct of some of his associates. At the same time, there was relentless speculation in the news media about the President’s personal culpability. Yet, as he said from the beginning, there was in fact no collusion. And as the Special Counsel’s report acknowledges, there is substantial evidence to show that the President was frustrated and angered by a sincere belief that the investigation was undermining his presidency, propelled by his political opponents, and fueled by illegal leaks. Nonetheless, the White House fully cooperated with the Special Counsel’s investigation, providing unfettered access to campaign and White House documents, directing senior aides to testify freely, and asserting no privilege claims. And at the same time, the President took no act that in fact deprived the Special Counsel of the documents and witnesses necessary to complete his investigation. Apart from whether the acts were obstructive, this evidence of non-corrupt motives weighs heavily against any allegation that the President had a corrupt intent to obstruct the investigation.It's not true of course. The President was never interviewed for one thing, which would be important in determining what his motives actually were. But the idea that Trump's motives weren't corrupt because he was "frustrated and angered" is madness. Most people are frustrated and angered that they're under criminal investigation. It's not a process usually associated with happiness and joy. Most people don't channel that frustration into firing the people investigating them and whatever the 10 obstructive acts will be. It's yet another example of infantalizing the president and treating him as unable to be responsible for his actions because, gosh, he just can't control his emotions.
@samstein: I simply don’t understand how you can actually claim that Trump "took no act that in fact deprived the Special Counsel” of witnesses when Trump REFUSED TO SIT DOWN FOR AN INTERVIEW WITH THE SPECIAL COUNSEL!!
posted by zachlipton at 7:25 AM on April 18, 2019 [73 favorites]
“When the president d̶o̶e̶s̶ ̶i̶t̶ has his feelings hurt, that means it’s not illegal."
posted by chris24 at 7:25 AM on April 18, 2019 [24 favorites]
posted by chris24 at 7:25 AM on April 18, 2019 [24 favorites]
For the record, here are Barr's prepared remarks from this morning, which includes this tell: "[T]he Special Counsel’s report did not find that any person associated with the Trump campaign illegally participated in the dissemination of the materials."
Luppen B. Luppe/@nycsouthpaw points out: "Close reading would suggest that they participated, just not illegally "
Just Security's Ryan Goodman adds: "Exactly. Plus illegality -- on their theory, as stated by Barr -- turns on whether Trump campaign associates participated in underlying hacking conspiracy."
And the Guardian's Jon Swaine notes: "Section of Barr's remarks in which, despite sleight of hand, he left open the possibility that Mueller did find Trump associates were involved in the dissemination of hacked emails by WikiLeaks" (e.g. Roger Stone, whose section of the Mueller report is likely to be heavily redacted since he's facing trial in November this year).
posted by Doktor Zed at 7:26 AM on April 18, 2019 [9 favorites]
Luppen B. Luppe/@nycsouthpaw points out: "Close reading would suggest that they participated, just not illegally "
Just Security's Ryan Goodman adds: "Exactly. Plus illegality -- on their theory, as stated by Barr -- turns on whether Trump campaign associates participated in underlying hacking conspiracy."
And the Guardian's Jon Swaine notes: "Section of Barr's remarks in which, despite sleight of hand, he left open the possibility that Mueller did find Trump associates were involved in the dissemination of hacked emails by WikiLeaks" (e.g. Roger Stone, whose section of the Mueller report is likely to be heavily redacted since he's facing trial in November this year).
posted by Doktor Zed at 7:26 AM on April 18, 2019 [9 favorites]
Australia Says It's "Ready To Confirm" A Key Meeting That Led To The Investigation Into Trump's Russia Links
Heavily-redacted documents released to BuzzFeed News show Australia's former high commissioner wrote a three-page cable to the United States about his London meeting with a Trump campaign adviser.
Heavily-redacted documents released to BuzzFeed News show Australia's former high commissioner wrote a three-page cable to the United States about his London meeting with a Trump campaign adviser.
A senior Australian diplomat has said the government is "now ready to confirm" a series of events in 2016 between the country's high commissioner to the UK and a Trump campaign adviser, which led to US authorities investigating Donald Trump's links with Russia.
The release of the Australian diplomatic documents comes as a redacted copy of the final Mueller report is expected to be released on Thursday.
The London meeting between former high commissioner Alexander Downer and Trump adviser George Papadopoulos was first reported by the New York Times in December 2017, reportedly revealing how Downer had been told by Papadopoulos that Russia had political dirt on Hillary Clinton.
Until now, the Australian government and Downer have refused to confirm or give any details about the meeting central to the beginning of the Trump-Russia investigation, repeatedly citing the need to preserve national security.
But in a letter sent to Australia's Information Commissioner after a 15 month-long FOI battle with BuzzFeed News, a senior foreign official said his department was ready to confirm the meeting and release redacted documents, because Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation was now finished.
"I have again reviewed these matters and, while standing by the validity of the original decisions at the time they were made, the Department has reassessed its position in relation to Mr Di Stefano's three requests in light of the recent conclusion of the U.S. Special Counsel's investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 Presidential Election," the official wrote to Australia's Information Commissioner Gillian Cameron.
"Notably, in light of the conclusion of that investigation, the Department is now ready to confirm that a meeting occurred between Mr Downer and Mr Papdopolous (sic), on 10 May 2016, whilst Mr Downer was High Commissioner to the United Kingdom."
Included in the documents released to BuzzFeed News is a calendar invite, and a diplomatic cable Downer wrote about the meeting. The senior foreign official said Downer's cable had been heavily-redacted because the full contents could "reasonably be expected" to damage Australia's relationship with the United States.posted by scalefree at 7:26 AM on April 18, 2019 [18 favorites]
Apart from whether the acts were obstructive, this evidence of non-corrupt motives weighs heavily against any allegation that the President had a corrupt intent to obstruct the investigation.
I think it is extremely telling that the difference between corrupt and non-corrupt obstruction is being drawn here. Is the suggestion that it would be acceptable for a subject of an active investigation to obstruct that investigation based their own subjective view of the validity of that investigation? I think it is fair to say that would be breathtakingly novel.
posted by jaduncan at 7:29 AM on April 18, 2019 [23 favorites]
I think it is extremely telling that the difference between corrupt and non-corrupt obstruction is being drawn here. Is the suggestion that it would be acceptable for a subject of an active investigation to obstruct that investigation based their own subjective view of the validity of that investigation? I think it is fair to say that would be breathtakingly novel.
posted by jaduncan at 7:29 AM on April 18, 2019 [23 favorites]
Australia Says It's "Ready To Confirm" A Key Meeting That Led To The Investigation Into Trump's Russia Links
Heavily-redacted documents released to BuzzFeed News show Australia's former high commissioner wrote a three-page cable to the United States about his London meeting with a Trump campaign adviser.
It seems to me that the International Society (whatever that is) is not going to let Barr/Trump get away with this.
posted by mumimor at 7:29 AM on April 18, 2019 [3 favorites]
Heavily-redacted documents released to BuzzFeed News show Australia's former high commissioner wrote a three-page cable to the United States about his London meeting with a Trump campaign adviser.
It seems to me that the International Society (whatever that is) is not going to let Barr/Trump get away with this.
posted by mumimor at 7:29 AM on April 18, 2019 [3 favorites]
Barr said he shared the redacted report with Trump's personal lawyers under rules relating to an "Independent Counsel,
When did that occur? I thought the supposed delay for releasing the report was the time needed to properly redact it? If that was finished so it could be give to the White House, why don't we have it?
posted by bluecore at 7:32 AM on April 18, 2019 [2 favorites]
When did that occur? I thought the supposed delay for releasing the report was the time needed to properly redact it? If that was finished so it could be give to the White House, why don't we have it?
posted by bluecore at 7:32 AM on April 18, 2019 [2 favorites]
An exasperated Jeffrey Toobin on CNN: “So the President was frustrated? That’s not evidence towards innocence. That’s evidence towards guilt! Happy people don’t obstruct justice!”
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 7:34 AM on April 18, 2019 [70 favorites]
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 7:34 AM on April 18, 2019 [70 favorites]
Nearly everything Barr has said or communicated regarding Trump has been gaslighting.
posted by ZeusHumms at 7:34 AM on April 18, 2019 [28 favorites]
posted by ZeusHumms at 7:34 AM on April 18, 2019 [28 favorites]
@jonathanvswan: Trump’s personal lawyer Jay Sekulow just told me he first saw the Mueller report on Tuesday afternoon. Trump’s legal team, including the Raskins, made two visits to the Justice Department to view the report securely — late Tuesday and early Wednesday, Sekulow said.
Presumably the 2 extra days were to add in extra redactions suggested by Trump's lawyers or something...
posted by Buntix at 7:34 AM on April 18, 2019 [5 favorites]
Presumably the 2 extra days were to add in extra redactions suggested by Trump's lawyers or something...
posted by Buntix at 7:34 AM on April 18, 2019 [5 favorites]
Who is the guy to the left of Barr? His face suddenly got really red.
Anyway, my instinct is that this didn't work. If even Fox didn't all jump for it, it didn't work. Barr's first appearance was probably a huge mistake, because journalists who were duped then now feel they really need to be aware.
posted by mumimor at 7:37 AM on April 18, 2019 [7 favorites]
Anyway, my instinct is that this didn't work. If even Fox didn't all jump for it, it didn't work. Barr's first appearance was probably a huge mistake, because journalists who were duped then now feel they really need to be aware.
posted by mumimor at 7:37 AM on April 18, 2019 [7 favorites]
But I think there’s an audience of one that loved it.
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 7:38 AM on April 18, 2019 [12 favorites]
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 7:38 AM on April 18, 2019 [12 favorites]
Here's Ruben Bolling's two cents via Tom the Dancing Bug.
Today we are all Mrs. Barr.
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 7:40 AM on April 18, 2019 [16 favorites]
Today we are all Mrs. Barr.
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 7:40 AM on April 18, 2019 [16 favorites]
The Attorney General tells us that, based purely on the public record, Trump clearly had no malign intent. This is different to my experience of these past two years. Compared to Mr Barr, I witnessed a far malignier Trump.
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 7:41 AM on April 18, 2019 [17 favorites]
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 7:41 AM on April 18, 2019 [17 favorites]
The Attorney General tells us that, based purely on the public record, Trump clearly had no malign intent. This is different to my experience of the past two years. Compared to Mr Barr, I witnessed a far malignier Trump.
Yes, it's a good job he never expressed any opinion that might look prejudicial towards the GREATEST WITCH HUNT IN HISTORY (etc).
posted by jaduncan at 7:42 AM on April 18, 2019 [9 favorites]
Yes, it's a good job he never expressed any opinion that might look prejudicial towards the GREATEST WITCH HUNT IN HISTORY (etc).
posted by jaduncan at 7:42 AM on April 18, 2019 [9 favorites]
What is that audience of one going to do, like, today in his appearance, when he learns that Barr pleased no one else?
posted by angrycat at 7:43 AM on April 18, 2019 [10 favorites]
posted by angrycat at 7:43 AM on April 18, 2019 [10 favorites]
Any benefit of the doubt given to Rod Rosenstein should now have evaporated as he literally stood behind today's debacle.
This shouldn't be surprising. Rosenstein is the guy who loyally penned the grounds for dismissing Comey at Trump's request that kicked off the whole obstruction investigation.
posted by JackFlash at 7:44 AM on April 18, 2019 [5 favorites]
This shouldn't be surprising. Rosenstein is the guy who loyally penned the grounds for dismissing Comey at Trump's request that kicked off the whole obstruction investigation.
posted by JackFlash at 7:44 AM on April 18, 2019 [5 favorites]
In assessing the President’s actions discussed in the report, it is important to bear in mind the context. President Trump faced an unprecedented situation.
It's true that gaining the office of president as a result of election interference by one of the United States' geopolitical enemies is, at least so far as we know, unprecedented. It's only too bad that these several years later, Trump acting like a compromised foreign agent, and Republicans acting to cover up Trump's crimes, is far from an unprecedented situation.
posted by Gelatin at 7:45 AM on April 18, 2019 [15 favorites]
It's true that gaining the office of president as a result of election interference by one of the United States' geopolitical enemies is, at least so far as we know, unprecedented. It's only too bad that these several years later, Trump acting like a compromised foreign agent, and Republicans acting to cover up Trump's crimes, is far from an unprecedented situation.
posted by Gelatin at 7:45 AM on April 18, 2019 [15 favorites]
Who is the guy to the left of Barr? His face suddenly got really red.
U.S. Acting Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General Ed O’Callaghan, Rosenstein's top deputy, as megathread regulars will remember. Prior to joining the DOH, his main claim to fame was trying to shut down the "Troopergate" ethics probe of then-governor Sarah Palin (Newsweek).
posted by Doktor Zed at 7:50 AM on April 18, 2019 [7 favorites]
U.S. Acting Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General Ed O’Callaghan, Rosenstein's top deputy, as megathread regulars will remember. Prior to joining the DOH, his main claim to fame was trying to shut down the "Troopergate" ethics probe of then-governor Sarah Palin (Newsweek).
posted by Doktor Zed at 7:50 AM on April 18, 2019 [7 favorites]
U.S. Acting Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General Ed O’Callaghan, Rosenstein's top deputy, as megathread regulars will remember. Prior to joining the DOH, his main claim to fame was trying to shut down the "Troopergate" ethics probe of then-governor Sarah Palin (Newsweek).
So just an allround bad guy, defending indefensibles and protecting big finance. Still, he was embarrassed by the blatant lying of the Attorney General of the United States of America
posted by mumimor at 7:56 AM on April 18, 2019 [4 favorites]
So just an allround bad guy, defending indefensibles and protecting big finance. Still, he was embarrassed by the blatant lying of the Attorney General of the United States of America
posted by mumimor at 7:56 AM on April 18, 2019 [4 favorites]
On MSNBC, Ari Melber notes that while the Attorney General was happy to talk about the Russian citizens and entities charged by Mueller, there are some names that he declined to mention in his pre-presentation of Mueller's report: Roger Stone. Michael Cohen. Paul Manafort. Rick Gates. George Papadopoulos. Michael Flynn. "It's more than strange. It is, and I use this term carefully, suspicious."
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 7:58 AM on April 18, 2019 [33 favorites]
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 7:58 AM on April 18, 2019 [33 favorites]
The Report has been posted.
posted by Xyanthilous P. Harrierstick at 8:03 AM on April 18, 2019 [43 favorites]
posted by Xyanthilous P. Harrierstick at 8:03 AM on April 18, 2019 [43 favorites]
Still, he was embarrassed by the blatant lying of the Attorney General of the United States of America
Or he had an attack of gas.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 8:05 AM on April 18, 2019 [5 favorites]
Or he had an attack of gas.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 8:05 AM on April 18, 2019 [5 favorites]
Google Drive copy of the redacted report PDF
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 8:07 AM on April 18, 2019 [16 favorites]
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 8:07 AM on April 18, 2019 [16 favorites]
I hope that someone will ask Trump today if he's already read the report, just to find out what lies he uses in his response.
posted by ZeusHumms at 8:08 AM on April 18, 2019 [3 favorites]
posted by ZeusHumms at 8:08 AM on April 18, 2019 [3 favorites]
"Well, special counsel Mueller did not indicate that his purpose was to leave the decision to Congress,” Barr said.
“I didn’t talk to him [Mueller] directly about the fact that we were making the decision, but I am told that his reaction to that was that it was my prerogative as attorney general to make that decision.”
"I am told ..." Wait, Barr is relying on some rumor that Mueller approved of Barr's decision. "I am told ..." is a classic Trumpian rhetorical gimmick for completely made-up facts. That certainly would be an interesting question for Mueller before the congressional committee.
posted by JackFlash at 8:09 AM on April 18, 2019 [14 favorites]
“I didn’t talk to him [Mueller] directly about the fact that we were making the decision, but I am told that his reaction to that was that it was my prerogative as attorney general to make that decision.”
"I am told ..." Wait, Barr is relying on some rumor that Mueller approved of Barr's decision. "I am told ..." is a classic Trumpian rhetorical gimmick for completely made-up facts. That certainly would be an interesting question for Mueller before the congressional committee.
posted by JackFlash at 8:09 AM on April 18, 2019 [14 favorites]
The PDF does not appear to be searchable. Awesome.
posted by BungaDunga at 8:10 AM on April 18, 2019 [10 favorites]
posted by BungaDunga at 8:10 AM on April 18, 2019 [10 favorites]
*Jeopardy theme*
posted by Melismata at 8:10 AM on April 18, 2019 [5 favorites]
posted by Melismata at 8:10 AM on April 18, 2019 [5 favorites]
PDF is all images (as they often are). Making it searchable seems to be a standard feature of Adobe Acrobat, but I'm guessing it's labor intensive.
posted by ZeusHumms at 8:12 AM on April 18, 2019 [1 favorite]
posted by ZeusHumms at 8:12 AM on April 18, 2019 [1 favorite]
I skipped to the end, it has an appendix of cases referred out of Mueller's office. There are a dozen separate cases that are redacted, and two that are visible: Cohen and Greg Craig.
posted by BungaDunga at 8:12 AM on April 18, 2019 [13 favorites]
posted by BungaDunga at 8:12 AM on April 18, 2019 [13 favorites]
I jumped to the first section that is about the Trump campaign, and I wouldn't describe the redactions as "light."
posted by diogenes at 8:13 AM on April 18, 2019 [4 favorites]
posted by diogenes at 8:13 AM on April 18, 2019 [4 favorites]
""The investigation also identified numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump Campaign."
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 8:14 AM on April 18, 2019 [23 favorites]
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 8:14 AM on April 18, 2019 [23 favorites]
Just for fun I did the invert the colors and zoom thing, and while there are some shapes visible it doesn't seem like they trivially messed up the redaction.
posted by Kikujiro's Summer at 8:17 AM on April 18, 2019 [2 favorites]
posted by Kikujiro's Summer at 8:17 AM on April 18, 2019 [2 favorites]
Trump's written responses to Mueller's questionnaire are 90% "I do not recall."
posted by BungaDunga at 8:19 AM on April 18, 2019 [5 favorites]
posted by BungaDunga at 8:19 AM on April 18, 2019 [5 favorites]
Strap in, people. This is going to be a hell of a day.
posted by StrawberryPie at 8:20 AM on April 18, 2019 [3 favorites]
posted by StrawberryPie at 8:20 AM on April 18, 2019 [3 favorites]
You mean, his lawyers written responses.
posted by Gray Duck at 8:21 AM on April 18, 2019 [3 favorites]
posted by Gray Duck at 8:21 AM on April 18, 2019 [3 favorites]
PDF is all images (as they often are). Making it searchable seems to be a standard feature of Adobe Acrobat, but I'm guessing it's labor intensive.
It's trivial when making PDFs of a document composed on a word processor. My assumption is that they wanted to be absolutely sure there would be no errors allowing access to the redacted text, and frustrating reporters who want to search for key phrases or copy-and-paste key passages was a bonus.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 8:22 AM on April 18, 2019 [9 favorites]
It's trivial when making PDFs of a document composed on a word processor. My assumption is that they wanted to be absolutely sure there would be no errors allowing access to the redacted text, and frustrating reporters who want to search for key phrases or copy-and-paste key passages was a bonus.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 8:22 AM on April 18, 2019 [9 favorites]
There's literally hundreds of pages in the report about contacts between the Russian government and the Trump Campaign.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 8:22 AM on April 18, 2019 [22 favorites]
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 8:22 AM on April 18, 2019 [22 favorites]
According to notes written by Hunt, when Sessions told the President that a Special Counsel has been appointed, the President slumped back in his chair and said, "Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my presidency. I'm fucked."Teddy Schleifer from Recode quoting the Mueller Report (no page number given.)
posted by bluecore at 8:22 AM on April 18, 2019 [43 favorites]
"We viewed the written answers to be inadequate." - page C-2.
posted by Exceptional_Hubris at 8:22 AM on April 18, 2019 [17 favorites]
posted by Exceptional_Hubris at 8:22 AM on April 18, 2019 [17 favorites]
Text searchable version of the report ; courtesy of @TheViewFromLL2
posted by Xyanthilous P. Harrierstick at 8:25 AM on April 18, 2019 [40 favorites]
posted by Xyanthilous P. Harrierstick at 8:25 AM on April 18, 2019 [40 favorites]
The BBC reports that Mike Pompeo's bluster has affronted Kim Jong-un: North Korea Demands Removal of US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo From Talks. This follows yesterday's news of Kim's inspection and direction of a "new tactical guided weapons firing test" (CNN). (I wonder if Kim's annoyed this will all be buried by the redacted Mueller report release in the news cycle.)
posted by Doktor Zed at 8:26 AM on April 18, 2019 [3 favorites]
posted by Doktor Zed at 8:26 AM on April 18, 2019 [3 favorites]
(Can we please get page numbers for quotations?)
posted by gucci mane at 8:26 AM on April 18, 2019 [6 favorites]
posted by gucci mane at 8:26 AM on April 18, 2019 [6 favorites]
Redacted names in the Glossary of Referenced Persons:
Graff, Rhona Senior vice-president and executive assistant ….
REDACTED - HARM TO ONGOING MATTER
Hawker, Jonathan Public relations…
…
Katsyv, Peter Russian businessman…
REDACTED - HARM TO ONGOING MATTER
Kaveladze, Irakli Vice President…
…
Mnuchin, Steven Secretary of the Treasury…
REDACTED - HARM TO ONGOING MATTER
Muller-Maguh, Andrew Member of hacker association…
Given that the glossary is helpfully alphabetized, would it be safe to say that the third redacted name might be Muller, Robert? Who might the other people be?
edit - Appendix B, pg 401
posted by Gray Duck at 8:27 AM on April 18, 2019 [11 favorites]
Graff, Rhona Senior vice-president and executive assistant ….
REDACTED - HARM TO ONGOING MATTER
Hawker, Jonathan Public relations…
…
Katsyv, Peter Russian businessman…
REDACTED - HARM TO ONGOING MATTER
Kaveladze, Irakli Vice President…
…
Mnuchin, Steven Secretary of the Treasury…
REDACTED - HARM TO ONGOING MATTER
Muller-Maguh, Andrew Member of hacker association…
Given that the glossary is helpfully alphabetized, would it be safe to say that the third redacted name might be Muller, Robert? Who might the other people be?
edit - Appendix B, pg 401
posted by Gray Duck at 8:27 AM on April 18, 2019 [11 favorites]
Weren't we promised color coding of the redactions? Obviously a minor quibble, but even about the tiniest things Barr seems to lie as constantly as his new client.
posted by bcd at 8:29 AM on April 18, 2019 [2 favorites]
posted by bcd at 8:29 AM on April 18, 2019 [2 favorites]
"Donald Trump Jr. had direct electronic communications with WikiLeaks during the campaign period." (p. 59)
posted by ascii at 8:29 AM on April 18, 2019 [31 favorites]
posted by ascii at 8:29 AM on April 18, 2019 [31 favorites]
The obstruction of justice conclusion (Volume II, page 182):
Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President's conduct. The evidence we obtained about the President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. At the same time, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.posted by parallellines at 8:31 AM on April 18, 2019 [35 favorites]
There's an entire third person who Trump interacted with that might be obstructiony who is entirely redacted due to "harm to an ongoing matter": "Flynn, Manafort, and REDACTED".
posted by BungaDunga at 8:32 AM on April 18, 2019 [8 favorites]
posted by BungaDunga at 8:32 AM on April 18, 2019 [8 favorites]
According to notes written by Hunt, when Sessions told the President that a Special Counsel has been appointed, the President slumped back in his chair and said, "Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my presidency. I'm fucked."
Since the searchable PDF has been posted - this quote is on PDF page number 290 (page 78 of Volume II.)
posted by bluecore at 8:32 AM on April 18, 2019 [15 favorites]
Since the searchable PDF has been posted - this quote is on PDF page number 290 (page 78 of Volume II.)
posted by bluecore at 8:32 AM on April 18, 2019 [15 favorites]
According to the metadata the PDF was created on a RICHO MP C6502, so if any rogue WH staffer is wondering which copier/printer's memory banks to poke around in that's a start.
posted by mikepop at 8:32 AM on April 18, 2019 [21 favorites]
posted by mikepop at 8:32 AM on April 18, 2019 [21 favorites]
I'm not lawyer but my reading of that is: dude obstructed justice but he's the president so its not our job.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 8:33 AM on April 18, 2019 [8 favorites]
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 8:33 AM on April 18, 2019 [8 favorites]
Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment
Well, that was quite the call.
posted by jaduncan at 8:33 AM on April 18, 2019 [15 favorites]
Well, that was quite the call.
posted by jaduncan at 8:33 AM on April 18, 2019 [15 favorites]
Has Barr done enough to be indicted himself?.
I think I'm beginning to like the scenario wherein Trump does survive long enough to run again in 2020, but that pretty much everyone around him is either indited, on the run or already incarcerated. He'll end up giving a speech naked wrapped in a flag.
posted by philip-random at 8:33 AM on April 18, 2019 [4 favorites]
I think I'm beginning to like the scenario wherein Trump does survive long enough to run again in 2020, but that pretty much everyone around him is either indited, on the run or already incarcerated. He'll end up giving a speech naked wrapped in a flag.
posted by philip-random at 8:33 AM on April 18, 2019 [4 favorites]
Page 110: "Trump Jr. invited campaign chairman Paul Manafort and senior advisor Jared Kushner to attend the meeting, and both attended. Members ofthe Campaign discussed the meeting before it occurred, and Michael Cohen recalled that Trump Jr. may have told candidate Trump about an upcoming meeting to receive adverse information about Clinton, without linking the meeting to Russia. According to written answers submitted by President Trump, he has no recollection of learning of the meeting at the time, and the Office found no documentary evidence showing that he was made aware of the meeting--or its Russian connection-before it occurred."
posted by Harry Caul at 8:35 AM on April 18, 2019 [6 favorites]
posted by Harry Caul at 8:35 AM on April 18, 2019 [6 favorites]
according to @emptywheel:" Again, this is an impeachment referral."
https://twitter.com/emptywheel
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 8:35 AM on April 18, 2019 [16 favorites]
https://twitter.com/emptywheel
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 8:35 AM on April 18, 2019 [16 favorites]
Brian Beutler
"Although the investigation established the the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, AND THAT THE CAMPAIGN EXPECTED IT WOULD BENEFIT ELECTORALLY FROM INFORMATION STOLEN AND RELEASED THROUGH RUSSIAN EFFORTS…"
That’s the prefix to Barr’s NO COLLUSION partial sentence.
posted by chris24 at 8:36 AM on April 18, 2019 [56 favorites]
"Although the investigation established the the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, AND THAT THE CAMPAIGN EXPECTED IT WOULD BENEFIT ELECTORALLY FROM INFORMATION STOLEN AND RELEASED THROUGH RUSSIAN EFFORTS…"
That’s the prefix to Barr’s NO COLLUSION partial sentence.
posted by chris24 at 8:36 AM on April 18, 2019 [56 favorites]
bcd: Weren't we promised color coding of the redactions? Obviously a minor quibble, but even about the tiniest things Barr seems to lie as constantly as his new client.
The redactions are "color coded" insofar as they begin with labels of different colors. For instance, something redacted as "Investigative Technique" is solid black with the yellow words "Investigative Technique" printed over the start of the redaction, while "Personal Information" is a green label.
It looks like the most common by far is "Harm to Ongoing Matter", whose label uses white text and is sometimes abbreviated "HOM".
posted by InTheYear2017 at 8:36 AM on April 18, 2019 [1 favorite]
The redactions are "color coded" insofar as they begin with labels of different colors. For instance, something redacted as "Investigative Technique" is solid black with the yellow words "Investigative Technique" printed over the start of the redaction, while "Personal Information" is a green label.
It looks like the most common by far is "Harm to Ongoing Matter", whose label uses white text and is sometimes abbreviated "HOM".
posted by InTheYear2017 at 8:36 AM on April 18, 2019 [1 favorite]
There's an entire third person who Trump interacted with that might be obstructiony who is entirely redacted due to "harm to an ongoing matter": "Flynn, Manafort, and REDACTED".
This begins on page 120. It details Trump's interactions with three possible witnesses: Flynn, Manafort, and... REDACTED. Certainly not Cohen, who is mentioned also. Roger Stone's name is largely redacted throughout, so it could be him.
posted by BungaDunga at 8:37 AM on April 18, 2019 [4 favorites]
This begins on page 120. It details Trump's interactions with three possible witnesses: Flynn, Manafort, and... REDACTED. Certainly not Cohen, who is mentioned also. Roger Stone's name is largely redacted throughout, so it could be him.
posted by BungaDunga at 8:37 AM on April 18, 2019 [4 favorites]
It looks like the most common by far is "Harm to Ongoing Matter", whose label uses white text and is sometimes abbreviated "HOM".
THAT is a major statement in itself. It means this isn't the end of investigations, but just the end of one phase of many.
posted by filthy light thief at 8:38 AM on April 18, 2019 [19 favorites]
THAT is a major statement in itself. It means this isn't the end of investigations, but just the end of one phase of many.
posted by filthy light thief at 8:38 AM on April 18, 2019 [19 favorites]
According to notes written by Hunt, when Sessions told the President that a Special Counsel has been appointed, the President slumped back in his chair and said, "Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my presidency. I'm fucked."
IANAL, but wouldn't this incident seem to be evidence of consciousness of guilt?
posted by Gelatin at 8:40 AM on April 18, 2019 [26 favorites]
IANAL, but wouldn't this incident seem to be evidence of consciousness of guilt?
posted by Gelatin at 8:40 AM on April 18, 2019 [26 favorites]
In the table of contents, 4.b.ii one of the "Application to Certain Individuals" entries is redacted with the "Personal Privacy" label as opposed to another who is "HOM". Who could get a pass on privacy grounds here? Like is this "random low-level staffer who we determined should not be dragged into this" or "Trump family member we want to protect" territory?
posted by mikepop at 8:41 AM on April 18, 2019 [2 favorites]
posted by mikepop at 8:41 AM on April 18, 2019 [2 favorites]
IANAL, but wouldn't this incident seem to be evidence of consciousness of guilt?
posted by BungaDunga at 8:45 AM on April 18, 2019 [4 favorites]
The President returned to the consequences of the appointment and said, "Everyone tells me if you get one of these independent counsels it ruins your presidency. It takes years and years and I won't be able to do anything. This is the worst thing that ever happened to me."So, not really. Having an independent counsel does, indeed, suck. Even if you're innocent.
posted by BungaDunga at 8:45 AM on April 18, 2019 [4 favorites]
Just to center ourselves, I would remind everyone that the entire meeting with Russians in Trump Tower was in violation of 52 USC 30121 and the subsequent conspiracy and lies violations of 18 USC 371, and our good friend 18 USC 1001 ( the Martha Stewart "Never Fib to a Fed law... )
posted by mikelieman at 8:45 AM on April 18, 2019 [30 favorites]
posted by mikelieman at 8:45 AM on April 18, 2019 [30 favorites]
Reading the account of the Trump Tower meeting, all I can think is that if we had a functioning government, Kushner and DJT Jr. would be fucked six ways to Sunday. These guys knew exactly what they were doing.
posted by azpenguin at 8:46 AM on April 18, 2019 [29 favorites]
posted by azpenguin at 8:46 AM on April 18, 2019 [29 favorites]
Vol II, Page 117:
posted by bcd at 8:47 AM on April 18, 2019 [87 favorites]
The President then asked, "What-about these notes? Why do you take notes? Lawyers don' t take notes. I never had a lawyer who took notes." McGahn responded that he keeps notes because he is a "real lawyer" and explained that notes create a record and are not a bad thing. The President said, " I've had a lot of great lawyers, like Roy Cohn. He did not take notes."Of course Trump follows the Stringer Bell school of, "you don't take notes of a criminal fucking conspiracy".
posted by bcd at 8:47 AM on April 18, 2019 [87 favorites]
Just to center ourselves, I would remind everyone that the entire meeting with Russians in Trump Tower was in violation of 52 USC 30121 and the subsequent conspiracy and lies violations of 18 USC 371, and our good friend 18 USC 1001 ( the Martha Stewart "Never Fib to a Fed law... )
posted by mikelieman at 8:45 AM on April 18 [3 favorites −] Favorite added! [!]
It's so frustrating that none of this really needs a special council. It's out there, and if anything worked, Trump would be in jail already. I'm not an American but I can understand the frustration some of you have with the Democrats and with the legal system.
posted by mumimor at 8:49 AM on April 18, 2019 [19 favorites]
posted by mikelieman at 8:45 AM on April 18 [3 favorites −] Favorite added! [!]
It's so frustrating that none of this really needs a special council. It's out there, and if anything worked, Trump would be in jail already. I'm not an American but I can understand the frustration some of you have with the Democrats and with the legal system.
posted by mumimor at 8:49 AM on April 18, 2019 [19 favorites]
probably safe to assume that those crimes will go un-prosecuted.
... by Robert Mueller's Special Counsel. There are a lot of other investigations happening.
posted by eclectist at 8:50 AM on April 18, 2019 [15 favorites]
... by Robert Mueller's Special Counsel. There are a lot of other investigations happening.
posted by eclectist at 8:50 AM on April 18, 2019 [15 favorites]
From the Mueller report:
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 8:51 AM on April 18, 2019 [136 favorites]
Finally, we concluded that in the rare case in which a criminal investigation of the President's conduct is justified, inquiries to determine whether the President acted for a corrupt motive should not impermissibly chill his performance of his constitutionally assigned duties. The conclusion that Congress may apply the obstruction laws to the President's corrupt exercise of the powers of office accords with our constitutional system of checks and balances and the principle that no person is above the law.To paraphrase Mueller: I am prohibited from charging the President with a crime, but I am encouraging Congress to read my report and consider whether the President is guilty of a crime. Because, based on my judgement of the evidence, I am certainly not exonerating him.
CONCLUSION
Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President's conduct. The evidence we obtained about the President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. At the same time, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 8:51 AM on April 18, 2019 [136 favorites]
My interpretation of the obstruction of justice section of the report is that Mueller believes that the Special Council does not have the constitutional authority to make a prosecutorial judgment against the President. That is the job of Congress, and none of the President's official powers allow for obstruction, or prevent Congress from fully investigating corrupt acts. There is clearly enough evidence here for further investigation by Congress, and it is their responsibility to place a limit on obstructive acts by the President.
posted by parallellines at 8:54 AM on April 18, 2019 [15 favorites]
posted by parallellines at 8:54 AM on April 18, 2019 [15 favorites]
How is the shit documented on Pages 62 and 63 not outright criminal behaviour??
Smith is dead, which probably makes everything much more complicated if Mueller had wanted to prosecute anyone for that particular conspiracy. Also, Flynn is cooperating.
posted by BungaDunga at 8:55 AM on April 18, 2019 [2 favorites]
Smith is dead, which probably makes everything much more complicated if Mueller had wanted to prosecute anyone for that particular conspiracy. Also, Flynn is cooperating.
posted by BungaDunga at 8:55 AM on April 18, 2019 [2 favorites]
Jeffrey Toobin on CNN: "If this isn't Obstruction of Justice, I'd like to know what Obstruction of Justice is."
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 8:55 AM on April 18, 2019 [29 favorites]
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 8:55 AM on April 18, 2019 [29 favorites]
The pee tape is in the footnotes and of questionable existence.
posted by zachlipton at 8:55 AM on April 18, 2019 [11 favorites]
posted by zachlipton at 8:55 AM on April 18, 2019 [11 favorites]
On the subject of pages 62 and 63,
posted by a snickering nuthatch at 8:55 AM on April 18, 2019 [20 favorites]
Michael Flynn-who would later serve as National Security Advisor inMaybe this was known before, but for me this is a new explicit connection of dots: that Peter Smith's search for the emails was directed by the campaign.
the Trump Administration- recalled that Trump made this request repeatedly, and Flynn subsequently contacted multiple people in an effort to obtain the emails.265
Barbara Ledeen and Peter Smith were among the people contacted by Flynn
posted by a snickering nuthatch at 8:55 AM on April 18, 2019 [20 favorites]
For those of us not able to link to the report at the moment, can somebody summarize what's on pages 62 and 63?
posted by Rykey at 8:58 AM on April 18, 2019
posted by Rykey at 8:58 AM on April 18, 2019
It looks like Mueller laid out a roadmap for impeachment, at the very least for obstruction. He even explicitly stated that congress has the authority to come to a final conclusion on the issue.
I'm sure Democrats will wait until Mueller testifies--Nadler requested that it happens before May 23--before making a decision on impeachment. But it looks like there are plenty of reasons to open proceedings.
posted by davedave at 9:00 AM on April 18, 2019 [9 favorites]
I'm sure Democrats will wait until Mueller testifies--Nadler requested that it happens before May 23--before making a decision on impeachment. But it looks like there are plenty of reasons to open proceedings.
posted by davedave at 9:00 AM on April 18, 2019 [9 favorites]
For those of us not able to link to the report at the moment, can somebody summarize what's on pages 62 and 63?
Trump ordered Flynn to get Clinton's emails, and Flynn approached Barbara Ledeen and Peter Smith for this purpose.
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 9:01 AM on April 18, 2019 [5 favorites]
Trump ordered Flynn to get Clinton's emails, and Flynn approached Barbara Ledeen and Peter Smith for this purpose.
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 9:01 AM on April 18, 2019 [5 favorites]
odinsdream How is the shit documented on Pages 62 and 63 not outright criminal behaviour??
Now might be a good time to talk about evidentiary standards.
In criminal matters in the US, we have Beyond a Reasonable Doubt, Probable Cause and Reasonable Suspicion.
Before we put someone in prison, we'd better be damned certain that they did the crime, and there's no other possible explanation to explain the evidence.
But this is not a criminal trial, this is an employment decision.
If I suspect my kids' babysitter is stoned on the couch instead of watching my kids, I don't need to prove it Beyond a Reasonable Doubt.
Reasonable Suspicion is sufficient.
posted by ascii at 9:02 AM on April 18, 2019 [31 favorites]
Now might be a good time to talk about evidentiary standards.
In criminal matters in the US, we have Beyond a Reasonable Doubt, Probable Cause and Reasonable Suspicion.
Before we put someone in prison, we'd better be damned certain that they did the crime, and there's no other possible explanation to explain the evidence.
But this is not a criminal trial, this is an employment decision.
If I suspect my kids' babysitter is stoned on the couch instead of watching my kids, I don't need to prove it Beyond a Reasonable Doubt.
Reasonable Suspicion is sufficient.
posted by ascii at 9:02 AM on April 18, 2019 [31 favorites]
I'm twelve years old, so I searched the report for more obscenities. The single F-bomb has already been noted, but I liked this bit on page 300:
[McGahn] called his lawyer, drove to the White House, packed up his office, prepared to submit a resignation letter with his chief of staff, told Priebus that the President had asked him to "do crazy shit," and informed Priebus and Bannon that he was leaving. Those acts would be a highly unusual reaction to a request to convey information to the Department of Justice.posted by Faint of Butt at 9:02 AM on April 18, 2019 [53 favorites]
[McGahn] called his lawyer, drove to the White House, packed up his office, prepared to submit a resignation letter with his chief of staff, told Priebus that the President had asked him to "do crazy shit," and informed Priebus and Bannon that he was leaving. Those acts would be a highly unusual reaction to a request to convey information to the Department of Justice.
Woah. Thats much juicier than I had expected. This will be an interesting holiday.
posted by mumimor at 9:08 AM on April 18, 2019 [10 favorites]
Woah. Thats much juicier than I had expected. This will be an interesting holiday.
posted by mumimor at 9:08 AM on April 18, 2019 [10 favorites]
Has Barr done enough to be indicted himself?
Yes. He won't be, though.
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 9:10 AM on April 18, 2019 [16 favorites]
Yes. He won't be, though.
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 9:10 AM on April 18, 2019 [16 favorites]
I hope to god that Graham, Lindsey read that, did the math on alphabetization, and shat out an intact whole pineapple.
The rest of this is Gangster 101. People knew that Al Capone ordered horrific and violent crimes, but they couldn't prove it to evidentiary standards. But they _could_ link him to tax evasion.
Which is, coincidentally, something whose related filings Trump is fighting desperately to keep hidden.
posted by delfin at 9:11 AM on April 18, 2019 [52 favorites]
The rest of this is Gangster 101. People knew that Al Capone ordered horrific and violent crimes, but they couldn't prove it to evidentiary standards. But they _could_ link him to tax evasion.
Which is, coincidentally, something whose related filings Trump is fighting desperately to keep hidden.
posted by delfin at 9:11 AM on April 18, 2019 [52 favorites]
Former FBI agent Asha Rangappa: "Note: Barr conflated the term "collusion" with "conspiracy." The former describes a kind of behavior (secret coordinated activity for a common goal) and the latter is a narrowly defined crime. Actions that do not meet the criminal definition of "conspiracy" can still be collusion"
From the Mueller report:
posted by Doktor Zed at 9:11 AM on April 18, 2019 [14 favorites]
From the Mueller report:
In evaluating whether evidence about collective action of multiple individuals constituted a crime, we applied the framework of conspiracy law, not the concept of "collusion." In so doing, the Office recognized that the word "collud[e]" was used in communications with the Acting Attorney General confirming certain aspects of the investigation's scope and that the term has frequently been invoked in public reporting about the investigation. But collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the United States Code, nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law. For those reasons, the Office's focus in analyzing questions of joint criminal liability was on conspiracy as defined in federal law. In connection with that analysis, we addressed the factual question whether members of the Trump Campaign "coordinat[ed]"— a term that appears in the appointment order-with Russian election interference activities. Like collusion, "coordination" does not have a settled definition in federal criminal law. We understood coordination to require an agreement—tacit or express—between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government on election interference. That requires more than the two parties taking actions that were informed by or responsive to the other's actions or interests. We applied the term coordination in that sense when stating in the report that the investigation did not establish that the Trump Campaign coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.(Mueller Report, Introduction to Volume 1, page 2)
posted by Doktor Zed at 9:11 AM on April 18, 2019 [14 favorites]
Jeffrey Toobin on CNN notes, and the report agrees, that the crime of Obstruction of Justice does not require that said obstruction be successful... because if it required that, by definition, it could never be prosecuted!
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 9:12 AM on April 18, 2019 [16 favorites]
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 9:12 AM on April 18, 2019 [16 favorites]
As I'm reading through this, I'm feeling this sense of relief at having this all officially on the record, and in a form that Trump can't afford to deny (because if he says it's unreliable he can't also say that it clears him.)
Peter Smith. Manafort. Kilimnik. Erik Prince. It's so, so dirty. And it's all out there. And you've got Trump toady William Barr standing up there saying it's all true.
Finally.
posted by OnceUponATime at 9:13 AM on April 18, 2019 [16 favorites]
Peter Smith. Manafort. Kilimnik. Erik Prince. It's so, so dirty. And it's all out there. And you've got Trump toady William Barr standing up there saying it's all true.
Finally.
posted by OnceUponATime at 9:13 AM on April 18, 2019 [16 favorites]
In Vol. 2, Pages 25 and 26:
posted by gucci mane at 9:14 AM on April 18, 2019 [34 favorites]
Immediately after discussing the sanctions with McFarland on December 29, 2016, FlynnEmphasis mine because HOW IS THIS NOT "MEMBERS OF THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN" INTERACTING WITH "MEMBERS OF THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT"?!
called Kislyak and requested that Russia respond to the sanctions only in a reciprocal manner,
without escalating the situation.91 After the call, Flynn briefed McFarland on its substance.92
Flynn told McFarland that the Russian response to the sanctions was not going to be escalatory
because Russia wanted a good relationship with the Trump Administration.93 On December 30,
2016, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced that Russia would not take retaliatory measures
in response to the sanctions at that time and would instead "plan ... further steps to restore RussianUS relations based on the policies of the Trump Administration."94 Following that announcement,
the President-Elect tweeted, "Great move on delay (by V. Putin) - I always knew he was very
smart! " 95
On December 31, 2016, Kislyak called Flynn and told him that Flynn's request had been
received at the highest levels and Russia had chosen not to retaliate in response to the request.96
Later that day, Flynn told McFarland about this follow-up conversation with Kislyak and Russia's
decision not to escalate the sanctions situation based on Flynn' s request.97 McFarland recalled
that Flynn thought his phone call had made a difference.98 Flynn spoke with other incoming
Administration officials that day, but does not recall whether they discussed the sanctions.99
Flynn recalled discussing the sanctions issue with incoming Administration official
Stephen Bannon the next day. 10° Flynn said that Bannon appeared to know about Flynn's
conversations with Kislyak, and he and Bannon agreed that they had "stopped the train on Russia's
response" to the sanctions. 101 On January 3, 2017, Flynn saw the President-Elect in person and
thought they discussed the Russian reaction to the sanctions, but Flynn did not have a specific
recollection of telling the President-Elect about the substance of his calls with Kislyak. 102
posted by gucci mane at 9:14 AM on April 18, 2019 [34 favorites]
On an encouraging sidenote, today a new DM group appeared at my workplace: 'Impeach Trump'. It's quite active. I used to feel suspiciously alone in my political views there the last two years. Not anymore.
posted by Harry Caul at 9:14 AM on April 18, 2019 [11 favorites]
posted by Harry Caul at 9:14 AM on April 18, 2019 [11 favorites]
in a form that Trump can't afford to deny
We have dozens of instances of Trump contradicting himself within 2 minutes of any given claim. He will have no cognitive difficulty in simultaneously claiming the report is full of lies and that it completely exonerates him (even though it does no such thing).
posted by suelac at 9:16 AM on April 18, 2019 [13 favorites]
We have dozens of instances of Trump contradicting himself within 2 minutes of any given claim. He will have no cognitive difficulty in simultaneously claiming the report is full of lies and that it completely exonerates him (even though it does no such thing).
posted by suelac at 9:16 AM on April 18, 2019 [13 favorites]
Ivanka Trump forwarded the email to Cohen. He told the Office that, after receiving this inquiry, he had conducted an internet search for Klokov's name and concluded (incorrectly) that Klokov was a former Olympic weightlifter.The best people.
posted by dirigibleman at 9:16 AM on April 18, 2019 [36 favorites]
It's like, a police officer sees a guy walking down the street carrying a safe, and he's like "Whoa, what's going on", and the guy's like "Oh, this is just my walking around safe", and the cop is like "Yeah, okay, whatever" and that's it
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 9:17 AM on April 18, 2019 [35 favorites]
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 9:17 AM on April 18, 2019 [35 favorites]
From the Mueller report:
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 9:18 AM on April 18, 2019 [70 favorites]
...the President had a motive to put the FBI's Russia investigation behind him. The evidence does not establish that the termination of Comey was designed to cover up a conspiracy between the Trump Campaign and Russia: As described in Volume I, the evidence uncovered in the investigation did not establish that the President or those close to him were involved in the charged Russian computer-hacking or active-measure conspiracies, or that the President otherwise had an unlawful relationship with any Russian official. But the evidence does indicate that a thorough FBI investigation would uncover facts about the campaign and the President personally that the President could have understood to be crimes or that would give rise to personal and political concerns.The crime is Obstruction of Justice. There's your motive.
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 9:18 AM on April 18, 2019 [70 favorites]
We have dozens of instances of Trump contradicting himself within 2 minutes of any given claim. He will have no cognitive difficulty in simultaneously claiming the report is full of lies and that it completely exonerates him (even though it does no such thing).
Okay, I mean he can say it. But it doesn't make any damn sense, and it's not going to fool anyone except those who want to be fooled.
The smarter defense is the one that Bannon effectively gave in "Fire And Fury" (for which he was clearly the major source) and the one that Barr is making now -- "Trump was too stupid to collude."
But at least that concedes that what happened, really happened.
posted by OnceUponATime at 9:19 AM on April 18, 2019 [1 favorite]
Okay, I mean he can say it. But it doesn't make any damn sense, and it's not going to fool anyone except those who want to be fooled.
The smarter defense is the one that Bannon effectively gave in "Fire And Fury" (for which he was clearly the major source) and the one that Barr is making now -- "Trump was too stupid to collude."
But at least that concedes that what happened, really happened.
posted by OnceUponATime at 9:19 AM on April 18, 2019 [1 favorite]
As I'm reading through this, I'm feeling this sense of relief at having this all officially on the record, and in a form that Trump can't afford to deny (because if he says it's unreliable he can't also say that it clears him.)
Since we know Team Trump had the report days ago, the leads reported in the previous megathread that Trump's advisers were leery of having Trump lean heavily on "the report exonerates me!" is exactly that -- they probably knew how damaging it would be and how hollow Trump reversing himself back to "totally dishonest witch hunt!" would sound to anyone who isn't a hardcore cultist already.
posted by Gelatin at 9:21 AM on April 18, 2019 [4 favorites]
Since we know Team Trump had the report days ago, the leads reported in the previous megathread that Trump's advisers were leery of having Trump lean heavily on "the report exonerates me!" is exactly that -- they probably knew how damaging it would be and how hollow Trump reversing himself back to "totally dishonest witch hunt!" would sound to anyone who isn't a hardcore cultist already.
posted by Gelatin at 9:21 AM on April 18, 2019 [4 favorites]
But it doesn't make any damn sense, and it's not going to fool anyone except those who want to be fooled.
I agree with your point, but the problem is that "those who want to be fooled" are Trump's base—and they, and the power they wield over our political system, are, in fact, the root of this entire hellscape of a timeline.
posted by Rykey at 9:24 AM on April 18, 2019 [12 favorites]
I agree with your point, but the problem is that "those who want to be fooled" are Trump's base—and they, and the power they wield over our political system, are, in fact, the root of this entire hellscape of a timeline.
posted by Rykey at 9:24 AM on April 18, 2019 [12 favorites]
On January 11, 2016, Cohen emailed the office of Dmitry Peskov, the Russian government's press secretary, indicating that he desired contact with Sergei Ivanov, Putin's chief of staff. Cohen erroneously used the email address "Pr_peskova@prpress.gof.ru" instead of "Pr_peskova@prpress.gov.ru," so the email apparently did not go through.
lol
posted by theodolite at 9:27 AM on April 18, 2019 [17 favorites]
lol
posted by theodolite at 9:27 AM on April 18, 2019 [17 favorites]
Don't forget to write your representatives and ask that they fucking do something with this.
This report is so damning it basically forces their hand.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 9:27 AM on April 18, 2019 [2 favorites]
This report is so damning it basically forces their hand.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 9:27 AM on April 18, 2019 [2 favorites]
The only thing that will force the Democrats’ hands is the belief that 67 Senators will convict the President of high crimes and misdemeanors. Democrats are not the limiting factor here. Republican Senators will decide the outcome of this.
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 9:30 AM on April 18, 2019 [37 favorites]
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 9:30 AM on April 18, 2019 [37 favorites]
Don't forget to write your representatives and ask that they fucking do something with this.
I live in Vermont. I think I'm good, and that's a nice feeling.
posted by terrapin at 9:31 AM on April 18, 2019 [3 favorites]
I live in Vermont. I think I'm good, and that's a nice feeling.
posted by terrapin at 9:31 AM on April 18, 2019 [3 favorites]
This report is so damning it basically forces their hand.
and, much as I've generally argued against hyperbole when it comes to working the case against Trump (ie: side with the angels, let the other side cover themselves with muck), now feels the time to make things EXPLICIT. In other words, say it in so many words:
"Dear Representative: This Report Is So Damning It Forces Your Fucking Hand"
(though you probably don't need the F-word).
posted by philip-random at 9:34 AM on April 18, 2019 [9 favorites]
and, much as I've generally argued against hyperbole when it comes to working the case against Trump (ie: side with the angels, let the other side cover themselves with muck), now feels the time to make things EXPLICIT. In other words, say it in so many words:
"Dear Representative: This Report Is So Damning It Forces Your Fucking Hand"
(though you probably don't need the F-word).
posted by philip-random at 9:34 AM on April 18, 2019 [9 favorites]
What do you call Donald Trump after 66 Senators vote to convict him of high crimes and misdemeanors?
Mr President.
I know, it's not very funny.
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 9:36 AM on April 18, 2019 [52 favorites]
Mr President.
I know, it's not very funny.
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 9:36 AM on April 18, 2019 [52 favorites]
Just as a casual—and possibly topic-adjacent—observation, I keep thinking that "I didn't conspire with Russia, it's only a coincidence that my personal interests align with Russia's" doesn't exactly put a positive spin on the situation.
posted by Flexagon at 9:37 AM on April 18, 2019 [7 favorites]
posted by Flexagon at 9:37 AM on April 18, 2019 [7 favorites]
If Nancy Pelosi pulls that 'not worth it' claim again I will burst into flames.
Pelosi's still tacking to the prevailing political winds, supporting the (somewhat) more aggressive Nadler and Schiff. Here's her statement retweeting Nadler's earlier: "AG Barr has confirmed the staggering partisan effort by the Trump Admin to spin public’s view of the #MuellerReport – complete with acknowledgment that the Trump team received a sneak preview. It’s more urgent than ever that Special Counsel Mueller testify before Congress."
And here's her joint statement with Schumer from this morning: Pelosi, Schumer Call For Special Counsel Mueller to Provide Public Testimony In House and Senate (She also tweeted, "Attorney General Barr’s partisan behavior has triggered a crisis of independence & impartiality." FWIW)
The U.S. Capitol Switchboard is 202-224-3121, and FaxZero offers a free service to contact your representatives and senators
posted by Doktor Zed at 9:38 AM on April 18, 2019 [7 favorites]
Pelosi's still tacking to the prevailing political winds, supporting the (somewhat) more aggressive Nadler and Schiff. Here's her statement retweeting Nadler's earlier: "AG Barr has confirmed the staggering partisan effort by the Trump Admin to spin public’s view of the #MuellerReport – complete with acknowledgment that the Trump team received a sneak preview. It’s more urgent than ever that Special Counsel Mueller testify before Congress."
And here's her joint statement with Schumer from this morning: Pelosi, Schumer Call For Special Counsel Mueller to Provide Public Testimony In House and Senate (She also tweeted, "Attorney General Barr’s partisan behavior has triggered a crisis of independence & impartiality." FWIW)
The U.S. Capitol Switchboard is 202-224-3121, and FaxZero offers a free service to contact your representatives and senators
posted by Doktor Zed at 9:38 AM on April 18, 2019 [7 favorites]
What do you call Donald Trump after 66 Senators vote to convict him of high crimes and misdemeanors? Mr President.
We have an election in 18 months. I don't care about Republican senators anymore. I care about voters.
posted by OnceUponATime at 9:39 AM on April 18, 2019 [9 favorites]
We have an election in 18 months. I don't care about Republican senators anymore. I care about voters.
posted by OnceUponATime at 9:39 AM on April 18, 2019 [9 favorites]
New York Times headline: "A Cloud Over Trump’s Presidency Is Lifted"
That's a headline from March 24.
posted by parallellines at 9:39 AM on April 18, 2019 [26 favorites]
That's a headline from March 24.
posted by parallellines at 9:39 AM on April 18, 2019 [26 favorites]
Here is an ActBlue link where you can donate now to the 2020 Democratic Nominee for President, whoever that may be. I set up a recurring donation.
posted by OnceUponATime at 9:40 AM on April 18, 2019 [7 favorites]
posted by OnceUponATime at 9:40 AM on April 18, 2019 [7 favorites]
Gelatin: Put pressure on Republicans to convict, and get public opinion on the Democratic side. Though admittedly, the Democratic leadership has generally been lousy at that task since, oh, my entire political memory.
Something that just occurred to me... could the House pass a resolution expressing the sense that the Senate would never convict no matter how obviously guilty the president is? I feel like that sort of thing is the best middle ground between impeachment and non-impeachment. Basically, you decline to impeach, but you emphasize the reasoning in clear terms to the American people.
Because when it comes to 2020 I remain terrified of the Senate simply timing any verdict so that "Trump Found Not Guilty" becomes the headline on voters' minds the week before they cast ballots. Right now, most polls find a majority of Americans consider Trump corrupt, and I feel like that number is more vulnerable to falling than to rising. Also, following the acquittal, a nontrivial contingent on the left would become disillusioned: "Goddamn it Democrats, you had one job, the man is obviously guilty and you still couldn't get him out of office!"
That may sound absurd now, but I can imagine some action or event by Senate Democrats serving as the impeachment equivalent of "Shoulda campaigned in Wisconsin" and focusing blame on the wrong party, per Murc's Law.
A counterpoint: Today's events reinforce that Trump loves making the unforced error of proclaiming innocence when keeping his mouth shut would be better. From a strategic perspective, Barr probably should never have had this conference, and certainly not used the language he did. If, as a result of impeachment hearings, the entire Republican caucus in both houses is made to sing the No Collusion song and dance the Witch Hunt dance while Trump spills more damning rants, their case could look ever more ridiculous, and the percent of Americans considering the regime guilty could climb higher. Plus, contrary to some conventional assumptions, Trump tends not to fight strongly when he feels truly cornered or dominated; a besieged Trump is good for everytone.
But a thing about "Make Republicans defend him!" is that I believe that almost the entire set of Americans who are currently unsure whether the Republican Party is totally compromised/corrupt would also accept, with a shrug, whatever finding was reached. In other words, how many people gain information that is both true and new to them when they see impeachment proceedings and the subsequent not-guilty verdict?
posted by InTheYear2017 at 9:41 AM on April 18, 2019 [15 favorites]
Something that just occurred to me... could the House pass a resolution expressing the sense that the Senate would never convict no matter how obviously guilty the president is? I feel like that sort of thing is the best middle ground between impeachment and non-impeachment. Basically, you decline to impeach, but you emphasize the reasoning in clear terms to the American people.
Because when it comes to 2020 I remain terrified of the Senate simply timing any verdict so that "Trump Found Not Guilty" becomes the headline on voters' minds the week before they cast ballots. Right now, most polls find a majority of Americans consider Trump corrupt, and I feel like that number is more vulnerable to falling than to rising. Also, following the acquittal, a nontrivial contingent on the left would become disillusioned: "Goddamn it Democrats, you had one job, the man is obviously guilty and you still couldn't get him out of office!"
That may sound absurd now, but I can imagine some action or event by Senate Democrats serving as the impeachment equivalent of "Shoulda campaigned in Wisconsin" and focusing blame on the wrong party, per Murc's Law.
A counterpoint: Today's events reinforce that Trump loves making the unforced error of proclaiming innocence when keeping his mouth shut would be better. From a strategic perspective, Barr probably should never have had this conference, and certainly not used the language he did. If, as a result of impeachment hearings, the entire Republican caucus in both houses is made to sing the No Collusion song and dance the Witch Hunt dance while Trump spills more damning rants, their case could look ever more ridiculous, and the percent of Americans considering the regime guilty could climb higher. Plus, contrary to some conventional assumptions, Trump tends not to fight strongly when he feels truly cornered or dominated; a besieged Trump is good for everytone.
But a thing about "Make Republicans defend him!" is that I believe that almost the entire set of Americans who are currently unsure whether the Republican Party is totally compromised/corrupt would also accept, with a shrug, whatever finding was reached. In other words, how many people gain information that is both true and new to them when they see impeachment proceedings and the subsequent not-guilty verdict?
posted by InTheYear2017 at 9:41 AM on April 18, 2019 [15 favorites]
Vol 2 Page 157: Mueller anticipates and rebuts Barr's decision that obstruction of justice did not occur because there was no underlying crime:
Personal criminal conduct can furnish strong evidence that the individual had an improper obstructive purpose, see, e.g. , United States v. Willoughby, 860 F.2d 15, 24 (2d Cir. 1988), or that he contemplated an effect on an official proceeding, see, e.g., United States v. Binday, 804 F.3d 558, 591 (2d Cir. 2015). But proof of such a crime is not an element of an obstruction offense. See United States v. Greer, 872 F.3d 790, 798 (6th Cir. 2017) (stating, in applying the obstruction sentencing guideline, that "obstruction of a criminal investigation is punishable even if the prosecution is ultimately unsuccessful or even if the investigation ultimately reveals no underlying crime").posted by a snickering nuthatch at 9:41 AM on April 18, 2019 [38 favorites]
We have an election in 18 months. I don't care about Republican senators anymore. I care about voters.
I disagree. We have a moral obligation to try to separate Donald Trump and The Nuclear Football as soon as is feasible. It will become clear whether or not we are able to persuade those Republican Senators to convict. If so, impeach. If not, vote.
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 9:42 AM on April 18, 2019 [33 favorites]
I disagree. We have a moral obligation to try to separate Donald Trump and The Nuclear Football as soon as is feasible. It will become clear whether or not we are able to persuade those Republican Senators to convict. If so, impeach. If not, vote.
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 9:42 AM on April 18, 2019 [33 favorites]
We have an election in 18 months. I don't care about Republican senators anymore. I care about voters.
I disagree as well, that election may not even legitimately occur, unless justice is meted out upon this wanna-be dictator asap. Democracy does not have a chance without the rule of law being exercised.
posted by Harry Caul at 9:45 AM on April 18, 2019 [12 favorites]
I disagree as well, that election may not even legitimately occur, unless justice is meted out upon this wanna-be dictator asap. Democracy does not have a chance without the rule of law being exercised.
posted by Harry Caul at 9:45 AM on April 18, 2019 [12 favorites]
@maggienyt: Mueller report descriptions of Trump telling aides to do things to interfere with the probe and them not listening is a microcosm of what takes place weekly at WH - Trump orders aides to do things, they walk out of meetings and look at each other and don’t follow directives...... and that is still true in Mulvaney era.
So, uh, who is the President? And since when is “my staff didn’t follow my orders to commit crimes” a defense?
posted by zachlipton at 9:46 AM on April 18, 2019 [64 favorites]
So, uh, who is the President? And since when is “my staff didn’t follow my orders to commit crimes” a defense?
posted by zachlipton at 9:46 AM on April 18, 2019 [64 favorites]
totally exonerated
Yeah, the report literally says "does not exonerate him".
Yeah, the report has a plethora of evidence of wrongdoing.
But I don't need to read a word of the report.
Satellites in space can see hundreds of redactions to protect "ongoing matters".
If there's this much shit still being investigated, how can anyone say exonerate with a straight face?
posted by ascii at 9:46 AM on April 18, 2019 [22 favorites]
Yeah, the report literally says "does not exonerate him".
Yeah, the report has a plethora of evidence of wrongdoing.
But I don't need to read a word of the report.
Satellites in space can see hundreds of redactions to protect "ongoing matters".
If there's this much shit still being investigated, how can anyone say exonerate with a straight face?
posted by ascii at 9:46 AM on April 18, 2019 [22 favorites]
At a certain point it becomes the moral duty of Democrats in Congress to uphold their role as a check on the power of the executive, whether or not Republicans choose to do the same.
posted by parallellines at 9:50 AM on April 18, 2019 [12 favorites]
posted by parallellines at 9:50 AM on April 18, 2019 [12 favorites]
Don't worry, the headline on NPR.org is: "Mueller team couldn't rule out obstruction...or establish it."
WTF!
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 9:52 AM on April 18, 2019 [17 favorites]
WTF!
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 9:52 AM on April 18, 2019 [17 favorites]
After Clinton was impeached but not convicted, his popularity skyrocketed. Let us learn from history.
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 9:53 AM on April 18, 2019 [1 favorite]
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 9:53 AM on April 18, 2019 [1 favorite]
@parallellines: Agreed, and that point will come soon, but it's not quite here yet.
posted by M-x shell at 9:53 AM on April 18, 2019
posted by M-x shell at 9:53 AM on April 18, 2019
Mueller team couldn't rule out obstruction...or establish it.
...they literally couldn’t establish it because their Departmental policy prohibited them from doing so...
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 9:54 AM on April 18, 2019 [14 favorites]
...they literally couldn’t establish it because their Departmental policy prohibited them from doing so...
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 9:54 AM on April 18, 2019 [14 favorites]
MisantropicPainforest: according to @emptywheel:" Again, this is an impeachment referral."
East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94: To paraphrase Mueller: I am prohibited from charging the President with a crime, but I am encouraging Congress to read my report and consider whether the President is guilty of a crime. Because, based on my judgement of the evidence, I am certainly not exonerating him.
As it was with Nixon ( Investigate Russia.org, Oct. 31, 2018, quoting from a Washington Post article)
posted by filthy light thief at 9:56 AM on April 18, 2019 [21 favorites]
East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94: To paraphrase Mueller: I am prohibited from charging the President with a crime, but I am encouraging Congress to read my report and consider whether the President is guilty of a crime. Because, based on my judgement of the evidence, I am certainly not exonerating him.
As it was with Nixon ( Investigate Russia.org, Oct. 31, 2018, quoting from a Washington Post article)
Jaworski faced a problem similar to one that may confront Mueller: He had relevant evidence but not, Jaworski concluded, the constitutional authority to indict a sitting president. Congress had the authority to impeach Nixon, but not the evidence. In the end, the House committee sought access to evidence gathered by prosecutors, the grand jury adopted the road map, and Sirica and the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia authorized its transmittal under seal.Fingers crossed we get to the Watergate moment, where the GOP realizes that Nixon can no longer be excused or shielded, before 2020.
posted by filthy light thief at 9:56 AM on April 18, 2019 [21 favorites]
The constitution needs to be amended so that sitting presidents can be indicted.
posted by gucci mane at 9:58 AM on April 18, 2019 [26 favorites]
posted by gucci mane at 9:58 AM on April 18, 2019 [26 favorites]
Ari Melber on MSNBC brilliantly remembers the Barr four-page letter:
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 9:58 AM on April 18, 2019 [50 favorites]
The Special Counsel's decision to describe the facts of his obstruction investigation without reaching any legal conclusions leaves it to the Attorney General to determine whether the conduct described in the report constitutes a crime.That's a lie. Mueller said that the Department of Justice, under current policies, could not determine that the President committed a crime. He did not punt his job to the Attorney General. He punted it to Congress. Barr's finding of "no obstruction" is worthless, and is its very own kind of obstruction of justice.
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 9:58 AM on April 18, 2019 [50 favorites]
After Clinton was impeached but not convicted, his popularity skyrocketed. Let us learn from history.
Aside from the vast difference in crimes and general public sentiment, here is a chart of Clinton's approval rating. I don't see any inflection point after impeachment - he was just a popular President overall and the economy was booming.
posted by parallellines at 9:59 AM on April 18, 2019 [30 favorites]
Aside from the vast difference in crimes and general public sentiment, here is a chart of Clinton's approval rating. I don't see any inflection point after impeachment - he was just a popular President overall and the economy was booming.
posted by parallellines at 9:59 AM on April 18, 2019 [30 favorites]
Found some useful lists on Vox.
4 key things to look for in the Mueller report now that it’s released (Andrew Prokop, Vox)
These are the 10 episodes Mueller investigated for obstruction of justice (Emily Stewart, Vox)
posted by ZeusHumms at 10:04 AM on April 18, 2019 [2 favorites]
4 key things to look for in the Mueller report now that it’s released (Andrew Prokop, Vox)
These are the 10 episodes Mueller investigated for obstruction of justice (Emily Stewart, Vox)
posted by ZeusHumms at 10:04 AM on April 18, 2019 [2 favorites]
The Juiciest Bits From the Mueller Report [UPDATING] (Rafi Schwartz, Splinter News)
posted by ZeusHumms at 10:09 AM on April 18, 2019 [2 favorites]
posted by ZeusHumms at 10:09 AM on April 18, 2019 [2 favorites]
Fingers crossed we get to the Watergate moment, where the GOP realizes that Nixon can no longer be excused or shielded, before 2020.
Which would require a chain of events similar to Watergate, in which (a) a "Smoking Gun" paper or recording trail sufficient to prove criminal activity beyond doubt would be allowed to exist, (b) suppression of that evidence would be overturned by courts similar to the result of United States v. Nixon, and double-digit GOP Senators would find the courage to echo the likes of Charles Wiggins and say "the facts then known to me have now changed."
Which would require far more faith than I have in either Team Trump's ineptitude (surely even they recognize that without the shotgun blast that was the "Nixon says 'pay them'" tape becoming available, Nixon might well have served his full second term, and thus would not be careless enough to allow such a thing to exist today), our current Supreme Court's composition, or our current GOP Senate's composition.
posted by delfin at 10:16 AM on April 18, 2019 [4 favorites]
Which would require a chain of events similar to Watergate, in which (a) a "Smoking Gun" paper or recording trail sufficient to prove criminal activity beyond doubt would be allowed to exist, (b) suppression of that evidence would be overturned by courts similar to the result of United States v. Nixon, and double-digit GOP Senators would find the courage to echo the likes of Charles Wiggins and say "the facts then known to me have now changed."
Which would require far more faith than I have in either Team Trump's ineptitude (surely even they recognize that without the shotgun blast that was the "Nixon says 'pay them'" tape becoming available, Nixon might well have served his full second term, and thus would not be careless enough to allow such a thing to exist today), our current Supreme Court's composition, or our current GOP Senate's composition.
posted by delfin at 10:16 AM on April 18, 2019 [4 favorites]
The constitution needs to be amended so that sitting presidents can be indicted.
The Constitution says nothing about it directly. The DoJ's own policies say they won't, but SCOTUS might decide that they can. Congress could, by statute, stand up another independent prosecutor and set it outside the DoJ's normal chain of command (like Starr was), with an explicit requirement to ignore that policy. Of course, depending on the SCOTUS make-up at the time such an indictment was tested, it might be ruled unconstitutional, but it's never been tested.
You'd likely either have to make it a Senate-confirmed position or make the person in charge answerable to being fired by the President, to abide by the "principal officer" issue. That said, the succession could be set in law and a firing could be used to automatically trigger Congress' spending powers to really ruin the President's day.
posted by BungaDunga at 10:16 AM on April 18, 2019 [7 favorites]
The Constitution says nothing about it directly. The DoJ's own policies say they won't, but SCOTUS might decide that they can. Congress could, by statute, stand up another independent prosecutor and set it outside the DoJ's normal chain of command (like Starr was), with an explicit requirement to ignore that policy. Of course, depending on the SCOTUS make-up at the time such an indictment was tested, it might be ruled unconstitutional, but it's never been tested.
You'd likely either have to make it a Senate-confirmed position or make the person in charge answerable to being fired by the President, to abide by the "principal officer" issue. That said, the succession could be set in law and a firing could be used to automatically trigger Congress' spending powers to really ruin the President's day.
posted by BungaDunga at 10:16 AM on April 18, 2019 [7 favorites]
I hope to god this is Graham, Lindsey
Recall that Graham was also hacked (CNN article, autoplaying video), although those emails were never released. There are a number of possible reasons why Graham's name might appear in the report.
posted by compartment at 10:17 AM on April 18, 2019 [8 favorites]
Recall that Graham was also hacked (CNN article, autoplaying video), although those emails were never released. There are a number of possible reasons why Graham's name might appear in the report.
posted by compartment at 10:17 AM on April 18, 2019 [8 favorites]
Not mentioned here yet, but called out by TPM:
posted by mikepop at 10:20 AM on April 18, 2019 [38 favorites]
At a press conference immediately following Comey’s firing, [Sarah Huckabee] Sanders told a reporter that “countless members of the FBI” had expressed a loss of faith in the FBI director prior to his termination. When questioned by Mueller’s team, she reportedly said that it was a “slip of the tongue” comment she made in the “heat of the moment” and was factually baseless.That's like one of those "slips" where you stumble and catch yourself repeatedly before falling down seven flights of stairs.
posted by mikepop at 10:20 AM on April 18, 2019 [38 favorites]
here is a chart of Clinton's approval rating. I don't see any inflection point after impeachment - he was just a popular President overall and the economy was booming.
It's true that it's not as prominent as I thought, but on Gallup he does go from a +30 rating (63-33) to a +40 rating (68-28).
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 10:21 AM on April 18, 2019 [2 favorites]
It's true that it's not as prominent as I thought, but on Gallup he does go from a +30 rating (63-33) to a +40 rating (68-28).
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 10:21 AM on April 18, 2019 [2 favorites]
@philip_elliott: As AG, Jeff Sessions carried with him a resignation letter every time he visited the White House for a full year, per Mueller report (p96).
Totally normal behavior here.
posted by zachlipton at 10:23 AM on April 18, 2019 [74 favorites]
Totally normal behavior here.
posted by zachlipton at 10:23 AM on April 18, 2019 [74 favorites]
Jeremy Bash on MSNBC: "I would summarize Volume II by saying the President's behavior was squarely illegal, but not chargable [by DOJ] ... The report notes that no person is above the law, and the two examples given are Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon, one of whom was impeached, and the other who was forced out of office prior to impeachment."
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 10:26 AM on April 18, 2019 [15 favorites]
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 10:26 AM on April 18, 2019 [15 favorites]
It's true that it's not as prominent as I thought, but on Gallup he does go from a +30 rating (63-33) to a +40 rating (68-28).
And a week after that +40, he was back down to a +27 (62-35). I'm not seeing it.
posted by parallellines at 10:28 AM on April 18, 2019
And a week after that +40, he was back down to a +27 (62-35). I'm not seeing it.
posted by parallellines at 10:28 AM on April 18, 2019
Vol II, Page 2:
posted by bcd at 10:29 AM on April 18, 2019 [72 favorites]
Third, we considered whether to evaluate the conduct we investigated under the Justice Manual standards governing prosecution and declination decisions, but we determined not to apply an approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the President committed crimes. The threshold step under the Justice Manual standards is to assess whether a person's conduct "constitutes a federal offense." U.S. Dep't of Justice, Justice Manual§ 9-27.220 (2018) (Justice Manual). Fairness concerns counseled against potentially reaching that judgment when no charges can be brought. The ordinary means for an individual to respond to an accusation is through a speedy and public trial, with all the procedural protections that surround a criminal case. An individual who believes he was wrongly accused can use that process to seek to clear his name. InMueller decided up front that, since policy forbade him from indicting Trump, that they would not judge whether he committed any crimes. Barr lied even more than I original thought. It isn't even "not enough evidence to indict but certainly not exonerated". With indictment never on the table, the report literally could not be more damning.
contrast, a prosecutor's judgment that crimes were committed, but that no charges will be brought, affords no such adversarial opportunity for public name-clearing before an impartial adjudicator.
posted by bcd at 10:29 AM on April 18, 2019 [72 favorites]
It also evinces a consideration of the President's interests that makes the characterization of the investigation as a WITCH HUNT even more ridiculous.
posted by a snickering nuthatch at 10:31 AM on April 18, 2019 [15 favorites]
posted by a snickering nuthatch at 10:31 AM on April 18, 2019 [15 favorites]
As I understand it, Bob Mueller is now a private citizen? It's time for this private citizen to appear before a House committee, under oath, and say what he clearly wanted to say in his report, but was prohibited from doing so: the President is a crook.
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 10:35 AM on April 18, 2019 [9 favorites]
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 10:35 AM on April 18, 2019 [9 favorites]
No, he still works for the Justice Department.
posted by OnceUponATime at 10:37 AM on April 18, 2019 [4 favorites]
posted by OnceUponATime at 10:37 AM on April 18, 2019 [4 favorites]
The Irony of Mueller-Report Profiteering (Ian Bogost, The Atlantic)
Ebook promos and paperbacks of the special counsel’s report encapsulate the investigation’s theme: The government is for sale.posted by ZeusHumms at 10:39 AM on April 18, 2019 [2 favorites]
Barr said this morning he wouldn't object to Mueller testifying, although we know what a promise from these guys is worth.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 10:39 AM on April 18, 2019 [1 favorite]
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 10:39 AM on April 18, 2019 [1 favorite]
No, he still works for the Justice Department.
Maybe he should retire. It's not like he'll ever have the chance to catch a bigger fish.
posted by Faint of Butt at 10:40 AM on April 18, 2019 [4 favorites]
Maybe he should retire. It's not like he'll ever have the chance to catch a bigger fish.
posted by Faint of Butt at 10:40 AM on April 18, 2019 [4 favorites]
Read Robert Mueller’s Written Summaries of His Russia Report (Madeleine Carlisle & Olivia Paschal, The Atlantic)
The Executive Summaries to both parts, full text minus redacted parts, plus links to relevant op-eds and articles. Should work with a screen reader.
posted by ZeusHumms at 10:43 AM on April 18, 2019 [15 favorites]
The Executive Summaries to both parts, full text minus redacted parts, plus links to relevant op-eds and articles. Should work with a screen reader.
posted by ZeusHumms at 10:43 AM on April 18, 2019 [15 favorites]
we determined not to apply an approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the President committed crimes
OK, that snippet officially broke through my report induced mental fog!
posted by diogenes at 10:52 AM on April 18, 2019 [19 favorites]
OK, that snippet officially broke through my report induced mental fog!
posted by diogenes at 10:52 AM on April 18, 2019 [19 favorites]
Towards the end of the Executive Summary, Vol II, emphasis mine:
"Soon after the firing of Comey and the appointment of the Special Counsel, however, the President became aware that his own conduct was being investigated in an obstruction-of-justice inquiry. At that point, the President engaged in a second phase of conduct, involving public attacks on the investigation, non-public efforts to control it, and efforts in both public and private to encourage witnesses not to cooperate with the investigation. Judgments about the nature of the President's motives during each phase would be informed by the totality of the evidence."
That seems rather damning, right?
posted by Fritzle at 10:54 AM on April 18, 2019 [62 favorites]
"Soon after the firing of Comey and the appointment of the Special Counsel, however, the President became aware that his own conduct was being investigated in an obstruction-of-justice inquiry. At that point, the President engaged in a second phase of conduct, involving public attacks on the investigation, non-public efforts to control it, and efforts in both public and private to encourage witnesses not to cooperate with the investigation. Judgments about the nature of the President's motives during each phase would be informed by the totality of the evidence."
That seems rather damning, right?
posted by Fritzle at 10:54 AM on April 18, 2019 [62 favorites]
The key passage to cite any time a Trump apologist tries to make hay of all the documents that the campaign and administration turned over:
Reading Trump's (lawyers') written responses to the questions makes me think that the investigation's single biggest mistake was not forcing Trump to sit down for a videotaped interview under oath. Either his answers (or evasions) would have been damaging or the demand would have provoked Trump into doing something obviously illegal such as firing Mueller.
Assuming Assange doesn't flip in an unexpected way, I think the only way out of this is the 2020 election, barring Trump's death or irrefutable evidence of mental decline (e.g. repeatedly forgetting where he is during rallies or something like that). The congressional investigations and state criminal cases against him and his company will be unlikely to come to a head before the election, although they may sway a lot of voters if clear evidence of fraud is uncovered, as seems likely. But the Republican Senate seems 100% ride-or-die for him at this point.
We may or may not get an impeachment trial (and we've argued the political wisdom of that to death; I express no opinion on that here), but even if we get a trial, conviction seems unlikely, and I don't think this report changes that. It's just not strongly worded enough. There's no single, clear statement that says "were this not the President, we would definitely be pursuing criminal charges, but because it's the President, it's up to Congress to pursue those charges through impeachment." Hell I don't think the report even uses the word impeachment, instead dancing around it with phrases like "Congress may apply the obstruction laws to the President's corrupt exercise of the powers of office."
posted by jedicus at 10:56 AM on April 18, 2019 [23 favorites]
Further, the Office learned that some of the individuals we interviewed or whose conduct we investigated—including some associated with the Trump Campaign—deleted relevant communications or communicated during the relevant period using applications that feature encryption or that do not provide for long-term retention of data or communications records.Mueller Report, p.10. Multiple people associated with the Trump campaign either deleted relevant records or used self-destructing apps, likely in order to evade records requests. I very much wish the report specifically named the offenders here.
...
Accordingly, while this report embodies factual and legal determinations that the Office believes to be accurate and complete to the greatest extent possible, given these identified gaps, the Office cannot rule out the possibility that the unavailable information would shed additional light on (or cast in a new light) the events describe in the report.
Reading Trump's (lawyers') written responses to the questions makes me think that the investigation's single biggest mistake was not forcing Trump to sit down for a videotaped interview under oath. Either his answers (or evasions) would have been damaging or the demand would have provoked Trump into doing something obviously illegal such as firing Mueller.
Assuming Assange doesn't flip in an unexpected way, I think the only way out of this is the 2020 election, barring Trump's death or irrefutable evidence of mental decline (e.g. repeatedly forgetting where he is during rallies or something like that). The congressional investigations and state criminal cases against him and his company will be unlikely to come to a head before the election, although they may sway a lot of voters if clear evidence of fraud is uncovered, as seems likely. But the Republican Senate seems 100% ride-or-die for him at this point.
We may or may not get an impeachment trial (and we've argued the political wisdom of that to death; I express no opinion on that here), but even if we get a trial, conviction seems unlikely, and I don't think this report changes that. It's just not strongly worded enough. There's no single, clear statement that says "were this not the President, we would definitely be pursuing criminal charges, but because it's the President, it's up to Congress to pursue those charges through impeachment." Hell I don't think the report even uses the word impeachment, instead dancing around it with phrases like "Congress may apply the obstruction laws to the President's corrupt exercise of the powers of office."
posted by jedicus at 10:56 AM on April 18, 2019 [23 favorites]
So, in summary:
Mueller: We chose a process that makes it impossible for us to accuse Trump of a crime regardless of the evidence. Here's the evidence that he committed crimes. Congress, you're up.
Barr: Mueller didn't accuse Trump of any crimes. Case closed!
Pelosi: ?
posted by diogenes at 10:59 AM on April 18, 2019 [61 favorites]
Mueller: We chose a process that makes it impossible for us to accuse Trump of a crime regardless of the evidence. Here's the evidence that he committed crimes. Congress, you're up.
Barr: Mueller didn't accuse Trump of any crimes. Case closed!
Pelosi: ?
posted by diogenes at 10:59 AM on April 18, 2019 [61 favorites]
the investigation's single biggest mistake was not forcing Trump to sit down for a videotaped interview under oath
Maybe. But if they had tried, we would probably not be seeing the report right now. We'd be following an endless series of litigation over whether or not Mueller can compel Trump to testify (or plead the 5th). It seems to me possible that Mueller didn't want to bottle up the entire report just to wait for that. Does the report go into any detail on that decision?
posted by BungaDunga at 11:00 AM on April 18, 2019 [5 favorites]
Maybe. But if they had tried, we would probably not be seeing the report right now. We'd be following an endless series of litigation over whether or not Mueller can compel Trump to testify (or plead the 5th). It seems to me possible that Mueller didn't want to bottle up the entire report just to wait for that. Does the report go into any detail on that decision?
posted by BungaDunga at 11:00 AM on April 18, 2019 [5 favorites]
There's no single, clear statement that says "were this not the President, we would definitely be pursuing criminal charges"
There's no such statement because they chose a process that intentionally prevented them from making such a statement.
posted by diogenes at 11:02 AM on April 18, 2019 [11 favorites]
There's no such statement because they chose a process that intentionally prevented them from making such a statement.
posted by diogenes at 11:02 AM on April 18, 2019 [11 favorites]
That is the exact reason they decided to give up and publish the report: they were mostly done, and they didn’t want to hold the whole thing up for months fighting through the courts.
posted by Huffy Puffy at 11:02 AM on April 18, 2019 [4 favorites]
posted by Huffy Puffy at 11:02 AM on April 18, 2019 [4 favorites]
For clarity when referencing the report, and to avoid the confusion I had when browsing it on my computer: It's in two volumes, the internal numbering starts over for Volume II, and there are four lettered Appendices (A, B, C, D).
So "page X of the Mueller report", as a phrase by itself, always needs clarification, because it could mean that page of the first volume (from pages 1 to 199), or of the second (numbered from 1 to 182), or the PDF's numbering of the entire report (which goes from 1 to 448, including appendices and each volume's table of contents and hence not corresponding to any of the internal numbering).
posted by InTheYear2017 at 11:08 AM on April 18, 2019 [22 favorites]
So "page X of the Mueller report", as a phrase by itself, always needs clarification, because it could mean that page of the first volume (from pages 1 to 199), or of the second (numbered from 1 to 182), or the PDF's numbering of the entire report (which goes from 1 to 448, including appendices and each volume's table of contents and hence not corresponding to any of the internal numbering).
posted by InTheYear2017 at 11:08 AM on April 18, 2019 [22 favorites]
the President engaged in a second phase of conduct, involving public attacks on the investigation, non-public efforts to control it, and efforts in both public and private to encourage witnesses not to cooperate with the investigation.
And yet Barr claimed “Nonetheless, the White House fully cooperated with the Special Counsel’s investigation.” Seems like it’s worth calling in to testify on why encouraging witnesses not to cooperate is full cooperation.
posted by zachlipton at 11:15 AM on April 18, 2019 [30 favorites]
And yet Barr claimed “Nonetheless, the White House fully cooperated with the Special Counsel’s investigation.” Seems like it’s worth calling in to testify on why encouraging witnesses not to cooperate is full cooperation.
posted by zachlipton at 11:15 AM on April 18, 2019 [30 favorites]
I wonder what the world looked like from inside the investigation. I would have thought a clear "...hence the lack of judgement in this report should not be construed as supporting evidence of innocence" would have been a belt-and-braces bit of wording and obvious to people working adjacent to an industry that can question what the meaning of "is" is. I guess insight into that will be provided by citizen Mueller when he testifies.
posted by Wrinkled Stumpskin at 11:16 AM on April 18, 2019 [3 favorites]
posted by Wrinkled Stumpskin at 11:16 AM on April 18, 2019 [3 favorites]
There's no such statement because they chose a process that intentionally prevented them from making such a statement.
I know. And because they chose that process (rightly or wrongly), the report's effect will necessarily be blunted. The complexity of the report's conclusions combined with Barr's preemptive lying mean that the general public's takeaway will be that it was a lot of noise over nothing. It absolutely isn't that, but it takes a lawyer or a very informed reader to understand the subtext of the report's conclusions. The vast majority of the public will hear that a two year investigation ended without a conclusion that Trump broke the law, therefore he's innocent.
That is the exact reason they decided to give up [on compelling Trump to testify] and publish the report: they were mostly done, and they didn’t want to hold the whole thing up for months fighting through the courts
A report with complex conclusions that most people can't or won't follow, that doesn't mention impeachment, and whose primary direct contribution from Trump is a bunch of boring "I don't recalls" that were clearly drafted by his lawyers. I think the fight and delay would have been worth it to get Trump's typical self-contradictory dissembling on video that could be played on endless repeat. If the SCO had jumped straight to a subpoena right out of the gate instead of wasting months trying to secure a voluntary interview, it might not have even delayed the overall process.
posted by jedicus at 11:16 AM on April 18, 2019 [5 favorites]
I know. And because they chose that process (rightly or wrongly), the report's effect will necessarily be blunted. The complexity of the report's conclusions combined with Barr's preemptive lying mean that the general public's takeaway will be that it was a lot of noise over nothing. It absolutely isn't that, but it takes a lawyer or a very informed reader to understand the subtext of the report's conclusions. The vast majority of the public will hear that a two year investigation ended without a conclusion that Trump broke the law, therefore he's innocent.
That is the exact reason they decided to give up [on compelling Trump to testify] and publish the report: they were mostly done, and they didn’t want to hold the whole thing up for months fighting through the courts
A report with complex conclusions that most people can't or won't follow, that doesn't mention impeachment, and whose primary direct contribution from Trump is a bunch of boring "I don't recalls" that were clearly drafted by his lawyers. I think the fight and delay would have been worth it to get Trump's typical self-contradictory dissembling on video that could be played on endless repeat. If the SCO had jumped straight to a subpoena right out of the gate instead of wasting months trying to secure a voluntary interview, it might not have even delayed the overall process.
posted by jedicus at 11:16 AM on April 18, 2019 [5 favorites]
"Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my presidency. I'm fucked."
Hot damn I am saving this Trump quote one for future use.
posted by GoblinHoney at 11:18 AM on April 18, 2019 [24 favorites]
Hot damn I am saving this Trump quote one for future use.
posted by GoblinHoney at 11:18 AM on April 18, 2019 [24 favorites]
Barr said he didn't mind Mueller personally testifying , which I took to mean he won't be allowed while he's a DoJ employee.
Just heard this on NPR and that was the first thing I thought.
posted by terrapin at 11:19 AM on April 18, 2019 [1 favorite]
Just heard this on NPR and that was the first thing I thought.
posted by terrapin at 11:19 AM on April 18, 2019 [1 favorite]
Quick take from Richard Hasen: All the Mistakes Mueller Made in Declining to Prosecute Donald Trump Jr. He focuses on campaign finance law.
posted by zachlipton at 11:22 AM on April 18, 2019 [7 favorites]
posted by zachlipton at 11:22 AM on April 18, 2019 [7 favorites]
"Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my presidency. I'm fucked."
This may be the most important line in the whole report.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 11:26 AM on April 18, 2019 [41 favorites]
This may be the most important line in the whole report.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 11:26 AM on April 18, 2019 [41 favorites]
And here comes the pack journalism:
And we're still getting shitty headlines like CNN's No Collusion In RNC Platform Change On Ukraine, Report Says when the article quotes the Mueller report once again unable to conclude something—“[T]he investigation did not establish that one campaign official's efforts to dilute a portion of the Republican Party platform on providing assistance to Ukraine were undertaken at the behest of candidate Trump or Russia"—which is emphatically not the same as disproving it.
posted by Doktor Zed at 11:28 AM on April 18, 2019 [5 favorites]
Politico: An annotated guide to the redacted Mueller report.The problem with this kind of approach is that the majority of the narrative has been public, between Mueller's "speaking indictments" and the news media's coverage (particularly leaks from assorted parties in Trumpland who were either trying to cover their asses or backstab each other).
Oxymoronically, the WaPo advertises in a blast e-mail, "Our reporters are annotating the full, redacted Mueller report. Read it here."
The NYT also has an ongoing live-blog/analysis of the redacted report.
CNN also has a live-blog/news roundup of all things Mueller report–related.
And we're still getting shitty headlines like CNN's No Collusion In RNC Platform Change On Ukraine, Report Says when the article quotes the Mueller report once again unable to conclude something—“[T]he investigation did not establish that one campaign official's efforts to dilute a portion of the Republican Party platform on providing assistance to Ukraine were undertaken at the behest of candidate Trump or Russia"—which is emphatically not the same as disproving it.
posted by Doktor Zed at 11:28 AM on April 18, 2019 [5 favorites]
@BySteveReilly: The Special Counsel's Office made 14 referrals of evidence of potential criminal activity to outside offices. Only two are publicly known at this point.
[screenshots of relevant report pages on tweet]
Wonder how much it's possible to glean based on what else Mueller was known to be investigating that isn't in the unredacted text.
There doesn't seem to be any mention of Cambridge Analytica, and only one passing reference to Farage, so I guess there's some small hope that one of the investigations involves that. Though, not sure how much direct involvement they had with the actual Trump campaign.
posted by Buntix at 11:29 AM on April 18, 2019 [4 favorites]
[screenshots of relevant report pages on tweet]
Wonder how much it's possible to glean based on what else Mueller was known to be investigating that isn't in the unredacted text.
There doesn't seem to be any mention of Cambridge Analytica, and only one passing reference to Farage, so I guess there's some small hope that one of the investigations involves that. Though, not sure how much direct involvement they had with the actual Trump campaign.
posted by Buntix at 11:29 AM on April 18, 2019 [4 favorites]
I think the only way out of this is the 2020 election
The president's own consigliere has warned the public that Trump will not leave office voluntarily. Congressional testimony and subpoenas related to those interviews may offer a way out that restores the rule of law and saves the republic. Given what has so far happened to whistleblowers and law enforcement officials whose actions do not align with the president, hopes for a fair election in 2020 seem a dim prospect.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 11:33 AM on April 18, 2019 [13 favorites]
The president's own consigliere has warned the public that Trump will not leave office voluntarily. Congressional testimony and subpoenas related to those interviews may offer a way out that restores the rule of law and saves the republic. Given what has so far happened to whistleblowers and law enforcement officials whose actions do not align with the president, hopes for a fair election in 2020 seem a dim prospect.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 11:33 AM on April 18, 2019 [13 favorites]
The vast majority of the public will hear that a two year investigation ended without a conclusion that Trump broke the law, therefore he's innocent.
If that happens, it will be because Democratic House leadership fucked up and let it happen.
posted by diogenes at 11:39 AM on April 18, 2019 [8 favorites]
If that happens, it will be because Democratic House leadership fucked up and let it happen.
posted by diogenes at 11:39 AM on April 18, 2019 [8 favorites]
To me, this is the heart of the second volume (Page 2): “we determined not to apply an approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the President committed crimes.” Mueller decided at the outset that he would never determine that Trump committed any crimes. He had reasons for that, sure, but the entire investigation was based on the idea that the President is above the law. He’d tell us if they decided Trump didn’t break the law, but would never consider if he did. Then Barr took that and twisted it into lies that everyone spread for weeks.
The fix was in from the start. We do not have a government that is capable of even considering whether the President broke the law. And had Mueller said so from the start, he could have saved us a lot of time by letting Congress get on with it and not creating a product that would obviously be read in bad faith.
But there’s a logic in what Mueller is saying, as hilzoy notes:
posted by zachlipton at 11:41 AM on April 18, 2019 [65 favorites]
The fix was in from the start. We do not have a government that is capable of even considering whether the President broke the law. And had Mueller said so from the start, he could have saved us a lot of time by letting Congress get on with it and not creating a product that would obviously be read in bad faith.
But there’s a logic in what Mueller is saying, as hilzoy notes:
[according to Mueller] It would be unfair to determine that the President had committed a crime and not prosecute, since he would have no way to clear his name.Surely the logical conclusion of Mueller saying “we can’t say yes, but we’d say no if it was true” is that he’d say yes if he could?
It would not be similarly unfair to say that we had found that the President had NOT committed a crime, if that was what the evidence showed.
But it didn't, so we can't.
Doesn't this mean: we think the evidence shows that the President committed crimes, but can't say so?
posted by zachlipton at 11:41 AM on April 18, 2019 [65 favorites]
If that happens, it will be because Democratic House leadership fucked up and let it happen.
I would counter that it is because journalism is intertwined with capitalism now.
posted by terrapin at 11:44 AM on April 18, 2019 [22 favorites]
I would counter that it is because journalism is intertwined with capitalism now.
posted by terrapin at 11:44 AM on April 18, 2019 [22 favorites]
"This is the end of my presidency. I'm fucked."
This sure doesn't sound like the resident narcissist. At all.
posted by artdrectr at 11:44 AM on April 18, 2019 [6 favorites]
This sure doesn't sound like the resident narcissist. At all.
posted by artdrectr at 11:44 AM on April 18, 2019 [6 favorites]
Surely the logical conclusion of Mueller saying “we can’t say yes, but we’d say no if it was true” is that he’d say yes if he could?
Exactly, and it's up to the House to make this clear and create the conditions for him to say yes. I don't know exactly how that will work, but I'm pretty sure it involves impeachment.
posted by diogenes at 11:45 AM on April 18, 2019 [1 favorite]
Exactly, and it's up to the House to make this clear and create the conditions for him to say yes. I don't know exactly how that will work, but I'm pretty sure it involves impeachment.
posted by diogenes at 11:45 AM on April 18, 2019 [1 favorite]
The report on Nixon was written to be read sequentially, a couple small statements of fact with supporting footnotes at the bottom, written almost like a children's book leading to an inescapable conclusion.
This report? It's dense and complicated with lots of moving parts. Some sentences I'll read three or four times and still am not sure I'm parsing them right. To my mind, that's a hot mess.
I find a lot of Mueller's decisions inexcusable. His decision not to indict, which is simply a DOJ guideline, not written law. His decision not to come to conclusions, which almost guarantees no action can be taken from the report.
When Trump said "I'm fucked. My presidency is over." It suggests the real story is very clear and damaging. How did that get lost?
posted by xammerboy at 11:47 AM on April 18, 2019 [26 favorites]
This report? It's dense and complicated with lots of moving parts. Some sentences I'll read three or four times and still am not sure I'm parsing them right. To my mind, that's a hot mess.
I find a lot of Mueller's decisions inexcusable. His decision not to indict, which is simply a DOJ guideline, not written law. His decision not to come to conclusions, which almost guarantees no action can be taken from the report.
When Trump said "I'm fucked. My presidency is over." It suggests the real story is very clear and damaging. How did that get lost?
posted by xammerboy at 11:47 AM on April 18, 2019 [26 favorites]
Can’t the House just have Mueller on the stand in front of them and ask him “did the president commit any crimes”?
posted by gucci mane at 11:48 AM on April 18, 2019 [5 favorites]
posted by gucci mane at 11:48 AM on April 18, 2019 [5 favorites]
Can’t the House just have Mueller on the stand in front of them and ask him “did the president commit any crimes”?
I think he'd just say that isn't something he can decide. Congress has to decide. On the other hand, if they asked him that question as part of deciding (i.e. impeachment), I think that would change the equation.
It just seems like there has to be some process that doesn't put Trump above the law.
posted by diogenes at 11:49 AM on April 18, 2019 [6 favorites]
I think he'd just say that isn't something he can decide. Congress has to decide. On the other hand, if they asked him that question as part of deciding (i.e. impeachment), I think that would change the equation.
It just seems like there has to be some process that doesn't put Trump above the law.
posted by diogenes at 11:49 AM on April 18, 2019 [6 favorites]
Surely the logical conclusion of Mueller saying “we can’t say yes, but we’d say no if it was true” is that he’d say yes if he could?
It isn't a binary choice. If Mueller believed it was uncertain whether Trump had committed a crime, by those ground rules, he'd also not say the evidence cleared him.
Obviously he committed multiple crimes - but as an abstract matter, I think that's all we can read from that specific detail.
posted by bcd at 11:49 AM on April 18, 2019 [1 favorite]
It isn't a binary choice. If Mueller believed it was uncertain whether Trump had committed a crime, by those ground rules, he'd also not say the evidence cleared him.
Obviously he committed multiple crimes - but as an abstract matter, I think that's all we can read from that specific detail.
posted by bcd at 11:49 AM on April 18, 2019 [1 favorite]
I think they can, but then can't Mueller say that he cannot draw any conclusions either way because Trump is a sitting President? Or would that be perjury?
posted by all about eevee at 11:49 AM on April 18, 2019
posted by all about eevee at 11:49 AM on April 18, 2019
I have one other bone to pick. The report says the president is not above the law. Then it says the DOJ can't arrest him for crimes. Then it hands an ambiguous report to a divided congress and senate. How is the president not above the law?
posted by xammerboy at 11:51 AM on April 18, 2019 [6 favorites]
posted by xammerboy at 11:51 AM on April 18, 2019 [6 favorites]
And had Mueller said so from the start, he could have saved us a lot of time by letting Congress get on with it and not creating a product that would obviously be read in bad faith.
With the GOP in control of both houses? You already know how that would have gone. This process may have been the best option available given the circumstances.
It's up to the newly formed Congress to take up the baton.
posted by notyou at 11:51 AM on April 18, 2019 [12 favorites]
With the GOP in control of both houses? You already know how that would have gone. This process may have been the best option available given the circumstances.
It's up to the newly formed Congress to take up the baton.
posted by notyou at 11:51 AM on April 18, 2019 [12 favorites]
The Special Counsel's Office made 14 referrals of evidence of potential criminal activity to outside offices. Only two are publicly known at this point.
I have no doubts that the people involved in those other 12 referrals have now been made aware of the evidence against them.
posted by C'est la D.C. at 11:56 AM on April 18, 2019
I have no doubts that the people involved in those other 12 referrals have now been made aware of the evidence against them.
posted by C'est la D.C. at 11:56 AM on April 18, 2019
When Trump said "I'm fucked. My presidency is over." It suggests the real story is very clear and damaging. How did that get lost?
Not to suggest he's actually innocent, but isn't that the proper reaction if an innocent person discovers the feds are investigating them as well? The process could derail a hypothetical pure-as-the-driven-snow administration for a long while too.
posted by bcd at 11:57 AM on April 18, 2019 [7 favorites]
Not to suggest he's actually innocent, but isn't that the proper reaction if an innocent person discovers the feds are investigating them as well? The process could derail a hypothetical pure-as-the-driven-snow administration for a long while too.
posted by bcd at 11:57 AM on April 18, 2019 [7 favorites]
I just tried to imagine how things might have gone down had Rosenstein tapped Barr instead of Mueller for Special Counsel, and my brain broke
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 12:01 PM on April 18, 2019 [11 favorites]
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 12:01 PM on April 18, 2019 [11 favorites]
Not to suggest he's actually innocent, but isn't that the proper reaction if an innocent person discovers the feds are investigating them as well? The process could derail a hypothetical pure-as-the-driven-snow administration for a long while too.
The full paragraph actually puts it in that context -- he specifically says he's "fucked" because past presidents who had special counsels appointed had their administrations derailed by the investigations. It's still a great soundbyte and his subsequent stonewalling of Mueller's team shows that he wasn't exactly approaching this as someone with nothing to hide.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 12:05 PM on April 18, 2019 [11 favorites]
The full paragraph actually puts it in that context -- he specifically says he's "fucked" because past presidents who had special counsels appointed had their administrations derailed by the investigations. It's still a great soundbyte and his subsequent stonewalling of Mueller's team shows that he wasn't exactly approaching this as someone with nothing to hide.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 12:05 PM on April 18, 2019 [11 favorites]
President Trump did nothing wrong, I think (Alexandra Petri, WaPo)
*Attorney General William P. Barr steps to the lectern.*posted by Johnny Wallflower at 12:07 PM on April 18, 2019 [25 favorites]
[…]
The good news is that, although the Russian government did interfere in the 2016 election with hacking and disinformation campaigns, it did not do so literally at the behest of the Trump campaign, in my opinion. Was that the opinion of the Mueller team? Who can say? But if it wasn’t, it should have been, I think. Make no mistake, Russia did interfere to help him, but this effort was just sort of a fun lagniappe. Nobody asked for it.
Really, it was like when you are just sitting on a couch trying to have a nice time and your cat unexpectedly brings you a dead bird. (In this scenario, the dead bird is the American people.) You did not expect it! You don’t even want it. But the cat seemed to think it was a nice gesture. Well, that is how Donald Trump feels about winning this election. In brief, this was not at all coordinated. Anyway, as I think anyone who has been watching the Trump presidency can see, this is not a man who expected to win.
When Trump said "I'm fucked. My presidency is over." It suggests the real story is very clear and damaging.
Which is the point Josh Marshall has been making since the election, with his Event Horizon Theory of Trump's wrongdoing.
We can't see what Trump did, but we can see the outlines of it due to the activity around it, and that activity suggests that there's something huge that Trump and his closest people are absolutely desperate to keep hidden.
posted by Gelatin at 12:11 PM on April 18, 2019 [48 favorites]
Which is the point Josh Marshall has been making since the election, with his Event Horizon Theory of Trump's wrongdoing.
We can't see what Trump did, but we can see the outlines of it due to the activity around it, and that activity suggests that there's something huge that Trump and his closest people are absolutely desperate to keep hidden.
posted by Gelatin at 12:11 PM on April 18, 2019 [48 favorites]
> I have one other bone to pick. The report says the president is not above the law. Then it says the DOJ can't arrest him for crimes. Then it hands an ambiguous report to a divided congress and senate. How is the president not above the law?
Our legal system is predicated on the idea that no one is above the law, and admitting that there are in fact people above the law requires admitting that our system is, deep down, something other than a liberal democracy — that there’s an element of Caesarism to it, where we have written laws that mostly govern the society, but where also the word of the executive is itself law.
But we can’t actually admit that that element of Caesarism exists, because it really is incompatible with the legal processes that apply to everyone but the executive, and therefore if we say it out loud we expose the legal processes on which the continued operation of society depends to serious and dangerous accusations of illegitimacy.
The way to square this circle is to say (or imply) that the executive is not formally above the law, even though there exist no real material way to prosecute crimes when the executive commits them. By focusing on the way that equality before the law exists on paper, we are saved the (genuinely disruptive, possibly impossible) work of realizing equality before the law in the actual world.
posted by Reclusive Novelist Thomas Pynchon at 12:17 PM on April 18, 2019 [27 favorites]
Our legal system is predicated on the idea that no one is above the law, and admitting that there are in fact people above the law requires admitting that our system is, deep down, something other than a liberal democracy — that there’s an element of Caesarism to it, where we have written laws that mostly govern the society, but where also the word of the executive is itself law.
But we can’t actually admit that that element of Caesarism exists, because it really is incompatible with the legal processes that apply to everyone but the executive, and therefore if we say it out loud we expose the legal processes on which the continued operation of society depends to serious and dangerous accusations of illegitimacy.
The way to square this circle is to say (or imply) that the executive is not formally above the law, even though there exist no real material way to prosecute crimes when the executive commits them. By focusing on the way that equality before the law exists on paper, we are saved the (genuinely disruptive, possibly impossible) work of realizing equality before the law in the actual world.
posted by Reclusive Novelist Thomas Pynchon at 12:17 PM on April 18, 2019 [27 favorites]
that activity suggests that there's something huge that Trump and his closest people are absolutely desperate to keep hidden.
Poop tape.
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 12:18 PM on April 18, 2019 [10 favorites]
Poop tape.
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 12:18 PM on April 18, 2019 [10 favorites]
Any word from Pelosi today?
posted by Harry Caul at 12:23 PM on April 18, 2019 [1 favorite]
posted by Harry Caul at 12:23 PM on April 18, 2019 [1 favorite]
we can’t actually admit that that element of Caesarism exists, because it really is incompatible with the legal processes that apply to everyone but the executive
well, now that everyone (well, let's be honest, every republican) knows what you can get away with as president and still face no consequences, and that you really *would* effectively be above the law, can you imagine the floodgates it opens post-trump?
mark my words-- trump 2.0 is in his B-school cafeteria right now, reading this shit and getting all sorts of fuckin ideas.
posted by wibari at 12:26 PM on April 18, 2019 [18 favorites]
well, now that everyone (well, let's be honest, every republican) knows what you can get away with as president and still face no consequences, and that you really *would* effectively be above the law, can you imagine the floodgates it opens post-trump?
mark my words-- trump 2.0 is in his B-school cafeteria right now, reading this shit and getting all sorts of fuckin ideas.
posted by wibari at 12:26 PM on April 18, 2019 [18 favorites]
simply a DOJ guideline, not written law.
It's a DoJ rule that was binding on Mueller's team, unless he got permission from the AG or the acting AG to suspend it. If he violated that rule without permission, the AG would be able to fire him for cause.
posted by BungaDunga at 12:26 PM on April 18, 2019 [6 favorites]
It's a DoJ rule that was binding on Mueller's team, unless he got permission from the AG or the acting AG to suspend it. If he violated that rule without permission, the AG would be able to fire him for cause.
posted by BungaDunga at 12:26 PM on April 18, 2019 [6 favorites]
Any word from Pelosi today?
She issued a joint statement with Schumer calling for Mueller to testify publicly, which I think is the correct next move.
posted by Justinian at 12:26 PM on April 18, 2019 [17 favorites]
She issued a joint statement with Schumer calling for Mueller to testify publicly, which I think is the correct next move.
posted by Justinian at 12:26 PM on April 18, 2019 [17 favorites]
well, now that everyone (well, let's be honest, every republican) knows what you can get away with as president and still face no consequences, and that you really *would* effectively be above the law, can you imagine the floodgates it opens post-trump?
Nobody was prosecuted for Bush's torture regime either, Iran-Contra was closed up by Barr's pardons. This goes back a long way.
posted by BungaDunga at 12:28 PM on April 18, 2019 [24 favorites]
Nobody was prosecuted for Bush's torture regime either, Iran-Contra was closed up by Barr's pardons. This goes back a long way.
posted by BungaDunga at 12:28 PM on April 18, 2019 [24 favorites]
The Mueller Report Is an Impeachment Referral (Yoni Appelbaum, The Atlantic)
A basic principle lies at the heart of the American criminal-justice system: The accused is entitled to a fair defense and a chance to clear his name. Every American is entitled to this protection, from the humblest citizen all the way up to the chief executive. And that, Mueller explained in his report, is why criminal allegations against a sitting president should be considered by Congress and not the Justice Department. The Mueller report, in short, is an impeachment referral.posted by ZeusHumms at 12:28 PM on April 18, 2019 [36 favorites]
> mark my words-- trump 2.0 is in his B-school cafeteria right now, reading this shit and getting all sorts of fuckin ideas.
Trump 2.0 was reagan. trump 1.0 was nixon. we are now on the fourth major revision of trump.
posted by Reclusive Novelist Thomas Pynchon at 12:31 PM on April 18, 2019 [32 favorites]
Trump 2.0 was reagan. trump 1.0 was nixon. we are now on the fourth major revision of trump.
posted by Reclusive Novelist Thomas Pynchon at 12:31 PM on April 18, 2019 [32 favorites]
I feel like the ultimate conclusion is not that complicated and is what we’ve known all along: Russia interfered to get Trump elected, and Trump repeatedly lied and tried to shut down the investigation to cover it up. That’s all Democrats need to say, repeatedly. Remember that a key part of the investigation was Mueller charging Russian operatives for their crimes. Trump’s efforts to stop the investigation would have protected them just the same. He’s been on their side publicly and privately since the campaign.
Trump tried to cover up the crimes of Russian hackers. It’s that simple.
posted by zachlipton at 12:41 PM on April 18, 2019 [69 favorites]
Trump tried to cover up the crimes of Russian hackers. It’s that simple.
posted by zachlipton at 12:41 PM on April 18, 2019 [69 favorites]
that activity suggests that there's something huge that Trump and his closest people are absolutely desperate to keep hidden.
Yes, and we know what it is, and knew all along. The Trump Crime Family are criminals. And so are a whole huge bunch of Republicans. Some of the crimes are related and some are not, it doesn't really matter.
The problem here is that the crimes are so huge and wide-reaching that uncovering them will be a huge challenge to American democracy. If the president and all of his cabinet and half or more of all senators and representatives are involved, how do you even deal with that? How does democracy continue after that?
It's not only a challenge for the Republicans, it's a problem for everyone, everyone who ever voted R, but also for the Democrats. It may seem easy to just say their opponents are crooks, but it is so off limits that it is almost impossible.
posted by mumimor at 12:41 PM on April 18, 2019 [15 favorites]
Yes, and we know what it is, and knew all along. The Trump Crime Family are criminals. And so are a whole huge bunch of Republicans. Some of the crimes are related and some are not, it doesn't really matter.
The problem here is that the crimes are so huge and wide-reaching that uncovering them will be a huge challenge to American democracy. If the president and all of his cabinet and half or more of all senators and representatives are involved, how do you even deal with that? How does democracy continue after that?
It's not only a challenge for the Republicans, it's a problem for everyone, everyone who ever voted R, but also for the Democrats. It may seem easy to just say their opponents are crooks, but it is so off limits that it is almost impossible.
posted by mumimor at 12:41 PM on April 18, 2019 [15 favorites]
A screengrab of all the pages of the Mueller report, showing the redactions
posted by homunculus at 12:42 PM on April 18, 2019 [23 favorites]
posted by homunculus at 12:42 PM on April 18, 2019 [23 favorites]
I feel like the ultimate conclusion is not that complicated and is what we’ve known all along: Russia interfered to get Trump elected, and Trump repeatedly lied and tried to shut down the investigation to cover it up. That’s all Democrats need to say, repeatedly.
It'll have the additional advantage of really getting under Trump's skin -- hearing over and over that he wouldn't have won except for the Russkies' help.
Hearing it from someone other than Putin, I mean.
posted by Gelatin at 12:43 PM on April 18, 2019 [9 favorites]
It'll have the additional advantage of really getting under Trump's skin -- hearing over and over that he wouldn't have won except for the Russkies' help.
Hearing it from someone other than Putin, I mean.
posted by Gelatin at 12:43 PM on April 18, 2019 [9 favorites]
The most charitable reading that I can come up with is Russia wanted to help Trump and Trump wanted Russia’s help but the morons and flunkies he surrounds himself with were too fucking stupid to pull it off.
And Barr is pretty transparently putting a narrative of “no crime” into the proceedings to subvert any attempt at impeachment. And the low bar established by Clinton’s impeachment means Trump will walk.
The Republicans pushed everything off on Mueller because it kept their hands clean and meant they didn’t have to perform serious oversight and actually unearth corruption by the executive because it would have jeopardized their tax cuts and appointments of conservative judges.
Impeachment on Russia is a loser for the Democrats. Best bet is to move on to tax returns and expose Trump’s emoluments violations or his statements about pardoning ICE officials if they violate the law for him. That is what he can be impeached for and that is where the damage can be pursued at this point.
posted by Big Al 8000 at 12:43 PM on April 18, 2019 [10 favorites]
And Barr is pretty transparently putting a narrative of “no crime” into the proceedings to subvert any attempt at impeachment. And the low bar established by Clinton’s impeachment means Trump will walk.
The Republicans pushed everything off on Mueller because it kept their hands clean and meant they didn’t have to perform serious oversight and actually unearth corruption by the executive because it would have jeopardized their tax cuts and appointments of conservative judges.
Impeachment on Russia is a loser for the Democrats. Best bet is to move on to tax returns and expose Trump’s emoluments violations or his statements about pardoning ICE officials if they violate the law for him. That is what he can be impeached for and that is where the damage can be pursued at this point.
posted by Big Al 8000 at 12:43 PM on April 18, 2019 [10 favorites]
I keep remember John Brennan saying:
""Frequently, people who go along a treasonous path do not know they are on a treasonous path until it is too late"
And ex-CIA agent Glenn Carle saying:
"It also seems certain that Trump is uncontrollable and would not ever consider himself a spy, but many spies don't consider themselves spies and often don't even know that they're spies. And intelligence services couldn’t care less about that.
What matters to them is exploiting people, and that is what is happening here."
And Clint Watts saying:
"In Trump and his campaign, Mr. Putin spotted a golden opportunity — an easily ingratiated celebrity motivated by fame and fortune, a foreign policy novice surrounded by unscreened opportunists open to manipulation and unaware of Russia’s long run game of subversion."
And way back in August, 2016, former CIA Director Michael Morell saying:
"In the intelligence business, we would say that Mr. Putin had recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation."
posted by OnceUponATime at 12:45 PM on April 18, 2019 [77 favorites]
""Frequently, people who go along a treasonous path do not know they are on a treasonous path until it is too late"
And ex-CIA agent Glenn Carle saying:
"It also seems certain that Trump is uncontrollable and would not ever consider himself a spy, but many spies don't consider themselves spies and often don't even know that they're spies. And intelligence services couldn’t care less about that.
What matters to them is exploiting people, and that is what is happening here."
And Clint Watts saying:
"In Trump and his campaign, Mr. Putin spotted a golden opportunity — an easily ingratiated celebrity motivated by fame and fortune, a foreign policy novice surrounded by unscreened opportunists open to manipulation and unaware of Russia’s long run game of subversion."
And way back in August, 2016, former CIA Director Michael Morell saying:
"In the intelligence business, we would say that Mr. Putin had recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation."
posted by OnceUponATime at 12:45 PM on April 18, 2019 [77 favorites]
Here are a couple of good, long and thorough Twitter threads on the report:
Seth Abramson: "This thread chronicles—in real time—the release of the Mueller Report, with news and analysis from a @Newsweek columnist and @NYTimes bestselling author (Proof of Collusion). Please retweet this thread widely for those you think might benefit from it."
(Here are links to skip ahead to Barr's presser and the report.)
Jared Yates Sexton: "All right. I just finished the Mueller Report. I'm going to combine the most shocking and important revelations in one thread. Long and short: there was collusion, there was obstruction, Donald Trump needs to be removed from office. Immediately. 1/"
posted by homunculus at 12:47 PM on April 18, 2019 [29 favorites]
Seth Abramson: "This thread chronicles—in real time—the release of the Mueller Report, with news and analysis from a @Newsweek columnist and @NYTimes bestselling author (Proof of Collusion). Please retweet this thread widely for those you think might benefit from it."
(Here are links to skip ahead to Barr's presser and the report.)
Jared Yates Sexton: "All right. I just finished the Mueller Report. I'm going to combine the most shocking and important revelations in one thread. Long and short: there was collusion, there was obstruction, Donald Trump needs to be removed from office. Immediately. 1/"
posted by homunculus at 12:47 PM on April 18, 2019 [29 favorites]
Just Security: The (Redacted) Mueller Report: First Takes from the Experts
John Brennan yesterday on MSNBC: "If we see a lot of roller-brushing, it’s what they call it in the redaction business, of pages that are totally blacked out ... I think it reflects then the guidance that was given by Barr, and I think there will be legitimate cries of a cover-up."
posted by Doktor Zed at 12:51 PM on April 18, 2019 [17 favorites]
Asha Rangappa: "Notably, the report extensively challenges the legal basis of the DOJ policy as well as Trump’s (i.e., Barr’s) Article II defense. It also makes an affirmative case for Congress’ authority to investigate obstruction of justice by the president and observes that the president could be exposed to criminal liability once he leaves office, thereby justifying a full investigation and gathering of evidence. In doing so, Mueller makes clear that his findings were intended for independent evaluation by Congress, or by future prosecutors — not by Barr himself."A screengrab of all the pages of the Mueller report, showing the redactions
Harvard Law Prof. Alex Whiting: "[T]he report is dismissive of any statutory or constitutional barriers to a criminal obstruction charge against the President. The sole question is whether the evidence would be sufficient to bring a charge. [W]ith respect to the question of evidence, the report lays out a pattern of acts by the President to interfere with or end the investigation based on substantial and corroborated evidence."
Former Obama NSC official Tess Bridgeman: "[I]t is striking that the report lays out in great factual detail Russia’s sweeping interference in the 2016 U.S. elections (which was already established) and the “numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump Campaign,” but draws conclusions only about criminal charging decisions. The report also provides a road map to issues that were not able to be conclusively settled during the course of the Special Counsel’s investigation. The upshot: It is still up to Congress to investigate the non-criminal aspects of Russia’s election interference and the Trump campaign’s role, to hold accountable those who participated in and knowingly benefited from a foreign state’s attempts to subvert our democratic processes, and to pass legislation that could help secure our elections from future interference."
John Brennan yesterday on MSNBC: "If we see a lot of roller-brushing, it’s what they call it in the redaction business, of pages that are totally blacked out ... I think it reflects then the guidance that was given by Barr, and I think there will be legitimate cries of a cover-up."
posted by Doktor Zed at 12:51 PM on April 18, 2019 [17 favorites]
Trump tried to cover up the crimes of Russian hackers. It’s that simple.
. . and to stop any investigation that could expose a zillion crimes he's been committing since before he was born. Covering up and obstructing is as common to Trump daily as golf.
posted by Harry Caul at 12:51 PM on April 18, 2019 [10 favorites]
. . and to stop any investigation that could expose a zillion crimes he's been committing since before he was born. Covering up and obstructing is as common to Trump daily as golf.
posted by Harry Caul at 12:51 PM on April 18, 2019 [10 favorites]
@danabashcnn: House Majority @LeaderHoyer just told me : “Based on what we have seen to date, going forward on impeachment is not worthwhile at this point. Very frankly, there is an election in 18 months and the American people will make a judgement,”
And there it is. The President is above the law because no institution is capable of handling this moment.
posted by zachlipton at 12:54 PM on April 18, 2019 [69 favorites]
And there it is. The President is above the law because no institution is capable of handling this moment.
posted by zachlipton at 12:54 PM on April 18, 2019 [69 favorites]
He's above the law because Republicans in the Senate have chosen to put him there. Period. It's up to us now.
But I'm not heartbroken because we had a free and fair election in 2018 and I believe we can have one again.
And once Trump is out of office, there are dozens of things besides "collusion" he can likely be charged with. Money laundering, for starters.
posted by OnceUponATime at 12:57 PM on April 18, 2019 [14 favorites]
But I'm not heartbroken because we had a free and fair election in 2018 and I believe we can have one again.
And once Trump is out of office, there are dozens of things besides "collusion" he can likely be charged with. Money laundering, for starters.
posted by OnceUponATime at 12:57 PM on April 18, 2019 [14 favorites]
House Majority @LeaderHoyer just told me : “Based on what we have seen to date, going forward on impeachment is not worthwhile at this point. Very frankly, there is an election in 18 months and the American people will make a judgement”
Here's Hoyer's contact info, 'cos he needs to hear that he's going to be primaried hard if he sticks to that line and will be a lame duck long before the 2020 elections:
posted by Doktor Zed at 1:03 PM on April 18, 2019 [29 favorites]
Here's Hoyer's contact info, 'cos he needs to hear that he's going to be primaried hard if he sticks to that line and will be a lame duck long before the 2020 elections:
Washington, DC Office: Phone - (202) 225-4131 /Fax - (202) 225-4300The Dem establishment needs to be every bit as wary of pissing off their constituents as congressional GOPers are.
Northern Office, Greenbelt, MD: Phone - (301) 474-0119 / Fax - (301) 474-4697
Southern Office: White Plains, MD: Phone - (301) 843-1577 / Fax - (301) 843-1331
Majority Leader’s Office: Phone - (202) 225-3130
posted by Doktor Zed at 1:03 PM on April 18, 2019 [29 favorites]
And once Trump is out of office, there are dozens of things besides "collusion" he can likely be charged with. Money laundering, for starters.
And in particular, things like New York State Insurance Fraud, that he unambiguously cannot pardon. I still see Donald’s long-term future as prison or exile.
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 1:05 PM on April 18, 2019 [5 favorites]
And in particular, things like New York State Insurance Fraud, that he unambiguously cannot pardon. I still see Donald’s long-term future as prison or exile.
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 1:05 PM on April 18, 2019 [5 favorites]
If anyone would like an appropriate Mueller investigation t-shirt, Raygun has you covered.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 1:07 PM on April 18, 2019 [6 favorites]
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 1:07 PM on April 18, 2019 [6 favorites]
House Majority @LeaderHoyer just told me : “Based on what we have seen to date, going forward on impeachment is not worthwhile at this point. Very frankly, there is an election in 18 months and the American people will make a judgement”
Greg Sargent: This needs to be understood as straight-up abdication on the part of @LeaderHoyer himself. Note that he's even taking an impeachment *inquiry* off the table. Remarkable cowardice and dereliction of basic duty.
posted by zombieflanders at 1:09 PM on April 18, 2019 [57 favorites]
Greg Sargent: This needs to be understood as straight-up abdication on the part of @LeaderHoyer himself. Note that he's even taking an impeachment *inquiry* off the table. Remarkable cowardice and dereliction of basic duty.
posted by zombieflanders at 1:09 PM on April 18, 2019 [57 favorites]
Progressive (lowercase p) liberal -- not registered with any party -- here who dislikes the Democratic leadership.... and I still agree with them on not pushing for impeachment. An impeachment process will not generate a conviction in the Senate, and can backfire. Use the House to investigate, subpoena, and report on the findings. Then work hard to take control of the White House and Senate in 2020 armed with truth.
posted by terrapin at 1:12 PM on April 18, 2019 [17 favorites]
posted by terrapin at 1:12 PM on April 18, 2019 [17 favorites]
“we determined not to apply an approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the President committed crimes.”
WHich brings us back to Rule 1: never, ever, trust a Republican.
Mueller decided from the beginning that he would not conduct a real investigation, and surprise, he didn't. Its round #54334532 of Lucy and the football with the Democrats playing the role of Charlie Brown and confident that **this time** the Republicans won't screw them over.
Pelosi and every other Democrat should have been screaming from the very beginning that given Mueller's long history of being a Republican his investigation was nothing but a coverup, because that's exactly what it was.
Mueller started out determined not to find any evidence of crimes by the President, and gee what a surprise, he found no crimes by the President. And in so doing he blunted and diluted outrage against Trump for two solid years and is now giving Trump exactly the sort of vague foggy crap that can be easily spun into "I'm totally innocent!" which, of course is exactly what Trump is doing.
If our system is set up in such a way that the Democrats couldn't arrange for a Starr type super hostile dig into every possible crime type investigation then our system is broken and that should have been their message from the outset. Instead we got mealy mouthed BS about trusting Muller and trusting the system and, what a surprise, yet again we got burned and Trump got a huge PR victory he can strut and crow about until his inevitable re-election.
Good job Democrats!
posted by sotonohito at 1:15 PM on April 18, 2019 [35 favorites]
WHich brings us back to Rule 1: never, ever, trust a Republican.
Mueller decided from the beginning that he would not conduct a real investigation, and surprise, he didn't. Its round #54334532 of Lucy and the football with the Democrats playing the role of Charlie Brown and confident that **this time** the Republicans won't screw them over.
Pelosi and every other Democrat should have been screaming from the very beginning that given Mueller's long history of being a Republican his investigation was nothing but a coverup, because that's exactly what it was.
Mueller started out determined not to find any evidence of crimes by the President, and gee what a surprise, he found no crimes by the President. And in so doing he blunted and diluted outrage against Trump for two solid years and is now giving Trump exactly the sort of vague foggy crap that can be easily spun into "I'm totally innocent!" which, of course is exactly what Trump is doing.
If our system is set up in such a way that the Democrats couldn't arrange for a Starr type super hostile dig into every possible crime type investigation then our system is broken and that should have been their message from the outset. Instead we got mealy mouthed BS about trusting Muller and trusting the system and, what a surprise, yet again we got burned and Trump got a huge PR victory he can strut and crow about until his inevitable re-election.
Good job Democrats!
posted by sotonohito at 1:15 PM on April 18, 2019 [35 favorites]
Brian Beutler:
Some things Democrats could say if they weren’t terrified of doing the right thing:posted by zombieflanders at 1:16 PM on April 18, 2019 [67 favorites]
“The president and his cronies desperately wanted Putin’s help and then they committed crime after crime to cover it up. This report confirms our worst fears.”
“The president has spent two years shouting No Collusion. This report makes clear once and for all that he was lying.”
“Special Counsel Mueller wrote an impeachment referral but the attorney general intercepted it and lied about its contents to protect the president.”
Instead we get Hoyer’s nonsense and a raft of statements that ignore the abundant collusion documented in the report. Because they’re scared the truth might lead them to impeachment. It’s pathetic. It lets the country down. And it reinforces Trump’s sense of his own impunity.
Based on what we have seen to date, going forward on impeachment is not worthwhile at this point.
Why would you say that a few hours after we learn that the conclusion of the Special Counsel is essentially an impeachment referral?
posted by diogenes at 1:21 PM on April 18, 2019 [16 favorites]
Why would you say that a few hours after we learn that the conclusion of the Special Counsel is essentially an impeachment referral?
posted by diogenes at 1:21 PM on April 18, 2019 [16 favorites]
What I just wrote to my reps Nadler, Gillibrand and Schumer:
“Majority Leader Hoyer's statement that it's not worth even pursuing an impeachment inquiry is reprehensible and a complete abdication of Congress and Democrats’ constitutional duty. Forget an election 18 months from now, we just had an election 5 months ago where tens of millions voted to hold Trump responsible. That's the only reason Hoyer is Majority Leader now and not the powerless figure he apparently wants to go back to. As your constituent I will not vote in future elections for Democrats who dismiss their duties to the republic. Every day Trump stays in power is another day for a further catastrophe. And even if not impeached or convicted, an inquiry will yield evidence of wrongdoing that will help prevent reelection. Do your job!”
posted by chris24 at 1:21 PM on April 18, 2019 [45 favorites]
“Majority Leader Hoyer's statement that it's not worth even pursuing an impeachment inquiry is reprehensible and a complete abdication of Congress and Democrats’ constitutional duty. Forget an election 18 months from now, we just had an election 5 months ago where tens of millions voted to hold Trump responsible. That's the only reason Hoyer is Majority Leader now and not the powerless figure he apparently wants to go back to. As your constituent I will not vote in future elections for Democrats who dismiss their duties to the republic. Every day Trump stays in power is another day for a further catastrophe. And even if not impeached or convicted, an inquiry will yield evidence of wrongdoing that will help prevent reelection. Do your job!”
posted by chris24 at 1:21 PM on April 18, 2019 [45 favorites]
Instead we get Hoyer’s nonsense and a raft of statements that ignore the abundant collusion documented in the report. Because they’re scared the truth might lead them to impeachment.
I disagree. They're scared the media will cover the case as a he-said, she-said, bringing Rudy Giuliani on to spin Trump's case and presenting his lies on an equal footing with the preponderance of evidence that Trump is a crook.
Just like they've been doing since Trump rode the escalator.
Their cowardice is shameful, but they aren't wrong in understanding the so-called "liberal media" won't have their back -- major outlets are still giving credence to Barr's partisan obstructionism in pretending the report found no criminal activity, despite being suckered by Barr once before.
We shouldn't let the media off the hook for its culpability in enabling Trump's cover-up.
posted by Gelatin at 1:22 PM on April 18, 2019 [12 favorites]
I disagree. They're scared the media will cover the case as a he-said, she-said, bringing Rudy Giuliani on to spin Trump's case and presenting his lies on an equal footing with the preponderance of evidence that Trump is a crook.
Just like they've been doing since Trump rode the escalator.
Their cowardice is shameful, but they aren't wrong in understanding the so-called "liberal media" won't have their back -- major outlets are still giving credence to Barr's partisan obstructionism in pretending the report found no criminal activity, despite being suckered by Barr once before.
We shouldn't let the media off the hook for its culpability in enabling Trump's cover-up.
posted by Gelatin at 1:22 PM on April 18, 2019 [12 favorites]
This is how I feel as well, Gelatin. The media is the unknown, and how they report will set how the American people respond. And so far the media has thrown up misleading headlines, and the American people (mostly) aren't choosing to read beyond those.
posted by terrapin at 1:26 PM on April 18, 2019 [1 favorite]
posted by terrapin at 1:26 PM on April 18, 2019 [1 favorite]
Mod note: I know it's difficult not to bring comparisons to previous administrations in, but those are all fights we've had many times before. Let's keep this reasonably focused, please. I'm not modding it as if it were a catch-all, but please don't use that as an excuse to start up the same repetitive arguments. Thanks.
posted by restless_nomad (staff) at 1:27 PM on April 18, 2019 [6 favorites]
posted by restless_nomad (staff) at 1:27 PM on April 18, 2019 [6 favorites]
John Dean on CNN: “The Attorney General violated all the norms established after Watergate and brought us right back to that dark time.”
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 1:35 PM on April 18, 2019 [29 favorites]
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 1:35 PM on April 18, 2019 [29 favorites]
Rep. Hoyer, an hour ago: "The #MuellerReport makes clear Russia “interfered in the 2016 presidential election in a sweeping & systematic fashion” and does not make a determination regarding obstruction of justice; the report does not exonerate POTUS."
Here's his wishy-washy statement—"House Democrats, while continuing to move forward with our agenda of opportunity and economic growth for the people, will do our part responsibly by investigating whether obstruction of justice occurred and the scope of Russian interference. To that end, Special Counsel Mueller ought to testify before Congress and explain his findings in greater detail."
Majority Leader’s Office: Phone - (202) 225-3130
It was absurdly easy contacting Hoyer's office—I got through on the first try and told his staffer that he'll be primaried if he doesn't do better. His line should be tied up with irate constituents irate that he's unable to even speak the i-word.
posted by Doktor Zed at 1:36 PM on April 18, 2019 [6 favorites]
Here's his wishy-washy statement—"House Democrats, while continuing to move forward with our agenda of opportunity and economic growth for the people, will do our part responsibly by investigating whether obstruction of justice occurred and the scope of Russian interference. To that end, Special Counsel Mueller ought to testify before Congress and explain his findings in greater detail."
Majority Leader’s Office: Phone - (202) 225-3130
It was absurdly easy contacting Hoyer's office—I got through on the first try and told his staffer that he'll be primaried if he doesn't do better. His line should be tied up with irate constituents irate that he's unable to even speak the i-word.
posted by Doktor Zed at 1:36 PM on April 18, 2019 [6 favorites]
Congratulations Steny Hoyer! You've got me seriously considering changing my registration from Democrat, quitting my Democratic Town Committee, and joining the DSA. I never much liked the phrase "The lesser of two evils is still evil," but it's suddenly growing on me.
posted by diogenes at 1:37 PM on April 18, 2019 [10 favorites]
posted by diogenes at 1:37 PM on April 18, 2019 [10 favorites]
As a committed fan of voting for the lesser evil, what gets me is that "we can't stop Team Evil from doing corruption, let's just vote them out in two years" isn't even lesser evil. It's exactly the same amount of evil happening in those two years, just with a hope of maybe cutting it short at the end.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 1:40 PM on April 18, 2019 [25 favorites]
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 1:40 PM on April 18, 2019 [25 favorites]
There's a lot of media focus on the obstruction volume -- where it's an impeachment referral -- and on the Burn After Reading elements of the first volume, but the chilling aspect is that Russia had a preferred outcome for the 2016 election, took steps to get that outcome, and got that outcome, and that there is no way to make a direct causal link for the final step.
As others have said, it's political malpractice to assume that the 2020 election will remove the incumbent, given that the last one was so manipulable even when Obama had authority over the executive branch. If he's essentially told that he can commit impeachable acts with impunity, he's going to keep doing them, and so can any other president.
posted by holgate at 1:41 PM on April 18, 2019 [66 favorites]
As others have said, it's political malpractice to assume that the 2020 election will remove the incumbent, given that the last one was so manipulable even when Obama had authority over the executive branch. If he's essentially told that he can commit impeachable acts with impunity, he's going to keep doing them, and so can any other president.
posted by holgate at 1:41 PM on April 18, 2019 [66 favorites]
terrapin The media is the unknown, and how they report will set how the American people respond.
While I agree wholly with the latter part of that statement, I must disagree completely with the former.
The media is not unknown. The media will not be openly and blatantly pro-Republican, but they will report this in the same covert pro-Republican manner they have reported every other thing for literally my entire life. They will invite Republicans to talk about the report, and will not invite Democrats. If they do invite Democrats to talk it will be a ratio of one Democrat to a minimum of two Republicans.
They will hire actual, literal, Republican operatives as reporters and fail to disclose the partisan affiliation of those Republican operatives. They will hire FOX News personalities and fail to disclose that (see: NPR and Mara Liasson). They will do this in the belief that they are liberal, and must therefore compensate for that dire liberal bias by giving lots of Republicans plenty of space to present their case without contradiction.
They will, in other words, report this as if it proved Trump was entirely, 100%, innocent in all matters and anyone who thinks otherwise is a conspiracy theorist and probably a Communist. We saw this in the "liberal" New York Times and its headline ("A Cloud Over Trump’s Presidency Is Lifted") way back when Barr first started lying about the content of the report.
On FOX every "liberal" paper pushing the Trump is innocent lie will be trumpeted as "even the liberal NYT/CNN/MSNBC/whatever admits the President is innocent" and that will become the dominant narrative.
The media is not unknown. It's either actively Republican or it's captured and effectively Republican.
posted by sotonohito at 1:44 PM on April 18, 2019 [54 favorites]
While I agree wholly with the latter part of that statement, I must disagree completely with the former.
The media is not unknown. The media will not be openly and blatantly pro-Republican, but they will report this in the same covert pro-Republican manner they have reported every other thing for literally my entire life. They will invite Republicans to talk about the report, and will not invite Democrats. If they do invite Democrats to talk it will be a ratio of one Democrat to a minimum of two Republicans.
They will hire actual, literal, Republican operatives as reporters and fail to disclose the partisan affiliation of those Republican operatives. They will hire FOX News personalities and fail to disclose that (see: NPR and Mara Liasson). They will do this in the belief that they are liberal, and must therefore compensate for that dire liberal bias by giving lots of Republicans plenty of space to present their case without contradiction.
They will, in other words, report this as if it proved Trump was entirely, 100%, innocent in all matters and anyone who thinks otherwise is a conspiracy theorist and probably a Communist. We saw this in the "liberal" New York Times and its headline ("A Cloud Over Trump’s Presidency Is Lifted") way back when Barr first started lying about the content of the report.
On FOX every "liberal" paper pushing the Trump is innocent lie will be trumpeted as "even the liberal NYT/CNN/MSNBC/whatever admits the President is innocent" and that will become the dominant narrative.
The media is not unknown. It's either actively Republican or it's captured and effectively Republican.
posted by sotonohito at 1:44 PM on April 18, 2019 [54 favorites]
Republicans ain't gonna vote to convict. So. I mean. That's it. Talk to me when Mitch McConnell and Lindsay Graham change their positions. In the meantime, there is no point in getting mad at Democrats about it. If there were even half a chance of conviction in the Senate, the House would impeach in a heartbeat. So get mad at the people who are the actual roadblock. Getting mad at Democrats feels like victim blaming.
Anyway, here's a statement from House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler.
Anyway, here's a statement from House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler.
“Even in its incomplete form, the Mueller report outlines disturbing evidence that President Trump engaged in obstruction of justice and other misconduct.posted by OnceUponATime at 1:46 PM on April 18, 2019 [29 favorites]
“The report concluded there was ‘substantial evidence’ that President Trump attempted to prevent an investigation into his campaign and his own conduct. Contrary to the Attorney General’s statement this morning that the White House ‘fully cooperated’ with the investigation, the report makes clear that the President refused to be interviewed by the Special Counsel and refused to provide written answers to follow-up questions; and his associates destroyed evidence relevant to the Russia investigation.
“The Special Counsel determined that he would not make a traditional charging decision in part because of the Department of Justice policy that a sitting President could not be indicted. Rather, the Special Counsel’s office conducted an incredibly thorough investigation in order to preserve the evidence for future investigators. The Special Counsel made clear that he did not exonerate the President. The responsibility now falls to Congress to hold the President accountable for his actions.
> Congratulations Steny Hoyer! You've got me seriously considering changing my registration from Democrat, quitting my Democratic Town Committee, and joining the DSA. I never much liked the phrase "The lesser of two evils is still evil," but it's suddenly growing on me.
The great thing about the DSA is that you can join it without changing your registration from Democrat or quitting your positions in Democratic Party institutions.
posted by Reclusive Novelist Thomas Pynchon at 1:48 PM on April 18, 2019 [19 favorites]
The great thing about the DSA is that you can join it without changing your registration from Democrat or quitting your positions in Democratic Party institutions.
posted by Reclusive Novelist Thomas Pynchon at 1:48 PM on April 18, 2019 [19 favorites]
do we have to spend the entirety of Mueller Day having the same argument about quixotic impeachments we've had literally a thousand billion times before
posted by prize bull octorok at 1:49 PM on April 18, 2019 [19 favorites]
posted by prize bull octorok at 1:49 PM on April 18, 2019 [19 favorites]
Yes, we do.
posted by all about eevee at 1:50 PM on April 18, 2019 [17 favorites]
posted by all about eevee at 1:50 PM on April 18, 2019 [17 favorites]
But I'm not heartbroken because we had a free and fair election in 2018 and I believe we can have one again.
Voter Suppression During the 2018 Midterm Elections (American Progress report, posted on November 20, 2018): "This year — perhaps uncoincidentally — severe voter suppression occurred in states with highly competitive political races, including Georgia, Texas, Florida, and North Dakota."
We can't forget about the voter roll purges, the stricter voter ID measures, the machine malfunctions, the poll site closures & long lines, all of that, please!
posted by Iris Gambol at 1:51 PM on April 18, 2019 [35 favorites]
Voter Suppression During the 2018 Midterm Elections (American Progress report, posted on November 20, 2018): "This year — perhaps uncoincidentally — severe voter suppression occurred in states with highly competitive political races, including Georgia, Texas, Florida, and North Dakota."
We can't forget about the voter roll purges, the stricter voter ID measures, the machine malfunctions, the poll site closures & long lines, all of that, please!
posted by Iris Gambol at 1:51 PM on April 18, 2019 [35 favorites]
And so far the media has thrown up misleading headlines, and the American people (mostly) aren't choosing to read beyond those.
Speaking of misleading headlines, CNN has posted another one: Carter Page Didn’t Coordinate With Russians Despite Ties to Russian Spies, Mueller Says
Once again, Mueller's report sticks to very legalistic constraints when establishing facts: "Russian intelligence officials had formed relationships with Page in 2008 and 2013 and Russian officials may have focused on Page in 2016 because of his affiliation with the Campaign. However, the investigation did not establish that Page coordinated with the Russian government in its efforts to interfere with the 2016 presidential election." (Emphasis added, because this is Mueller's constant refrain.)
One interesting detail, however, is Page's qualified corroboration of the Steele Dossier:
posted by Doktor Zed at 1:51 PM on April 18, 2019 [6 favorites]
Speaking of misleading headlines, CNN has posted another one: Carter Page Didn’t Coordinate With Russians Despite Ties to Russian Spies, Mueller Says
Once again, Mueller's report sticks to very legalistic constraints when establishing facts: "Russian intelligence officials had formed relationships with Page in 2008 and 2013 and Russian officials may have focused on Page in 2016 because of his affiliation with the Campaign. However, the investigation did not establish that Page coordinated with the Russian government in its efforts to interfere with the 2016 presidential election." (Emphasis added, because this is Mueller's constant refrain.)
One interesting detail, however, is Page's qualified corroboration of the Steele Dossier:
During one of Page’s multiple interviews with investigators in 2017, he appears to have partially confirmed a detail that first appeared in the controversial Trump-Russia dossier.That's by no means a definitive link, of course, but Mueller isn't claiming it is. Any reasonable person would fine it incriminatingly suspicious, though.
The dossier said Page met the president of Rosneft, a state-run oil company, and discussed a deal for Trump to lift US sanctions in exchange for future energy cooperation between the two countries.
What's in the report: Special counsel Robert Mueller's report said Page actually met Andrey Baranov, Rosneft's head of investor relations. Page told investigators they “might have mentioned the possibility of a sale of a stake in Rosneft in passing.” But Page has always vehemently denied brokering any quid-pro-quo regarding Trump and Rosneft.
posted by Doktor Zed at 1:51 PM on April 18, 2019 [6 favorites]
They're scared the media will cover the case as a he-said, she-said
For what it's worth, it's been interesting watching the banner headlines at NY Times, WaPo and CNN evolve over the course of the day. Immediately after the report came out, all three had wishy-washy headlines which basically followed Barr's spin on things. Times and WaPo have rewritten multiple times during the day and are currently much more directly damning of Trump: "Mueller Report Reveals Trump’s Efforts to Thwart Russian Inquiry" and "Mueller lays out obstruction evidence against Trump", and even CNN's meh "Mueller report: What we've learned" is sub-headed "Trump Tried To Remove Mueller."
For most of the morning I worried the skim-reading majority would come away with the impression that the Mueller report was just a big fat nothing, but it's looking like there was just too much in there to hand-wave away.
(Haven't had the stomach to check Fox News, though.)
posted by ook at 1:53 PM on April 18, 2019 [9 favorites]
For what it's worth, it's been interesting watching the banner headlines at NY Times, WaPo and CNN evolve over the course of the day. Immediately after the report came out, all three had wishy-washy headlines which basically followed Barr's spin on things. Times and WaPo have rewritten multiple times during the day and are currently much more directly damning of Trump: "Mueller Report Reveals Trump’s Efforts to Thwart Russian Inquiry" and "Mueller lays out obstruction evidence against Trump", and even CNN's meh "Mueller report: What we've learned" is sub-headed "Trump Tried To Remove Mueller."
For most of the morning I worried the skim-reading majority would come away with the impression that the Mueller report was just a big fat nothing, but it's looking like there was just too much in there to hand-wave away.
(Haven't had the stomach to check Fox News, though.)
posted by ook at 1:53 PM on April 18, 2019 [9 favorites]
Fox's headline: "Mueller report reveals top Trump advisers resisting, defying president's requests on probe"
posted by prize bull octorok at 1:54 PM on April 18, 2019 [9 favorites]
posted by prize bull octorok at 1:54 PM on April 18, 2019 [9 favorites]
do we have to spend the entirety of Mueller Day having the same argument about quixotic impeachments we've had literally a thousand billion times before
We didn’t have the (redacted) Mueller Report before detailing hundreds of pages of high crimes and misdemeanors.
posted by chris24 at 1:55 PM on April 18, 2019 [11 favorites]
We didn’t have the (redacted) Mueller Report before detailing hundreds of pages of high crimes and misdemeanors.
posted by chris24 at 1:55 PM on April 18, 2019 [11 favorites]
> do we have to spend the entirety of Mueller Day having the same argument about quixotic impeachments we've had literally a thousand billion times before.
we shouldn’t spend the entirety of the day on them, but we should at least have them.
A quixotic impeachment isn’t necessarily about removing our President from office. It’s about forcing more investigations and doing them through a public process that even our captured media outlets can’t ignore. It’s a tool to both focus and produce mass public dissent against our President.
Yes, I know: Clinton. Quixotic impeachment did not help the Republicans remove Clinton... but 1: Clinton’s not a mob boss beholden to hostile foreign governments, 2: although the Clinton impeachment didn’t result in Clinton’s impeachment, it did result in the man who should have been his successor distancing himself from him despite his popularity, naming a wet sack of a right-winger as his Vice Presidential candidate, and coming so close to losing the election of 2000 that it was relatively easy for a gang of right wing judges and thugs to steal it.
Beyond this: if we have an impeachment process, we likely won’t get a conviction and removal from office. but if we don’t have an impeachment process, we definitely won’t get a conviction and removal from office. A party on the attack knows to work every angle, even the low probability of success ones... because a low probability of success is nevertheless a possibility of success.
The only argument against impeachment that resonates for me is the argument that Barr should be impeached first. Impeaching Barr first both serves as a venue to gather [more dirt on / loud public dissent against] our President, and may also put the fear of God into anyone else who might think it’s acceptable to toady for him.
posted by Reclusive Novelist Thomas Pynchon at 1:58 PM on April 18, 2019 [55 favorites]
we shouldn’t spend the entirety of the day on them, but we should at least have them.
A quixotic impeachment isn’t necessarily about removing our President from office. It’s about forcing more investigations and doing them through a public process that even our captured media outlets can’t ignore. It’s a tool to both focus and produce mass public dissent against our President.
Yes, I know: Clinton. Quixotic impeachment did not help the Republicans remove Clinton... but 1: Clinton’s not a mob boss beholden to hostile foreign governments, 2: although the Clinton impeachment didn’t result in Clinton’s impeachment, it did result in the man who should have been his successor distancing himself from him despite his popularity, naming a wet sack of a right-winger as his Vice Presidential candidate, and coming so close to losing the election of 2000 that it was relatively easy for a gang of right wing judges and thugs to steal it.
Beyond this: if we have an impeachment process, we likely won’t get a conviction and removal from office. but if we don’t have an impeachment process, we definitely won’t get a conviction and removal from office. A party on the attack knows to work every angle, even the low probability of success ones... because a low probability of success is nevertheless a possibility of success.
The only argument against impeachment that resonates for me is the argument that Barr should be impeached first. Impeaching Barr first both serves as a venue to gather [more dirt on / loud public dissent against] our President, and may also put the fear of God into anyone else who might think it’s acceptable to toady for him.
posted by Reclusive Novelist Thomas Pynchon at 1:58 PM on April 18, 2019 [55 favorites]
Kevin Drum, Mother Jones: Mueller Found “Corrupt Intent” Repeatedly in Donald Trump’s Actions Toward the Russia Investigation
He highlights this quote from the report, which:
posted by RedOrGreen at 2:00 PM on April 18, 2019 [12 favorites]
He highlights this quote from the report, which:
The Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) has issued an opinion finding that “the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions” in violation of “the constitutional separation of powers.” Given the role of the Special Counsel as an attorney in the Department of Justice [...] this Office accepted OLC’s legal conclusion for the purpose of exercising prosecutorial jurisdiction.... Sure, his hands were tied, but that's not exactly a profile in courage there for the Mueller investigation.
posted by RedOrGreen at 2:00 PM on April 18, 2019 [12 favorites]
I just called and you can still get through to Hoyer on the 202-225-3130 number so light it up.
posted by chris24 at 2:01 PM on April 18, 2019 [7 favorites]
posted by chris24 at 2:01 PM on April 18, 2019 [7 favorites]
Saving democracy needs to involve eliminating gerrymandering.
posted by terrapin at 2:01 PM on April 18, 2019 [8 favorites]
posted by terrapin at 2:01 PM on April 18, 2019 [8 favorites]
Saving democracy needs to involve eliminating the power of the bourgeoisie.
posted by One Second Before Awakening at 2:02 PM on April 18, 2019 [17 favorites]
posted by One Second Before Awakening at 2:02 PM on April 18, 2019 [17 favorites]
tl;dr: The Mueller report is, as sad as it makes me personally, exactly what I should have expected. Donald is not the cause, but a symptom of our current troubles. Let's fix that instead of hoping for a legalistic solution.
tl:
It is a referral for impeachment. What can be done with that in this environment? Very little.
The rule of law should be absolute. We certainly push this rhetorical perspective. However, the current environment stands directly opposed to this.
It offends me as much as the next person but I think we (speaking as a progressive-leaning liberal type) need to look at crafting a convincing narrative that appeals across class / region / what-have-you. Litigating this may or may not remove Donald from office before 2020, but if the goal is a liberal/progressive democracy, we need to make that our focus.
I admit buying into the idea that this investigation would bring down the wrath of the plebiscite. I think I was wrong. The electorate's decisions on this matter was made up even before the 2020 election. This report is purposely inconclusive. As always, the law is not objective, but a reflection of the society that interprets it.
posted by Fezboy! at 2:06 PM on April 18, 2019 [8 favorites]
tl:
It is a referral for impeachment. What can be done with that in this environment? Very little.
The rule of law should be absolute. We certainly push this rhetorical perspective. However, the current environment stands directly opposed to this.
It offends me as much as the next person but I think we (speaking as a progressive-leaning liberal type) need to look at crafting a convincing narrative that appeals across class / region / what-have-you. Litigating this may or may not remove Donald from office before 2020, but if the goal is a liberal/progressive democracy, we need to make that our focus.
I admit buying into the idea that this investigation would bring down the wrath of the plebiscite. I think I was wrong. The electorate's decisions on this matter was made up even before the 2020 election. This report is purposely inconclusive. As always, the law is not objective, but a reflection of the society that interprets it.
posted by Fezboy! at 2:06 PM on April 18, 2019 [8 favorites]
Fox's headline: "Mueller report reveals top Trump advisers resisting, defying president's requests on probe"
posted by prize bull octorok at 1:54 PM on April 18 [3 favorites +] [!]
They say that like it's a bad thing...
posted by Mental Wimp at 2:09 PM on April 18, 2019 [4 favorites]
posted by prize bull octorok at 1:54 PM on April 18 [3 favorites +] [!]
They say that like it's a bad thing...
posted by Mental Wimp at 2:09 PM on April 18, 2019 [4 favorites]
I think the most relevant piece of data we have regarding impeachment is exactly what happened when the summary of the report was released. The media fell all over itself to report exactly what Barr wanted them to say.
What do you think would happen when the Senate fails to convict? The majority of the voting public only follows the gist of the news. What do you think they’ll get out of “no evidence of wrongdoing informs a party line vote in the Senate; Democrats fail to impeach Trump in what President calls the legitimate defeat of the greatest witch-hunt in history”?
There’s a real chance that a failed impeachment could fuck us over right and proper and I’m even more certain of it now after what shaped the narrative the past few weeks. Congress should investigate the shit out of all of this but impeachment strikes me as at best a terrifying gamble.
posted by lydhre at 2:10 PM on April 18, 2019 [10 favorites]
What do you think would happen when the Senate fails to convict? The majority of the voting public only follows the gist of the news. What do you think they’ll get out of “no evidence of wrongdoing informs a party line vote in the Senate; Democrats fail to impeach Trump in what President calls the legitimate defeat of the greatest witch-hunt in history”?
There’s a real chance that a failed impeachment could fuck us over right and proper and I’m even more certain of it now after what shaped the narrative the past few weeks. Congress should investigate the shit out of all of this but impeachment strikes me as at best a terrifying gamble.
posted by lydhre at 2:10 PM on April 18, 2019 [10 favorites]
it’s about forcing more investigations and doing them through a public process
And the investigation has more or less been done. Everybody is comfortable with the apocryphal boiling frog, and that had a fraction of this report dropped without all the previous reporting or the other impeachment-worthy stuff, it would have a much greater impact. Everybody accepts that the Wikileaks dripfeed of hacked emails kept the press chasing.
So there's no reason why the House can't do that itself. If there's going to be a fight over access to grand jury evidence, you can still call up every witness quoted in the obstruction section, read out the relevant passages, ask "is that true?" and "do you think that was an abuse of office, and if not, why not?" and move on to the next one. Pretty sure you can sustain that for a few months.
posted by holgate at 2:10 PM on April 18, 2019 [6 favorites]
And the investigation has more or less been done. Everybody is comfortable with the apocryphal boiling frog, and that had a fraction of this report dropped without all the previous reporting or the other impeachment-worthy stuff, it would have a much greater impact. Everybody accepts that the Wikileaks dripfeed of hacked emails kept the press chasing.
So there's no reason why the House can't do that itself. If there's going to be a fight over access to grand jury evidence, you can still call up every witness quoted in the obstruction section, read out the relevant passages, ask "is that true?" and "do you think that was an abuse of office, and if not, why not?" and move on to the next one. Pretty sure you can sustain that for a few months.
posted by holgate at 2:10 PM on April 18, 2019 [6 favorites]
Congress can't impeach the president because congress is too corrrupt because congress can't impeach the president because congress is too corrupt...
posted by runcibleshaw at 2:12 PM on April 18, 2019 [6 favorites]
posted by runcibleshaw at 2:12 PM on April 18, 2019 [6 favorites]
And the investigation has more or less been done.
It really hasn't. Even this heavily redacted version of Mueller's report shows substantial non-cooperation and interference from the Trump administration, in large part because Mueller's ability to force compliance upon them was relatively limited. The House is moving more slowly than most of us would like but they are steadily ramping up demands for compliance from the executive and we're at the point where they'll have to start jailing motherfuckers for contempt at this rate.
There's still a lot we don't know. We know a lot about what we don't know, but that's not quite the same thing.
posted by mightygodking at 2:14 PM on April 18, 2019 [34 favorites]
It really hasn't. Even this heavily redacted version of Mueller's report shows substantial non-cooperation and interference from the Trump administration, in large part because Mueller's ability to force compliance upon them was relatively limited. The House is moving more slowly than most of us would like but they are steadily ramping up demands for compliance from the executive and we're at the point where they'll have to start jailing motherfuckers for contempt at this rate.
There's still a lot we don't know. We know a lot about what we don't know, but that's not quite the same thing.
posted by mightygodking at 2:14 PM on April 18, 2019 [34 favorites]
The saddest thing about Hoyer's mealy-mouthed statement is that the truth is right there for him to say, with but a small adjustment:
"Based on what we have seen to date, the GOP Senators hold party above country and wouldn't convict Trump even if he admitted collusion openly."
If the obstacle is the Republican Senate caucus -- and it is -- put the blame where it belongs. Don't piss on our heads about "lack of cause" or "not worth it" or "just go vote" and tell me that it's raining democracy and fairness.
posted by delfin at 2:18 PM on April 18, 2019 [86 favorites]
"Based on what we have seen to date, the GOP Senators hold party above country and wouldn't convict Trump even if he admitted collusion openly."
If the obstacle is the Republican Senate caucus -- and it is -- put the blame where it belongs. Don't piss on our heads about "lack of cause" or "not worth it" or "just go vote" and tell me that it's raining democracy and fairness.
posted by delfin at 2:18 PM on April 18, 2019 [86 favorites]
Don't piss on our heads about "lack of cause" or "not worth it" or "just go vote" and tell me that it's raining democracy and fairness.
Okay, that I can agree with.
posted by OnceUponATime at 2:19 PM on April 18, 2019 [19 favorites]
Okay, that I can agree with.
posted by OnceUponATime at 2:19 PM on April 18, 2019 [19 favorites]
What do you think would happen when the Senate fails to convict?
What do you think would happen when the House decides impeachment is a waste of time? A bunch of potential voters see that Democrats will sit on their hands even when in possession of a 400 page document laying out how Republicans worked with a foreign power to manipulate the electorate then illegally impeded the investigation into their activities. If my representatives are telling me it's not worth it to cast a vote in the House or the Senate, how are they gonna convince me to cast a vote on election day?
posted by parallellines at 2:22 PM on April 18, 2019 [35 favorites]
What do you think would happen when the House decides impeachment is a waste of time? A bunch of potential voters see that Democrats will sit on their hands even when in possession of a 400 page document laying out how Republicans worked with a foreign power to manipulate the electorate then illegally impeded the investigation into their activities. If my representatives are telling me it's not worth it to cast a vote in the House or the Senate, how are they gonna convince me to cast a vote on election day?
posted by parallellines at 2:22 PM on April 18, 2019 [35 favorites]
We need to be precise about the terms impeachment and conviction and removal from office. Bill Clinton was impeached by the House, but not convicted by the Senate. When you say Trump can't be impeached, that's just wrong. He clearly would lose a real vote on his fitness for office in the House. It's exceedingly unlikely that he would be convicted by the Senate and removed from office. But he's a lock for impeachment.
[edited to fix a typo and unclear language]
posted by vibrotronica at 2:25 PM on April 18, 2019 [13 favorites]
[edited to fix a typo and unclear language]
posted by vibrotronica at 2:25 PM on April 18, 2019 [13 favorites]
Fox's headline: "Mueller report reveals top Trump advisers resisting, defying president's requests on probe"
Imagine how that will go over with Trump in light of the Daily Beast's recent article: Trump Tells Aides: ‘Keep an Eye’ on Fox News, Make Sure It Stays Loyal to Me—Even before publicly freaking out about Bernie Sanders’ town hall, the president has long kept tabs on whether the network was going wobbly on him.
posted by Doktor Zed at 2:26 PM on April 18, 2019 [1 favorite]
Imagine how that will go over with Trump in light of the Daily Beast's recent article: Trump Tells Aides: ‘Keep an Eye’ on Fox News, Make Sure It Stays Loyal to Me—Even before publicly freaking out about Bernie Sanders’ town hall, the president has long kept tabs on whether the network was going wobbly on him.
“Keep an eye on it,” Trump started telling aides, according to two people with direct knowledge of his directive, in conversations about what was going on behind-the-scenes at Fox, and if there was any cause for concern for even the slightest positive coverage of any Democrat.[…]It's standard operating procedure in Trumpworld for one faction to boost their standing with Trump by backstabbing another. In particular, Fox highlights the Mueller report's account of the passive resistance of Don McGahn, Rick Dearborn, and Corey Lewandowski (the last of whom still pops up at his old employer CNN).
[P]rivately, President Trump had been raising these questions of institutional loyalty, on-and-off, since at least the middle of last year. Several people who’ve heard him do this view it as more of a gutcheck than a loss of faith, and as yet another indication that Trump can interpret even the smallest deviations as a slight or a betrayal.
posted by Doktor Zed at 2:26 PM on April 18, 2019 [1 favorite]
I was listening to NPR on my drive home from work today and the reporter said something about them not being able to charge Trump Jr. for receiving and tweeting about hacked info because he didn't do the hacking himself. WTF? I don't get it. If someone comes to me and tells me they've got stolen property (like hacked info) and they want to give it to me so I can use it couldn't I get busted for receiving stolen property? And why doesn't this apply to those Trump guys? Lock them all up!
posted by mareli at 2:26 PM on April 18, 2019 [5 favorites]
posted by mareli at 2:26 PM on April 18, 2019 [5 favorites]
Saving democracy needs to involve eliminating the power of the bourgeoisie.
If Robert Reich is to be believed, a long-term campaign of economic and social attacks against a prosperous, liberal middle class are probably what weakened our democracy in the first place. Trump and the Republican Party have been on the front lines of that war for decades, slowly replacing a capitalist system with a state-run economy that integrates corporatism, while successfully branding themselves as labor-friendly.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 2:29 PM on April 18, 2019 [32 favorites]
If Robert Reich is to be believed, a long-term campaign of economic and social attacks against a prosperous, liberal middle class are probably what weakened our democracy in the first place. Trump and the Republican Party have been on the front lines of that war for decades, slowly replacing a capitalist system with a state-run economy that integrates corporatism, while successfully branding themselves as labor-friendly.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 2:29 PM on April 18, 2019 [32 favorites]
If someone comes to me and tells me they've got stolen property (like hacked info) and they want to give it to me so I can use it couldn't I get busted for receiving stolen property? And why doesn't this apply to those Trump guys?
Campaign finance law aside, this is not unlike what reporters do every day. People hand them obviously stolen information and they use it to sell papers.
posted by BungaDunga at 2:30 PM on April 18, 2019 [4 favorites]
Campaign finance law aside, this is not unlike what reporters do every day. People hand them obviously stolen information and they use it to sell papers.
posted by BungaDunga at 2:30 PM on April 18, 2019 [4 favorites]
I'm actually a bit surprised by the coverage today - I think the weight of the report is too much to ignore.
The NYT's current front page: Mueller Details Multiple Contacts With Russians and Trump’s Efforts to Thwart Inquiry; Cites Legal Constraints in Declining to Charge, but Does Not Exonerate
The NYT's current front page: Mueller Details Multiple Contacts With Russians and Trump’s Efforts to Thwart Inquiry; Cites Legal Constraints in Declining to Charge, but Does Not Exonerate
Robert S. Mueller III cataloged in his report the attempts by President Trump to escape an inquiry that imperiled his presidency from the start. The report does not find that Mr. Trump or his aides conspired with Russians, but it lays bare how Mr. Trump was elected with a foreign power’s help.Washington Post goes with:
Mueller lays out obstruction evidence against Trumpposted by RedOrGreen at 2:35 PM on April 18, 2019 [10 favorites]
Report rejects idea that Trump is shielded from obstruction laws
Mueller report finds 10 episodes of suspicious behavior by Trump
Analysis: What Barr buried, misrepresented or ignored
I really hate this line of reasoning that goes "We can't impeach because the GOP senate won't go along with it for partisan reasons and then everyone will know our system is broken". Because acknowledging the system is broken is worse than trying to fix the fucking thing. If you preemptively decide not to fight because your opponent will fight back, you're always going to lose. I can only surmise the Democratic leadership keeps losing because they want to. It's easier than doing their job.
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 2:38 PM on April 18, 2019 [51 favorites]
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 2:38 PM on April 18, 2019 [51 favorites]
If you preemptively decide not to fight because your opponent will fight back, you're always going to lose. I can only surmise the Democratic leadership keeps losing because they want to. It's easier than doing their job.
Holding your colleagues accountable is flat out rude! After all, you work with them every day, you've been networking with them for years, you go to the same parties, you make the same amount of money, your kids hang out with their kids, and you all belong to the same tight social class with its own exclusive set of shared interests. Why would you want to piss off your golf buddies or threaten to put them in jail?
(This is why I only trust the handful of politicians who are clearly, consistently committed to a positive ideology with a clear program of action.)
posted by One Second Before Awakening at 2:44 PM on April 18, 2019 [18 favorites]
Holding your colleagues accountable is flat out rude! After all, you work with them every day, you've been networking with them for years, you go to the same parties, you make the same amount of money, your kids hang out with their kids, and you all belong to the same tight social class with its own exclusive set of shared interests. Why would you want to piss off your golf buddies or threaten to put them in jail?
(This is why I only trust the handful of politicians who are clearly, consistently committed to a positive ideology with a clear program of action.)
posted by One Second Before Awakening at 2:44 PM on April 18, 2019 [18 favorites]
vibrotronica: He clearly would lose a real vote on his fitness for office in the House. It's exceedingly unlikely that he would be convicted by the Senate and removed from office. But he's a lock for impeachment.
Eh, I wouldn't be so certain about that. But to be clear: while I've been very bearish on here about impeachment, I do think that the instant the House starts officially considering the matter, it becomes critical that it be passed. A failed vote in the House would be much worse than the to-be-expected failed vote in the Senate, because of the combination of disillusionment on the left and celebration on the right that "even the Democrats!" didn't find him impeachable. (Also, they would have to try again just to regain the lost political capital.) This possibility, however small, adds to my hesitancy in pushing that ball to begin with.
posted by InTheYear2017 at 2:50 PM on April 18, 2019 [8 favorites]
Eh, I wouldn't be so certain about that. But to be clear: while I've been very bearish on here about impeachment, I do think that the instant the House starts officially considering the matter, it becomes critical that it be passed. A failed vote in the House would be much worse than the to-be-expected failed vote in the Senate, because of the combination of disillusionment on the left and celebration on the right that "even the Democrats!" didn't find him impeachable. (Also, they would have to try again just to regain the lost political capital.) This possibility, however small, adds to my hesitancy in pushing that ball to begin with.
posted by InTheYear2017 at 2:50 PM on April 18, 2019 [8 favorites]
Jamelle Bouie (NYT)
“We shouldn’t impeach because it isn’t what the voters want” is an extremely blinkered vision of politics that presupposes a world where public opinion cannot be moved and political parties cannot shape the political landscape through coordinated action.
• “We shouldn’t impeach because the Senate won’t convict” is an instrumentalist vision of politics that treats it primarily as a tool for removal & ignores the importance of the PROCESS of impeachment as well as the fact that lawmakers have constitutional responsibilities.
• “We shouldn’t impeach because it will make Trump more popular/help him win reelection” is pure conjecture without any evidence other than the half-remembered outcome of the Clinton impeachment. Give it 2 minutes thought and it doesn’t hold together.
• The president of the United States shows open contempt for the Constitution, is flagrantly corrupt, and has repeatedly ordered high level aides to lie and break the law on his behalf, to conceal potential wrongdoing.
• His behavior has rendered him one of the most unpopular presidents of the modern era, deeply opposed by a majority of the public.
• It is virtually certain that an impeachment investigation would uncover even more corrupt and nearly criminal behavior that would diminish his standing even further.
• And in the face of all of that, a surprisingly large number of people—including high-level opposition leadership—have convinced themselves that impeachment isn’t just ineffective, but might even help Trump win reelection.
• 2020 will be about Trump. And the way things are going—the way his opponents refuse to tackle him directly—we will fight that election on his terms, and we will lose as a result.
posted by chris24 at 2:50 PM on April 18, 2019 [86 favorites]
“We shouldn’t impeach because it isn’t what the voters want” is an extremely blinkered vision of politics that presupposes a world where public opinion cannot be moved and political parties cannot shape the political landscape through coordinated action.
• “We shouldn’t impeach because the Senate won’t convict” is an instrumentalist vision of politics that treats it primarily as a tool for removal & ignores the importance of the PROCESS of impeachment as well as the fact that lawmakers have constitutional responsibilities.
• “We shouldn’t impeach because it will make Trump more popular/help him win reelection” is pure conjecture without any evidence other than the half-remembered outcome of the Clinton impeachment. Give it 2 minutes thought and it doesn’t hold together.
• The president of the United States shows open contempt for the Constitution, is flagrantly corrupt, and has repeatedly ordered high level aides to lie and break the law on his behalf, to conceal potential wrongdoing.
• His behavior has rendered him one of the most unpopular presidents of the modern era, deeply opposed by a majority of the public.
• It is virtually certain that an impeachment investigation would uncover even more corrupt and nearly criminal behavior that would diminish his standing even further.
• And in the face of all of that, a surprisingly large number of people—including high-level opposition leadership—have convinced themselves that impeachment isn’t just ineffective, but might even help Trump win reelection.
• 2020 will be about Trump. And the way things are going—the way his opponents refuse to tackle him directly—we will fight that election on his terms, and we will lose as a result.
posted by chris24 at 2:50 PM on April 18, 2019 [86 favorites]
Barr’s Narrative of Victimhood -- The attorney general’s presentation will likely please the president, but does little for the credibility of the Department of Justice. (David A. Graham, staff writer at The Atlantic, April 18, 2019)
In short: instead of instilling public faith in the process or answering questions from the press in this morning's presser, Barr was there to paint Trump the real victim of the Mueller Report. "Put yourself in the poor president’s shoes, Barr pleaded:"
And the emphasis is mine -- this is language of a defending lawyer, making closing (or opening?) statements.
posted by filthy light thief at 2:59 PM on April 18, 2019 [20 favorites]
In short: instead of instilling public faith in the process or answering questions from the press in this morning's presser, Barr was there to paint Trump the real victim of the Mueller Report. "Put yourself in the poor president’s shoes, Barr pleaded:"
In assessing the President’s actions discussed in the report, it is important to bear in mind the context. President Trump faced an unprecedented situation. As he entered into office, and sought to perform his responsibilities as President, federal agents and prosecutors were scrutinizing his conduct before and after taking office, and the conduct of some of his associates. At the same time, there was relentless speculation in the news media about the President’s personal culpability. Yet, as he said from the beginning, there was in fact no collusion. And as the Special Counsel’s report acknowledges, there is substantial evidence to show that the President was frustrated and angered by a sincere belief that the investigation was undermining his presidency, propelled by his political opponents, and fueled by illegal leaks.This was part of Barr's pre-release statement.
And the emphasis is mine -- this is language of a defending lawyer, making closing (or opening?) statements.
posted by filthy light thief at 2:59 PM on April 18, 2019 [20 favorites]
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortes: "While I understand the political reality of the Senate + election considerations, upon reading this DoJ report, which explicitly names Congress in determining obstruction, I cannot see a reason for us to abdicate from our constitutionally mandated responsibility to investigate."
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 3:13 PM on April 18, 2019 [150 favorites]
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 3:13 PM on April 18, 2019 [150 favorites]
Draw up your articles of impeachment: We do not believe it is acceptable for a president to do the following:
1. Separate children from asylum seeking families without plans for re-uniting them.
2. Lie to the people about their relationship to Russia during a cyber-attack.
3. Repeatedly order aides to commit crimes, and then punish them for not doing so.
If you need to curry favor with Republican swing voters, keep it simple, and plainly state the high crimes most anyone would agree are not something a president should do. If you don't want it to impact the election, then just start the impeachment process and do it quickly. There's not a lot to debate here.
And then let the Magaheads go to their saner relatives and bitch and moan about how illegals don't deserve children, that lying to the press isn't a crime, that no one actually committed crimes, etc. If I were a moderate Republican, that would probably close the case for me that the party is no longer what it purports to be.
This is being presented to the public as a complicated legal question. Make this simple. Would you want a man who did these things working for you? Well, do you?
posted by xammerboy at 3:50 PM on April 18, 2019 [37 favorites]
1. Separate children from asylum seeking families without plans for re-uniting them.
2. Lie to the people about their relationship to Russia during a cyber-attack.
3. Repeatedly order aides to commit crimes, and then punish them for not doing so.
If you need to curry favor with Republican swing voters, keep it simple, and plainly state the high crimes most anyone would agree are not something a president should do. If you don't want it to impact the election, then just start the impeachment process and do it quickly. There's not a lot to debate here.
And then let the Magaheads go to their saner relatives and bitch and moan about how illegals don't deserve children, that lying to the press isn't a crime, that no one actually committed crimes, etc. If I were a moderate Republican, that would probably close the case for me that the party is no longer what it purports to be.
This is being presented to the public as a complicated legal question. Make this simple. Would you want a man who did these things working for you? Well, do you?
posted by xammerboy at 3:50 PM on April 18, 2019 [37 favorites]
• His behavior has rendered him one of the most unpopular presidents of the modern era, deeply opposed by a majority of the public.
• It is virtually certain that an impeachment investigation would uncover even more corrupt and nearly criminal behavior that would diminish his standing even further.
Bouie's playing fast and loose with the general popularity poll without looking at the breakdown here, which is causing him to miss some things. Yes, Trump is deeply unpopular in the general - but looking at the breakdown by political affiliation, this is because he's deeply unpopular with Democratic voters and unpopular with "independents". But when you look at his popularity with Republicans? It's through the roof. Which is why he not only has a ceiling for the general popularity poll, but a floor as well - he's never been above water, yes, but he also doesn't really dip below 35% either.
Given that, as well as everything we already know, it's unlikely that the Republican base will break with him absent something truly earth-shattering. (Case in point - the person leading the AL-Sen polls for the GOP is Roy Moore.) And the GOP is no longer truly playing for the popular vote - they're just going to try to win by any means necessary. Which means that if revealing his corruption will do nothing to his standing with his base (or worse, as we saw with the Kavanaugh hearings, actually mobilize and reinforce them), such hearings would wind up being a wash.
posted by NoxAeternum at 3:53 PM on April 18, 2019 [6 favorites]
• It is virtually certain that an impeachment investigation would uncover even more corrupt and nearly criminal behavior that would diminish his standing even further.
Bouie's playing fast and loose with the general popularity poll without looking at the breakdown here, which is causing him to miss some things. Yes, Trump is deeply unpopular in the general - but looking at the breakdown by political affiliation, this is because he's deeply unpopular with Democratic voters and unpopular with "independents". But when you look at his popularity with Republicans? It's through the roof. Which is why he not only has a ceiling for the general popularity poll, but a floor as well - he's never been above water, yes, but he also doesn't really dip below 35% either.
Given that, as well as everything we already know, it's unlikely that the Republican base will break with him absent something truly earth-shattering. (Case in point - the person leading the AL-Sen polls for the GOP is Roy Moore.) And the GOP is no longer truly playing for the popular vote - they're just going to try to win by any means necessary. Which means that if revealing his corruption will do nothing to his standing with his base (or worse, as we saw with the Kavanaugh hearings, actually mobilize and reinforce them), such hearings would wind up being a wash.
posted by NoxAeternum at 3:53 PM on April 18, 2019 [6 favorites]
Max Berger
Look what happened after the Barr cover-up letter swindled the press and impeachment seemed over: Trump was unleashed. He threatened to shut down the border. He told CBP to ignore the law.
We need impeachment hearings to hold him accountable and on defense. #TimeToImpeach
- - -
Dan Pfeiffer (Pod Save America)
Here are some thoughts about what Democrats can do going forward: First, don't take impeachment off the table. It's premature and stupid. (also muzzle Steny Hoyer)
• Second, get Mueller to the hill as soon as humanly possible to explain the report and then subpoena Barr to hold him to account for his lies and misdeeds in tthe handling of the report.
• Third, after that hearing begin proceedings to impeach or censure Barr. His conduct is beyond the pale and threatens the long term independence of the role of AG. It cannot go un-acknowledged.
• Fourth, plot out 9 months of high profile, newsmaking hearings with witnesses like Don Jr., Kushner etc. Every time the story is about to fade, another hearing happens. Control the narrative for as long as possible.
• Finally, Democratic candidates and Dem-aligned superpacs should use their messaging firepower to focus on the issues that matter to voters like taxes and health care that the media does a piss poor job of covering.
posted by chris24 at 3:55 PM on April 18, 2019 [80 favorites]
Look what happened after the Barr cover-up letter swindled the press and impeachment seemed over: Trump was unleashed. He threatened to shut down the border. He told CBP to ignore the law.
We need impeachment hearings to hold him accountable and on defense. #TimeToImpeach
- - -
Dan Pfeiffer (Pod Save America)
Here are some thoughts about what Democrats can do going forward: First, don't take impeachment off the table. It's premature and stupid. (also muzzle Steny Hoyer)
• Second, get Mueller to the hill as soon as humanly possible to explain the report and then subpoena Barr to hold him to account for his lies and misdeeds in tthe handling of the report.
• Third, after that hearing begin proceedings to impeach or censure Barr. His conduct is beyond the pale and threatens the long term independence of the role of AG. It cannot go un-acknowledged.
• Fourth, plot out 9 months of high profile, newsmaking hearings with witnesses like Don Jr., Kushner etc. Every time the story is about to fade, another hearing happens. Control the narrative for as long as possible.
• Finally, Democratic candidates and Dem-aligned superpacs should use their messaging firepower to focus on the issues that matter to voters like taxes and health care that the media does a piss poor job of covering.
posted by chris24 at 3:55 PM on April 18, 2019 [80 favorites]
I don't know all the rules that govern congressional actions, but it seems to me like the reasonable thing to do at this point, rather than publicly ruling out an impeachment and signalling to the voting public that you're prepared to let Trump and his flunkies to skate on all these egregious offenses, is to launch an "impeachment inquiry" and to use all the subpoena powers and televised hearings available to unearth whatever incriminating evidence can be found, not just about coordination with Russia and obstruction of the Mueller investigation, but about all the other forms of corruption as well. Then, if it still seems politically untenable to hold an impeachment vote, then don't. But to rule out the impeachment right now, moments after this detailed narrative of Trump's historical misdeeds has been released, is all but guaranteed to dampen the political fervour among members of the public that would be necessary for an impeachment vote to succeed.
posted by Dr. Send at 3:55 PM on April 18, 2019 [7 favorites]
posted by Dr. Send at 3:55 PM on April 18, 2019 [7 favorites]
This is being presented to the public as a complicated legal question. Make this simple. Would you want a man who did these things working for you? Well, do you?
The problem, unfortunately, is that there is about 40% of the population that, in some form or another, will easily respond in the affirmative, whether it be saying that those things are great in of themselves, or that they are willing to overlook them if he'll give them what they want.
posted by NoxAeternum at 3:57 PM on April 18, 2019 [6 favorites]
The problem, unfortunately, is that there is about 40% of the population that, in some form or another, will easily respond in the affirmative, whether it be saying that those things are great in of themselves, or that they are willing to overlook them if he'll give them what they want.
posted by NoxAeternum at 3:57 PM on April 18, 2019 [6 favorites]
I can only surmise the Democratic leadership keeps losing because they want to. It's easier than doing their job.
Their job is not easy. Losing is, literally, easier. And I totally agree - they want to lose. I agree with that because I've seen them lose for 40 fucking years. We've covered the greatest hits - Arms-for-Hostages, Iran-Contra, Gulf War I, War on Drugs, Gulf War II, Taxpayer-funded Torture chambers, Rolling Obama / Stolen SCOTUS seats- Democrats do nothing about this except fire up the base at voting season. This isn't new by any stretch - it's the EXACT SAME playbook they were using under Reagan! It doesn't fucking work!!
But This. This grotesque charade is SO too far. Refusing to impeach after this extreme shitshow is the fucking end. And their stated reason is that they don't think they'd get re-elected! Heads up, Democratic so-called Leadership: you get your Better Jobs shit off my fucking lawn and never darken my newsfeed with it again so help me dog I will never let anyone forget your cowardice at this Death of The Rule of Law.
Republicans we've covered - their complicity is beyond suspicous and their criminal obstruction obvious. Corporate News is the oil slick of garbage that got us in this jam. But you - Congressional Democrats - I expect better from you. MUCH better. Get your squeaky white milquetoast losers off my screen because they're not getting my vote and they're not getting any fucking offices until you put up the fucking fight we demand from you. FIGHT! FOR! US! YOU! BASTARDS!
posted by petebest at 3:57 PM on April 18, 2019 [45 favorites]
Their job is not easy. Losing is, literally, easier. And I totally agree - they want to lose. I agree with that because I've seen them lose for 40 fucking years. We've covered the greatest hits - Arms-for-Hostages, Iran-Contra, Gulf War I, War on Drugs, Gulf War II, Taxpayer-funded Torture chambers, Rolling Obama / Stolen SCOTUS seats- Democrats do nothing about this except fire up the base at voting season. This isn't new by any stretch - it's the EXACT SAME playbook they were using under Reagan! It doesn't fucking work!!
But This. This grotesque charade is SO too far. Refusing to impeach after this extreme shitshow is the fucking end. And their stated reason is that they don't think they'd get re-elected! Heads up, Democratic so-called Leadership: you get your Better Jobs shit off my fucking lawn and never darken my newsfeed with it again so help me dog I will never let anyone forget your cowardice at this Death of The Rule of Law.
Republicans we've covered - their complicity is beyond suspicous and their criminal obstruction obvious. Corporate News is the oil slick of garbage that got us in this jam. But you - Congressional Democrats - I expect better from you. MUCH better. Get your squeaky white milquetoast losers off my screen because they're not getting my vote and they're not getting any fucking offices until you put up the fucking fight we demand from you. FIGHT! FOR! US! YOU! BASTARDS!
posted by petebest at 3:57 PM on April 18, 2019 [45 favorites]
Bouie's playing fast and loose with the general popularity poll without looking at the breakdown here
And why is this obvious fact that Rs like him and Ds really don’t and Inds mostly don’t playing fast and loose? Everyone knows that. Who the fuck cares about Rs? They’ll vote for him regardless. They’re a cult. You win by motivating your base, not worrying about his. WTF are we even doing if we’re not gonna do shit because Republicans won’t go along with it.
posted by chris24 at 3:58 PM on April 18, 2019 [19 favorites]
And why is this obvious fact that Rs like him and Ds really don’t and Inds mostly don’t playing fast and loose? Everyone knows that. Who the fuck cares about Rs? They’ll vote for him regardless. They’re a cult. You win by motivating your base, not worrying about his. WTF are we even doing if we’re not gonna do shit because Republicans won’t go along with it.
posted by chris24 at 3:58 PM on April 18, 2019 [19 favorites]
I see ditching Trump as paramount to the survival of our democracy. The two main ways of this happening are election loss and impeachment/conviction. The first (dicey as election security may be) is obviously 5000% more tenable than the second.
If impeachment should go forward, it's for some combination of two reasons: because it will help cause Trump to lose re-election, and because it's simply the right thing to do. The third answer of "because we have to get rid of criminal presidents" isn't a factor in play because "get rid" remains almost (almost!) impossible.
If doing the right thing does in fact have a perverse, counterproductive effect on election outcomes -- if (BIG if because have absolutely no idea) it distinctly boosts chances for Republicans -- then I'm against it. The alternative argument that this is a hill worth dying on is precisely the logic of voting for a third-party candidate.
But there's some fairly sharp reasons to think the opposite is true, and that this is a cake we can have and eat. Especially if high-profile Dems like AOC are able to hammer, hammer, hammer the message to the public that Senate Republicans are entirely divorced from reality in favor of Trump cultism. Impeachment will be a shout to the heavens, and I very strongly welcome it if it's understood and expressed on those terms.
posted by InTheYear2017 at 4:12 PM on April 18, 2019 [4 favorites]
If impeachment should go forward, it's for some combination of two reasons: because it will help cause Trump to lose re-election, and because it's simply the right thing to do. The third answer of "because we have to get rid of criminal presidents" isn't a factor in play because "get rid" remains almost (almost!) impossible.
If doing the right thing does in fact have a perverse, counterproductive effect on election outcomes -- if (BIG if because have absolutely no idea) it distinctly boosts chances for Republicans -- then I'm against it. The alternative argument that this is a hill worth dying on is precisely the logic of voting for a third-party candidate.
But there's some fairly sharp reasons to think the opposite is true, and that this is a cake we can have and eat. Especially if high-profile Dems like AOC are able to hammer, hammer, hammer the message to the public that Senate Republicans are entirely divorced from reality in favor of Trump cultism. Impeachment will be a shout to the heavens, and I very strongly welcome it if it's understood and expressed on those terms.
posted by InTheYear2017 at 4:12 PM on April 18, 2019 [4 favorites]
Daniel Dale, Washington correspondent for the Toronto Star. (threadreader) and (the twitter thread).
The report also says that people being investigated, "including some associated with the Trump Campaign," "deleted relevant communications." The report says there are "gaps" in the special counsel's knowledge, and they can't "rule out the possibility" that there is more.
posted by adamvasco at 4:18 PM on April 18, 2019 [3 favorites]
The report also says that people being investigated, "including some associated with the Trump Campaign," "deleted relevant communications." The report says there are "gaps" in the special counsel's knowledge, and they can't "rule out the possibility" that there is more.
posted by adamvasco at 4:18 PM on April 18, 2019 [3 favorites]
As linked above, this is the threadreaderapp version of the Jared Yates Sexton summary of the Mueller Report.
It is concise. These are a few of the comments.
Perhaps the most critical piece of information is that the Trump Campaign knew that the DNC emails were going to be released before they were. They had an active, multi-pronged plan in place to capitalize off the communications stolen by the Russian government. 5/
Mueller found that Donald Trump, himself, knew that Wikileaks had the DNC emails before they were released and was in contact with campaign members and people outside of campaign and planned how to capitalize off their release. 6/
Trump's call for Russia to find Clinton's emails was fruitful. Within hours they followed his call and worked to find them. Despite saying it was just a TV stunt, he repeated the call off-camera. It was collusion in real time and in the light of public. No other way to say it 7/
...
Paul Manafort was especially lousy in the collusion front. He obviously had financial incentive and discussed battleground states with Russian individual, including Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, leading to suspicion that there were targeted efforts or interference. 9/
...
In terms of obstruction, it is quite obvious that Mueller was communicating that there were SEVERAL instances of obstruction, SEVERAL instances of attempted obstruction, and that Congress should address the issue. 11/
...
In collusion, Mueller repeatedly mentions that he was hindered by the Trump team either lying or else not providing information. He said they destroyed evidence and stonewalled him. That's why he couldn't establish the charge in totality. 22/
In terms of obstruction, Mueller was clearly putting the matter in the hands of Congress. This is a full and explicit layout of impeachable, high crimes. He was not intending Barr to steamroll over this thing. Not at all. 23/
What's more, Barr not only lied, it appears he actively obstructed justice by misrepresenting the report in his summary. This wasn't just a partisan structuring, it was an attempt to try and save Donald Trump and the administration. 24/
posted by petebest at 4:19 PM on April 18, 2019 [55 favorites]
It is concise. These are a few of the comments.
Perhaps the most critical piece of information is that the Trump Campaign knew that the DNC emails were going to be released before they were. They had an active, multi-pronged plan in place to capitalize off the communications stolen by the Russian government. 5/
Mueller found that Donald Trump, himself, knew that Wikileaks had the DNC emails before they were released and was in contact with campaign members and people outside of campaign and planned how to capitalize off their release. 6/
Trump's call for Russia to find Clinton's emails was fruitful. Within hours they followed his call and worked to find them. Despite saying it was just a TV stunt, he repeated the call off-camera. It was collusion in real time and in the light of public. No other way to say it 7/
...
Paul Manafort was especially lousy in the collusion front. He obviously had financial incentive and discussed battleground states with Russian individual, including Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, leading to suspicion that there were targeted efforts or interference. 9/
...
In terms of obstruction, it is quite obvious that Mueller was communicating that there were SEVERAL instances of obstruction, SEVERAL instances of attempted obstruction, and that Congress should address the issue. 11/
...
In collusion, Mueller repeatedly mentions that he was hindered by the Trump team either lying or else not providing information. He said they destroyed evidence and stonewalled him. That's why he couldn't establish the charge in totality. 22/
In terms of obstruction, Mueller was clearly putting the matter in the hands of Congress. This is a full and explicit layout of impeachable, high crimes. He was not intending Barr to steamroll over this thing. Not at all. 23/
What's more, Barr not only lied, it appears he actively obstructed justice by misrepresenting the report in his summary. This wasn't just a partisan structuring, it was an attempt to try and save Donald Trump and the administration. 24/
posted by petebest at 4:19 PM on April 18, 2019 [55 favorites]
I cannot see a reason for us to abdicate from our constitutionally mandated responsibility to investigate."
Yes, this is what I don't get. Congress has vast inherent powers and something of a bully pulpit. Investigate, investigate, investigate; summon witnesses; subpoena documents; hold press conferences explaining what you're doing. Investigation is a necessary prelude to impeaching officials, which is one of Congress' duties. It only becomes a “political” prosecution if the decisions are made along party lines, without considering the facts. That doesn't need to happen in the House unless Democrats let their actions be dictated by Republicans' likely rejection in the Senate. Perversely, abstention for fear of apparent partisanship is the most partisan thing the Democrats could do.
posted by Joe in Australia at 4:21 PM on April 18, 2019 [39 favorites]
Yes, this is what I don't get. Congress has vast inherent powers and something of a bully pulpit. Investigate, investigate, investigate; summon witnesses; subpoena documents; hold press conferences explaining what you're doing. Investigation is a necessary prelude to impeaching officials, which is one of Congress' duties. It only becomes a “political” prosecution if the decisions are made along party lines, without considering the facts. That doesn't need to happen in the House unless Democrats let their actions be dictated by Republicans' likely rejection in the Senate. Perversely, abstention for fear of apparent partisanship is the most partisan thing the Democrats could do.
posted by Joe in Australia at 4:21 PM on April 18, 2019 [39 favorites]
There were 7 Benghazi investigations. Who won in 2016? Rs.
Clinton’s impeachment supposedly really hurt Rs. Who won in 2000? Rs.
Investigations do not damage the party investigating. And impeachments without convictions don’t mean you lose the next election.
posted by chris24 at 4:32 PM on April 18, 2019 [80 favorites]
Clinton’s impeachment supposedly really hurt Rs. Who won in 2000? Rs.
Investigations do not damage the party investigating. And impeachments without convictions don’t mean you lose the next election.
posted by chris24 at 4:32 PM on April 18, 2019 [80 favorites]
If doing the right thing does in fact have a perverse, counterproductive effect on election outcomes -- if (BIG if because have absolutely no idea) it distinctly boosts chances for Republicans -- then I'm against it
Can anybody explain the theory that focusing on Trump's lies, bad acts, and crimes would hurt Democrats?
posted by diogenes at 4:35 PM on April 18, 2019 [2 favorites]
Can anybody explain the theory that focusing on Trump's lies, bad acts, and crimes would hurt Democrats?
posted by diogenes at 4:35 PM on April 18, 2019 [2 favorites]
Can anybody explain the theory that focusing on Trump's lies, bad acts, and crimes would hurt Democrats?
The argument is that a failed impeachment (which, given how the GOP is behaving, is pretty much guaranteed) would invigorate the Republican base, while demoralizing the Democratic one.
posted by NoxAeternum at 4:39 PM on April 18, 2019 [4 favorites]
The argument is that a failed impeachment (which, given how the GOP is behaving, is pretty much guaranteed) would invigorate the Republican base, while demoralizing the Democratic one.
posted by NoxAeternum at 4:39 PM on April 18, 2019 [4 favorites]
His base will be fired up regardless. Our base will be pissed at a R Senate ignoring obvious crimes.
And our base is bigger. Even with Russia and Comey and misogyny and and and we got 3 million more votes. Investigate, fight, fire up the base.
posted by chris24 at 4:48 PM on April 18, 2019 [44 favorites]
And our base is bigger. Even with Russia and Comey and misogyny and and and we got 3 million more votes. Investigate, fight, fire up the base.
posted by chris24 at 4:48 PM on April 18, 2019 [44 favorites]
There are also swing voters out there that don't like Trump, but they're tired of politics because everyone's so negative and the media's so negative and it's so awkward talking to people at the kids' soccer game, and why can't we just have a You're Ok I'm Ok Let's Lower Everybody's Taxes And Have Some Ice Cream kind of candidate? And I've met these people. I just don't know how the numbers work out.
But there's no reason Democrats can't campaign on other issues in 2020 while undertaking an investigation, especially if the nominee isn't part of the investigation. What, are Republicans going to run attack ads saying "Crazy Democrats are impeaching our president! So uncivil!" Well, maybe they would.
I mean, if a Republican (Mueller) basically gives you permission to discuss impeachment and you can't say yes, I just dunno...
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 4:51 PM on April 18, 2019 [8 favorites]
But there's no reason Democrats can't campaign on other issues in 2020 while undertaking an investigation, especially if the nominee isn't part of the investigation. What, are Republicans going to run attack ads saying "Crazy Democrats are impeaching our president! So uncivil!" Well, maybe they would.
I mean, if a Republican (Mueller) basically gives you permission to discuss impeachment and you can't say yes, I just dunno...
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 4:51 PM on April 18, 2019 [8 favorites]
Investigations do not damage the party investigating.
Investigations don't damage Republicans because it's not about rational investigation, it's about tribal harassment of the other. Benghazi was clearly bullshit but that wasn't the point. The same isn't true for liberal voters.
posted by Candleman at 4:55 PM on April 18, 2019 [5 favorites]
Investigations don't damage Republicans because it's not about rational investigation, it's about tribal harassment of the other. Benghazi was clearly bullshit but that wasn't the point. The same isn't true for liberal voters.
posted by Candleman at 4:55 PM on April 18, 2019 [5 favorites]
Yeah, the argument that “Impeachment will give the Republicans fodder for negative ads!” is pretty weak considering Republicans have no problem simply making shit up for negative attack ads.
posted by ejs at 4:56 PM on April 18, 2019 [20 favorites]
posted by ejs at 4:56 PM on April 18, 2019 [20 favorites]
My book report on ‘The Mueller Report’ (Alexandra Petri, WaPo)
I enjoyed reading “The Mueller Report,” a book that contained 448 pages, each more exciting than the last, as well as more than 1,000 footnotes! The book was published in 2019, meaning it is relevant to our times, and it contained many themes and symbolism which I will explain in the course of this report. At the back it also included a list of characters. Some people just skimmed through this report to come to conclusions they already had, but I did not, as this report will show.posted by Johnny Wallflower at 5:22 PM on April 18, 2019 [24 favorites]
“The Mueller Report” is about a man who wanted to find information, but really, I think, what he found was the American Dream. It is exactly like “The Great Gatsby,” a book about a man who pretends to have more money than he actually has and turns out to owe everything he has to sinister forces but for whom you ultimately feel pity because he is lonely even though he has a big house, in that both that book and this one are about a narrator who is trying to find out information about one thing and ultimately discovers something else.
Basically, the American Dream is elusive to lots of people, and some people would say that it does not exist at all, which is also what people in this book say about collusion, which shows parallelism.
You know, I really don't have much of a taste for Alexanda Petri today.
posted by M-x shell at 5:29 PM on April 18, 2019 [35 favorites]
posted by M-x shell at 5:29 PM on April 18, 2019 [35 favorites]
Investigations don't damage Republicans because it's not about rational investigation, it's about tribal harassment of the other. Benghazi was clearly bullshit but that wasn't the point. The same isn't true for liberal voters.
If you follow the logic, liberal voters are in favor of rational investigation. In which case it's hard to think of anything that they'd approve of more than further digging on Trump. Mueller's conclusion is basically "we couldn't prove it 100% with the available evidence", which doesn't mean there isn't more evidence to be found.
posted by AdamCSnider at 5:35 PM on April 18, 2019 [5 favorites]
If you follow the logic, liberal voters are in favor of rational investigation. In which case it's hard to think of anything that they'd approve of more than further digging on Trump. Mueller's conclusion is basically "we couldn't prove it 100% with the available evidence", which doesn't mean there isn't more evidence to be found.
posted by AdamCSnider at 5:35 PM on April 18, 2019 [5 favorites]
So if Democrats are going to be all "oversight is hard fml" are they going to focus on election security and eliminating foreign interference, or is that also too poltiical? If there's going to be only upside for Russia, won't other countries favored by the Trump admin want to keep the lootboxes flowing via dark money or other means? Saudis, DPRK, etc?
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 5:41 PM on April 18, 2019 [4 favorites]
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 5:41 PM on April 18, 2019 [4 favorites]
One of Mueller's main statements, one of his primary determinations, that I'm sure he had decided on BEFORE he even TOOK this case on, was that he would not be the one who would determine whether or not the president could do his job.
He left this task (or passed the ball, or abdicated this responsibility, how ever you want to see it) to congress. The house can investigate this, they have hundreds of pages worth of material, any ONE of which could spark endless investigations.
STOP ABOUT THE SENATE. JUST STOP.
If Trump is the existential threat to democracy the Democrats claim, they have been given hundreds of pages worth of material that could throw monkey wrench after monkey wrench into his presidency. Just like, a fucking stream of endless monkey wrenches. How big is the White House, when the walls are closing in on you?
If this presidency is truly the existential threat that Democrats have been claiming, all of the "acting heads" that are there to hobble the departments they are supposed to be chairing, all of the REPEATED violence against immigrants, the new claims of the need to spy on disabled people to find "cheats", all of the endless cuts to government done in the name of the rich, they would be using ANY WEAPON in their arsenal.
If they refuse to take this chance, I can only come to the conclusion that, if they are not COMPLICIT, they are FINE with the way this government is operating.
This is a come to Jesus moment for Democrats.
posted by FireballForever at 5:41 PM on April 18, 2019 [45 favorites]
He left this task (or passed the ball, or abdicated this responsibility, how ever you want to see it) to congress. The house can investigate this, they have hundreds of pages worth of material, any ONE of which could spark endless investigations.
STOP ABOUT THE SENATE. JUST STOP.
If Trump is the existential threat to democracy the Democrats claim, they have been given hundreds of pages worth of material that could throw monkey wrench after monkey wrench into his presidency. Just like, a fucking stream of endless monkey wrenches. How big is the White House, when the walls are closing in on you?
If this presidency is truly the existential threat that Democrats have been claiming, all of the "acting heads" that are there to hobble the departments they are supposed to be chairing, all of the REPEATED violence against immigrants, the new claims of the need to spy on disabled people to find "cheats", all of the endless cuts to government done in the name of the rich, they would be using ANY WEAPON in their arsenal.
If they refuse to take this chance, I can only come to the conclusion that, if they are not COMPLICIT, they are FINE with the way this government is operating.
This is a come to Jesus moment for Democrats.
posted by FireballForever at 5:41 PM on April 18, 2019 [45 favorites]
@MuellerFBI
"Wow! This really blew up.
I don't have a soundcloud but ..."
posted by srboisvert at 5:42 PM on April 18, 2019 [14 favorites]
"Wow! This really blew up.
I don't have a soundcloud but ..."
posted by srboisvert at 5:42 PM on April 18, 2019 [14 favorites]
Nobody really knows what the hell impeachment proceedings would do. An incompetent impeachment that focuses on technicalities might fire up the Rs based on victimhood and demoralize the Dems. An impeachment with decent messaging about hostile foreign powers, nobody being above the law, and obvious kleptocracy might bring out the Dems and damage Rs by forcing the senate to vote down obvious crimes. It depends what the committees find and how they keep the spotlight on the crimes found. At the least it keeps Trump braying about witch hunts rather what his base loves (non-white immigrant hate).
posted by benzenedream at 5:47 PM on April 18, 2019 [8 favorites]
posted by benzenedream at 5:47 PM on April 18, 2019 [8 favorites]
> Can anybody explain the theory that focusing on Trump's lies, bad acts, and crimes would hurt Democrats?
Focusing on Trump's lies, bad acts, and crimes as a campaign strategy for a candidate for the Presidency in 2020 would hurt that candidate, because increasing the public's exposure to images and video clips of Trump makes him seem more powerful, and because fear of powerful bad men isn't a good way to motivate people to vote against those powerful bad men. Instead, it motivates people to keep their heads down, avoid politics, avoid anything that could attract the attention of the bad man and his followers.
However, investigating our President's lies, bad acts, and crimes as part of actions leading up to (if necessary) the impeachment of our President for those lies, bad acts, and crimes is a solemn duty for Congress, as in the final analysis the Constitution grants them the power of oversight over the executive branch. It is their job to do it. If, for perceived partisan reasons, they refuse to do their duty, they are derelict and should be replaced.
The thing is, a congressional investigation and if necessary impeachment of our President is to the benefit of the Democrats in Congress, because they can thereby show that they are serious people who care about their Constitutionally-defined role, who take the well-being of the nation seriously, and who take their own jobs seriously. (It is, I suppose, also to the benefit of any Republican congressmembers who are willing to care about their Constitutionally-defined role, who take the well-being of the nation seriously, and who take their own jobs seriously — but I don't think any of those exist.)
It is also to the benefit of the Democratic Party 2020 Presidential candidates. This is because, safe in the knowledge that the Democratic members of Congress are doing their jobs and investigating our President's lies, bad acts, and crimes, they are freed up to run campaigns wherein they outline their positive visions for the future, rather than campaigns where they just tell people that the bad man is bad.
Needless to say, AOC won me over with her statement that:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that "we are feckless and safely ignored" is a stance that has literally never won any vote ever.
posted by Reclusive Novelist Thomas Pynchon at 5:53 PM on April 18, 2019 [53 favorites]
Focusing on Trump's lies, bad acts, and crimes as a campaign strategy for a candidate for the Presidency in 2020 would hurt that candidate, because increasing the public's exposure to images and video clips of Trump makes him seem more powerful, and because fear of powerful bad men isn't a good way to motivate people to vote against those powerful bad men. Instead, it motivates people to keep their heads down, avoid politics, avoid anything that could attract the attention of the bad man and his followers.
However, investigating our President's lies, bad acts, and crimes as part of actions leading up to (if necessary) the impeachment of our President for those lies, bad acts, and crimes is a solemn duty for Congress, as in the final analysis the Constitution grants them the power of oversight over the executive branch. It is their job to do it. If, for perceived partisan reasons, they refuse to do their duty, they are derelict and should be replaced.
The thing is, a congressional investigation and if necessary impeachment of our President is to the benefit of the Democrats in Congress, because they can thereby show that they are serious people who care about their Constitutionally-defined role, who take the well-being of the nation seriously, and who take their own jobs seriously. (It is, I suppose, also to the benefit of any Republican congressmembers who are willing to care about their Constitutionally-defined role, who take the well-being of the nation seriously, and who take their own jobs seriously — but I don't think any of those exist.)
It is also to the benefit of the Democratic Party 2020 Presidential candidates. This is because, safe in the knowledge that the Democratic members of Congress are doing their jobs and investigating our President's lies, bad acts, and crimes, they are freed up to run campaigns wherein they outline their positive visions for the future, rather than campaigns where they just tell people that the bad man is bad.
Needless to say, AOC won me over with her statement that:
While I understand the political reality of the Senate + election considerations, upon reading this DoJ report, which explicitly names Congress in determining obstruction, I cannot see a reason for us to abdicate from our constitutionally mandated responsibility to investigate.The reasoning and also political positioning in that statement are unassailable. It's time for the Democratic Party members of Congress to do their freaking jobs instead of releasing statements that boil down to "we are feckless and safely ignored."
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that "we are feckless and safely ignored" is a stance that has literally never won any vote ever.
posted by Reclusive Novelist Thomas Pynchon at 5:53 PM on April 18, 2019 [53 favorites]
chris24: Our base will be pissed at a R Senate ignoring obvious crimes.
Yes, but how many would have learned something new from it? That's the key question. It's a matter of people whose behavior would be changed by Republican inaction, versus people whose behavior would be changed by Democratic inaction. Neither such group of people ought to exist at all -- if the Senate acquitting Trump angers you into voting (or into voting differently), then you have already not been paying attention to the nature of the parties. And likewise if your vote is changed by Democrats not impeaching. But some people exist in both groups, and it all rests in their hands. If those groups are in fact small or they cancel each other out, then impeachment is a must because the "Defeat Trump" priority then gives way to the "Act On Responsibility and Principle" priority, which is otherwise second on the list.
There may emerge a media narrative of "Republicans: Will They Put Country Before Party And Find Him Guilty?" Or there could be one of "Trump: Is He Guilty Or Not? Only The Senate Decides For Sure!" This is the question.
Another critical point is that impeachment is just one kind of thing, not the sum of everything. Latching onto it emotionally is just a variation on Mueller Will Save Us. If it, specifically, never materializes, the House continues to pursue numerous avenues. To pick just one example, while I definitely, wish they'd moved faster on the taxes, they absolutely deserve credit for currently tackling that head of the hydra.
A sentiment I've seen here is "Republicans made all that hay from Benghazi while Democrats don't even impeach smh". Those are comparing entirely different things -- there was never a Benghazi Impeachment and the House has enagaged in lots of substantive hearings and investigations, such as the Cohen testimony a little while ago. The only reason that sentiment seems non-fallacious at first is our mental equation of "impeachment" with "oversight". Let's not be [whichever sports fans are the ones famous for dwelling in disappointment as much as possible] here.
posted by InTheYear2017 at 5:57 PM on April 18, 2019 [5 favorites]
Yes, but how many would have learned something new from it? That's the key question. It's a matter of people whose behavior would be changed by Republican inaction, versus people whose behavior would be changed by Democratic inaction. Neither such group of people ought to exist at all -- if the Senate acquitting Trump angers you into voting (or into voting differently), then you have already not been paying attention to the nature of the parties. And likewise if your vote is changed by Democrats not impeaching. But some people exist in both groups, and it all rests in their hands. If those groups are in fact small or they cancel each other out, then impeachment is a must because the "Defeat Trump" priority then gives way to the "Act On Responsibility and Principle" priority, which is otherwise second on the list.
There may emerge a media narrative of "Republicans: Will They Put Country Before Party And Find Him Guilty?" Or there could be one of "Trump: Is He Guilty Or Not? Only The Senate Decides For Sure!" This is the question.
Another critical point is that impeachment is just one kind of thing, not the sum of everything. Latching onto it emotionally is just a variation on Mueller Will Save Us. If it, specifically, never materializes, the House continues to pursue numerous avenues. To pick just one example, while I definitely, wish they'd moved faster on the taxes, they absolutely deserve credit for currently tackling that head of the hydra.
A sentiment I've seen here is "Republicans made all that hay from Benghazi while Democrats don't even impeach smh". Those are comparing entirely different things -- there was never a Benghazi Impeachment and the House has enagaged in lots of substantive hearings and investigations, such as the Cohen testimony a little while ago. The only reason that sentiment seems non-fallacious at first is our mental equation of "impeachment" with "oversight". Let's not be [whichever sports fans are the ones famous for dwelling in disappointment as much as possible] here.
posted by InTheYear2017 at 5:57 PM on April 18, 2019 [5 favorites]
I've just heard a theory that the timing, coinciding with the easter/passover holiday, is either very fortunate or cynically planned. I know that no-one's at the capitol, but I really doubt that Pelosi, Schiff, Shumer et al are too busy making sand castles on the beach to be bothered with any of this. No-one is taking a holiday right now.
posted by adept256 at 6:19 PM on April 18, 2019 [1 favorite]
posted by adept256 at 6:19 PM on April 18, 2019 [1 favorite]
Whether to begin impeachment proceedings is not a hard choice. We don’t know what the result will be. It good be good or bad for Trump. But what we do know is that it would be really bad to allow these crimes to go unpunished. And these crimes are monumental.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 6:24 PM on April 18, 2019 [19 favorites]
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 6:24 PM on April 18, 2019 [19 favorites]
One doesn't even need to formally instigate impeachment proceedings, simple "doing due diligence following up issues raised by the Mueller report" is enough of a smoke screen to keep things running in public turning over rocks to see what crawls out
posted by mbo at 6:27 PM on April 18, 2019 [14 favorites]
posted by mbo at 6:27 PM on April 18, 2019 [14 favorites]
Mueller's conclusion is basically "we couldn't prove it 100% with the available evidence"
Mueller's conclusion was that the Trump administration destroyed evidence and refused requests for information so he was specifically not exonerated from the obstruction charges. Also here's a mountain of examples where he obstructed justice.
Also that he was not set up to indict Trump from the start, which, okay I guess he could have MENTIONED THAT.
posted by petebest at 6:39 PM on April 18, 2019 [12 favorites]
Mueller's conclusion was that the Trump administration destroyed evidence and refused requests for information so he was specifically not exonerated from the obstruction charges. Also here's a mountain of examples where he obstructed justice.
Also that he was not set up to indict Trump from the start, which, okay I guess he could have MENTIONED THAT.
posted by petebest at 6:39 PM on April 18, 2019 [12 favorites]
Burr Briefed White House on FBI Targets (CNN (via))
The Mueller report says that Senate Intelligence Chairman Richard Burr (R-NC) “appeared to brief the White House counsel’s office about the targets of the FBI’s Russia investigation in March 2017,” CNN reports.
The report states that FBI Director James Comey briefed the Gang of Eight — the Intelligence Committee and congressional leaders — about the investigation on March 9, 2017.
The week after, the White House counsel’s office was briefed by Burr on the “existence of 4-5 targets.”
Let's all remember Dick Burr, chairmain of the Senate Intelligence "oversight" committee from the recent chart-topping smash, "Trump A-OK, Nothing To See Here" headlines, Senate Intelligence chairman: No evidence of Trump-Russia collusion
This is _such_ bullshit.
posted by petebest at 6:52 PM on April 18, 2019 [17 favorites]
The Mueller report says that Senate Intelligence Chairman Richard Burr (R-NC) “appeared to brief the White House counsel’s office about the targets of the FBI’s Russia investigation in March 2017,” CNN reports.
The report states that FBI Director James Comey briefed the Gang of Eight — the Intelligence Committee and congressional leaders — about the investigation on March 9, 2017.
The week after, the White House counsel’s office was briefed by Burr on the “existence of 4-5 targets.”
Let's all remember Dick Burr, chairmain of the Senate Intelligence "oversight" committee from the recent chart-topping smash, "Trump A-OK, Nothing To See Here" headlines, Senate Intelligence chairman: No evidence of Trump-Russia collusion
This is _such_ bullshit.
posted by petebest at 6:52 PM on April 18, 2019 [17 favorites]
Partway through the report, but still haven't seen any follow-up on the mysterious Feb 2017 Russian Embassy hamburger tweet. Maybe it's in one of the redacted bits?
posted by triggerfinger at 6:55 PM on April 18, 2019 [1 favorite]
posted by triggerfinger at 6:55 PM on April 18, 2019 [1 favorite]
I've just heard a theory that the timing, coinciding with the easter/passover holiday, is either very fortunate or cynically planned. I know that no-one's at the capitol, but I really doubt that Pelosi, Schiff, Shumer et al are too busy making sand castles on the beach to be bothered with any of this. No-one is taking a holiday right now.
In a better world in which religious people actually hewed to the principles they claim to value, it would be a very unfortunate time for Trump, because every minister, pastor, priest and rabbi would spend the weekend declaiming against the wickedness on display.
posted by snuffleupagus at 6:59 PM on April 18, 2019 [8 favorites]
In a better world in which religious people actually hewed to the principles they claim to value, it would be a very unfortunate time for Trump, because every minister, pastor, priest and rabbi would spend the weekend declaiming against the wickedness on display.
posted by snuffleupagus at 6:59 PM on April 18, 2019 [8 favorites]
Buzzfeed, Ben Smith, How We Characterized Michael Cohen’s Testimony: An update on our Jan. 19 story about the Trump Moscow lies.
posted by zachlipton at 6:59 PM on April 18, 2019 [18 favorites]
Today, with the release of the Mueller report, we know which characterization Carr was disputing: Specifically, that the series of interactions between Trump, Cohen, and their lawyers did not, in the prosecutors’ view, amount to Trump “directing” Cohen to lie.What the everloving fuck? Cohen didn’t even go as far as these notes indicate in his public testimony.
As Mueller’s team wrote in the report: “While there is evidence ... that the president knew Cohen provided false testimony to Congress ... the evidence to us does not establish the president directed or aided Cohen's false testimony."
As a matter of what constitutes a crime, Mueller has the last word, and his characterization has the force of law. (We’ll be updating our original story with a link to this piece.)
But that isn’t the only question. So I’d also like to share an accounting of how we came to our characterization, to give our audience and people who reasonably raised questions about our reporting as much information as possible about how the story came to be.
...
Our story was based on detailed information from senior law enforcement sources. That reporting included documents — specifically, pages of notes that were taken during an interview of Cohen by the FBI. In those notes, one law enforcement source wrote that “DJT personally asked Cohen to say negotiations ended in January and White House counsel office knew Cohen would give false testimony to Congress. Sanctioned by DJT. Joint lawyer team reviewed letter Cohen sent to SSCI about his testimony about Trump Tower moscow, et al, knowing it contained lies.”
The law enforcement source also wrote: “Cohen told OSC” — the Office of Special Counsel — “he was asked to lie by DJT/DJT Jr., lawyers.”
...
The facts of Cohen’s lies and his interactions with Trump are, largely, now settled. Our sources — federal law enforcement officials — interpreted the evidence Cohen presented as meaning that the president “directed” Cohen to lie. We now know that Mueller did not.
posted by zachlipton at 6:59 PM on April 18, 2019 [18 favorites]
"The President's efforts to influence the investigation were mostly unsuccessful, but that is largely because the persons who surrounded the President declined to carry out orders or accede to his requests," Mueller says in the report.
The President's - the chief executive, nuclear football guy, mmkay
efforts to - things he did, things he said, orders he gave, implied threats, what-have-yous
influence the investigation - *record scratch* say what? Like ... is it even arguable that the person under investigation was influencing said investigation towards their own indictment? Well then, how is this not the exact same thing as obstruction? HOW. Obstruction doesn't require success it simply requires "interference, through words or actions, with the proper operations of a court or officers of the court."
I don't know what the fuck Mueller & Co are doing here. Maybe sotonohito's right.
posted by petebest at 7:19 PM on April 18, 2019 [11 favorites]
I don't know what the fuck Mueller & Co are doing here. Maybe sotonohito's right.
posted by petebest at 7:19 PM on April 18, 2019 [11 favorites]
@samstein: Several lawmakers said they had no clue why Hoyer went out and said impeachment was off the table. An aide said it was “off message.” Others said they got no guidance from leadership about messaging the Mueller report even though everyone knew it was coming.
This is astonishingly moronic.
posted by zachlipton at 7:25 PM on April 18, 2019 [48 favorites]
This is astonishingly moronic.
posted by zachlipton at 7:25 PM on April 18, 2019 [48 favorites]
Courthouse News’s Adam Klasfeld spotted something interesting:
posted by Doktor Zed at 7:36 PM on April 18, 2019 [57 favorites]
#AlwaysReadTheFootnotes MUELLER, p. 390, footnoteIf Mueller can break out the i-word, why can't the Dem leadership?19911091: "A possible remedy through impeachment for abuses of power would not substitute for potential criminal liability after a President leaves office."1091 A possible remedy through impeachment for abuses of power would not substitute for potential criminal liability after a President leaves office. Impeachment would remove a President from office, but would not address the underlying culpability of the conduct or serve the usual purposes of the criminal law. Indeed, the Impeachment Judgment Clause recognizes that criminal law plays an independent role in addressing an official's conduct, distinct from the political remedy of impeachment. See U.S. CONST. ART. l, § 3, cl. 7. Impeachment is also a drastic and rarely invoked remedy, and Congress is not restricted to relying only on impeachment, rather than making criminal law applicable to a former President, as OLC has recognized. A Sitting President's Amenability to Indictment and Criminal Prosecution, 24 Op. O.L.C. at 255 ("Recognizing an immunity from prosecution for a sitting President would not preclude such prosecution once the President's term is over or he is otherwise removed from office by resignation or impeachment.").This report allegedly containing "TOTAL AND COMPLETE EXONERATION" of the president describes the law of impeachment 10 times, largely (but not exclusively) in footnotes.
posted by Doktor Zed at 7:36 PM on April 18, 2019 [57 favorites]
See also Mueller, Vol. II, page 1, footnote 4: "OLC Op. at 255 ("Recognizing an immunity from prosecution for a sitting President would not preclude such prosecution once the President's term is over or he is otherwise removed from office by resignation or impeachment")" (Sitting President's Amenability to Indictment and Criminal Prosecution.)
posted by Doktor Zed at 7:41 PM on April 18, 2019 [3 favorites]
posted by Doktor Zed at 7:41 PM on April 18, 2019 [3 favorites]
I think the choice not to impeach prioritizes a short-term good -- salving the fear that today's moderate and left-leaning voters are, on balance, Over It -- over a long-term good -- establishing that our constitution still works. If we can no longer believe that it does, if we no longer have a legal and nonviolent way to jettison a truly bad actor who came to power dishonestly before he lets go of the reins on his own, we are all going to be worse off, in so many ways.
posted by eirias at 7:51 PM on April 18, 2019 [21 favorites]
posted by eirias at 7:51 PM on April 18, 2019 [21 favorites]
I don't know what the fuck Mueller & Co are doing here
Obstruction (the crime) requires corrupt intent as well as influence. Mueller decided not to come to a conclusion whether Trump's influence and intent amounted to the crime of obstruction because he was not going to indict anyway. But, he includes lots of evidence of both and waggles his eyebrows a bit and expects the reader to draw their own conclusions- he can talk about influence, because influence isn't itself a crime. But he's purposely gagged himself from calling it obstruction (that is, concluding that Trump had corrupt intent).
posted by BungaDunga at 7:54 PM on April 18, 2019 [6 favorites]
Obstruction (the crime) requires corrupt intent as well as influence. Mueller decided not to come to a conclusion whether Trump's influence and intent amounted to the crime of obstruction because he was not going to indict anyway. But, he includes lots of evidence of both and waggles his eyebrows a bit and expects the reader to draw their own conclusions- he can talk about influence, because influence isn't itself a crime. But he's purposely gagged himself from calling it obstruction (that is, concluding that Trump had corrupt intent).
posted by BungaDunga at 7:54 PM on April 18, 2019 [6 favorites]
As ever, Doctor Chuck Tingle works fast, putting out a new tingler today: REDACTED IN THE BUTT BY REDACTED UNDER THE TROMP ADMINISTRATION.
posted by Capt. Renault at 8:00 PM on April 18, 2019 [24 favorites]
posted by Capt. Renault at 8:00 PM on April 18, 2019 [24 favorites]
Whether to begin impeachment proceedings is not a hard choice.
One doesn't even need to formally instigate impeachment proceedings, simple "doing due diligence following up issues raised by the Mueller report" is enough of a smoke screen to keep things running in public turning over rocks to see what crawls out.
The constitution doesn't really specify "impeachment proceedings" though. Basically, impeachment in the House and conviction in the Senate are just resolutions like any other. There are certainly House rules that currently exist that would govern an impeachment process, but these are just rules, and the majority party can change them like any other rule as it pleases. So while something with pomp that follows the existing House impeachment rules would be the most official "impeachment proceedings," all the myriad ongoing investigations by the various House committees are basically the same sorts of proceedings you would get in some more officially designated "impeachment" hearing. Congress already has all the subpoena and other powers it might need, so my guess is that the Democratic leadership simply plans to chug away with the already adequately-powered existing investigations, with no real need to formally declare anything "impeachment proceedings" until evidence and public opinion suffices (in their minds) to put on the formal hat.
Incidentally, if anyone wanted to know what the existing rules are (which again, exist purely at the whim of the majority parties in the House and Senate), Findlaw has a decent account:
posted by chortly at 8:25 PM on April 18, 2019 [11 favorites]
One doesn't even need to formally instigate impeachment proceedings, simple "doing due diligence following up issues raised by the Mueller report" is enough of a smoke screen to keep things running in public turning over rocks to see what crawls out.
The constitution doesn't really specify "impeachment proceedings" though. Basically, impeachment in the House and conviction in the Senate are just resolutions like any other. There are certainly House rules that currently exist that would govern an impeachment process, but these are just rules, and the majority party can change them like any other rule as it pleases. So while something with pomp that follows the existing House impeachment rules would be the most official "impeachment proceedings," all the myriad ongoing investigations by the various House committees are basically the same sorts of proceedings you would get in some more officially designated "impeachment" hearing. Congress already has all the subpoena and other powers it might need, so my guess is that the Democratic leadership simply plans to chug away with the already adequately-powered existing investigations, with no real need to formally declare anything "impeachment proceedings" until evidence and public opinion suffices (in their minds) to put on the formal hat.
Incidentally, if anyone wanted to know what the existing rules are (which again, exist purely at the whim of the majority parties in the House and Senate), Findlaw has a decent account:
Both the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate have the right to make their own rules governing their procedure, and to change those rules. Under current rules, the actual impeachment inquiry begins in the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives. That Committee holds hearings, takes evidence, and hears testimony of witnesses concerning matters relevant to the inquiry. Typically, as occurred in the case of President Nixon, there will also be a Minority Counsel who serves the interest of the party not controlling Congress.Again, the main upshot is that they make their own rules, so any kinds of proceedings are possible, irrespective of past practice and preexisting rules; the only necessary act is writing a resolution and voting on it.
Witnesses are interrogated by the Committee Counsel, the Minority Counsel, and each of the members of the House Judiciary Committee. The Committee formulates Articles of Impeachment which could contain multiple counts. The Committee votes on the Articles of Impeachment and the results of the vote are reported to the House as a whole. The matter is then referred to the whole House which debates the matter and votes on the Articles of Impeachment, which may or may not be changed. If the Articles of Impeachment are approved, the matter is sent to the Senate for trial.
The trial in the Senate is handled by "Managers" from the House of Representatives, with the assistance of attorneys employed for the prosecution of the impeachment case. The Senate sits as a jury. (In the past the Senate has heard judicial impeachments by appointing a subcommittee especially for that purpose, which then reports its findings to the Senate as a whole.) The Senate would then debate the matter, and vote, each individual Senator voting whether to convict the President and remove him from office, or against conviction. If more than two-thirds of the Senators present vote to convict, the President would be removed from office.
posted by chortly at 8:25 PM on April 18, 2019 [11 favorites]
Lawfare, there-are-ten-bylines-here, What Mueller Found on Russia and on Obstruction: A First Analysis—it's Lawfare's take on the document.
There's a ton here, and it would do a disservice to try to summarize it, but I do want to raise one thing it mentions briefly: what happened to the counterintelligence investigation? Mueller narrowly focuses on making prosecutorial judgements: did this or that rise to the level of a crime for which someone can be indicted? But the investigation the FBI started was broader than that. Sections of the report address Russia's actions, but the focus is always on criminal conduct. As the Lawfare gang writes:
posted by zachlipton at 9:30 PM on April 18, 2019 [24 favorites]
There's a ton here, and it would do a disservice to try to summarize it, but I do want to raise one thing it mentions briefly: what happened to the counterintelligence investigation? Mueller narrowly focuses on making prosecutorial judgements: did this or that rise to the level of a crime for which someone can be indicted? But the investigation the FBI started was broader than that. Sections of the report address Russia's actions, but the focus is always on criminal conduct. As the Lawfare gang writes:
What’s more, it is almost entirely devoid of discussion of the counterintelligence equities at issue in the Russia matter. This is a prosecutor’s report, focused entirely on application of fact to criminal laws and to assessment of whether legal standards were met. Whether this absence is because the counterintelligence elements of the investigation were handled in some other format or because they were entirely sublimated to the criminal investigation is unclear. But this is a document summarizing a criminal probe and the thinking of the prosecutors who ran it—not a document describing the management of threats to the country.So where did the counterintelligence elements of the investigation go? There's a wide range of conduct, the kind that the FBI doesn't like to talk about that much, that are of concern to the government from a counterintelligence perspective yet isn't criminal. Lawfare wrote about that a few weeks ago in To Understand Mueller’s Work, Focus on Counterintelligence. So where'd that go?
posted by zachlipton at 9:30 PM on April 18, 2019 [24 favorites]
From the letter appointing Mueller as Special Counsel:
(b) The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confirmed by then-FBI Director James 8. Corney in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on March 20, 2017, including:posted by kirkaracha at 9:43 PM on April 18, 2019 [6 favorites]
(i) any links and/or coordination bet ween the Russian government and individuals
associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and
(ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and
(iii) any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a).
(c) If the Special Counsel believes it is necessary and appropriate, the Special Counsel is authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters.
(d) Sections 600.4 through 600.10 of Title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations are applicable to the Special Counsel.
Could someone please explain to me in simple words how Trump going on TV to ask Russia to get Clinton's emails followed almost immediately by Russia trying to get Clinton's emails is not cooperation or coordination?
posted by kirkaracha at 9:48 PM on April 18, 2019 [9 favorites]
posted by kirkaracha at 9:48 PM on April 18, 2019 [9 favorites]
Could someone please explain to me in simple words how Trump going on TV to ask Russia to get Clinton's emails followed almost immediately by Russia trying to get Clinton's emails is not cooperation or coordination?
From the report (Vol I, page 2): "We understand coordination to require an agreement—tacit or express—between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government on election interference. This requires more than the two parties taking actions that were informed by or responsive to the other's actions or interests. We applied the term coordination in that sense when stating in the report that the investigation did not establish the Trump Campaign coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."
In short, they defined the terms from the start to say that "coordination" doesn't include what happened: publicly asking for Russia to do something and then Russia doing it. Turns out you can come to any conclusion you want if you start by defining words to mean what you want them to mean.
posted by zachlipton at 9:55 PM on April 18, 2019 [26 favorites]
From the report (Vol I, page 2): "We understand coordination to require an agreement—tacit or express—between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government on election interference. This requires more than the two parties taking actions that were informed by or responsive to the other's actions or interests. We applied the term coordination in that sense when stating in the report that the investigation did not establish the Trump Campaign coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."
In short, they defined the terms from the start to say that "coordination" doesn't include what happened: publicly asking for Russia to do something and then Russia doing it. Turns out you can come to any conclusion you want if you start by defining words to mean what you want them to mean.
posted by zachlipton at 9:55 PM on April 18, 2019 [26 favorites]
"When I use a word," Trumpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Mueller, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Trumpty Dumpty, "which is to be master—that's all."
posted by kirkaracha at 10:25 PM on April 18, 2019 [19 favorites]
"The question is," said Mueller, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Trumpty Dumpty, "which is to be master—that's all."
posted by kirkaracha at 10:25 PM on April 18, 2019 [19 favorites]
What does a tacit agreement look like, if not this? I suppose the missing ingredient is a quid pro quo. I'm trying to remember where these events fall in relation to the sudden changes to Ukraine policy in the GOP platform.
posted by Piso Mojado at 10:40 PM on April 18, 2019
posted by Piso Mojado at 10:40 PM on April 18, 2019
Mueller Report's Episodes of Potential Obstruction of Justice:
I apologize for the length of this post, but it's useful to have a bulleted list:
1. Misleading statements about his ties to Russia
- Trump casts doubt during campaign about whether Russia was involved in email leaks while campaign seeks information from Wiki-Leaks.
- Trump insists he has no ties to Russia while organization pursues licensing deal with Russia for Trump Tower Moscow.
2. Asking Comey to end an investigation
- Trump tells Comey to end investigation into Flynn, because he is a good guy.
3. Attempts to stop Sessions from recusing himself from the Russia investigation
- Trump tells his lawyer McGahn to stop Sessions from recusing himself from the Russia investigation.
4. Trying to get Sessions to resume control of the inquiry
- Trump personally tells Sessions to unrecuse himself from the investigation.
- Trump begins an effort to get Sessions to resign.
5. Reacting to the disclosure that his campaign was under investigation
- The president tells C.I.A. director, Mike Pompeo and Comey to publicly knock down the notion that his campaign coordinated with the Russians.
6. Firing Comey
- The President tells NBC News he fired Comey because of Russia
- Trump tells people he decided to fire Comey regardless of independent job performance recommendations
7. Reacting to the Mueller appointment and trying to fire him
- Trump tries to force Mr. McGahn to have the Justice Department fire Mr. Mueller multiple times.
8. Misleading statement about meeting with Russians
- Trump crafts his son's statement regarding meeting with Russians, only mentioning it being about adoptions, not Clinton.
10. Trying to oust Sessions
- Trump dictates a message to Sessions, asking him to publicly say the investigation is unfair and that the president is innocent.
11. Talking to witnesses about testimony
- Trump orders aides to disavow Trump tried to fire special counsel.
- Trump threatens to fire lawyer McGahn if he refuses to rebut news publicly.
12. Interacting with his personal lawyer
- Trump's lawyer tells Cohen to stay on message in regards to Trump Tower Project.
- Trump publicly calls Cohen a rat after cooperating with prosecutors.
posted by xammerboy at 10:54 PM on April 18, 2019 [49 favorites]
I apologize for the length of this post, but it's useful to have a bulleted list:
1. Misleading statements about his ties to Russia
- Trump casts doubt during campaign about whether Russia was involved in email leaks while campaign seeks information from Wiki-Leaks.
- Trump insists he has no ties to Russia while organization pursues licensing deal with Russia for Trump Tower Moscow.
2. Asking Comey to end an investigation
- Trump tells Comey to end investigation into Flynn, because he is a good guy.
3. Attempts to stop Sessions from recusing himself from the Russia investigation
- Trump tells his lawyer McGahn to stop Sessions from recusing himself from the Russia investigation.
4. Trying to get Sessions to resume control of the inquiry
- Trump personally tells Sessions to unrecuse himself from the investigation.
- Trump begins an effort to get Sessions to resign.
5. Reacting to the disclosure that his campaign was under investigation
- The president tells C.I.A. director, Mike Pompeo and Comey to publicly knock down the notion that his campaign coordinated with the Russians.
6. Firing Comey
- The President tells NBC News he fired Comey because of Russia
- Trump tells people he decided to fire Comey regardless of independent job performance recommendations
7. Reacting to the Mueller appointment and trying to fire him
- Trump tries to force Mr. McGahn to have the Justice Department fire Mr. Mueller multiple times.
8. Misleading statement about meeting with Russians
- Trump crafts his son's statement regarding meeting with Russians, only mentioning it being about adoptions, not Clinton.
10. Trying to oust Sessions
- Trump dictates a message to Sessions, asking him to publicly say the investigation is unfair and that the president is innocent.
11. Talking to witnesses about testimony
- Trump orders aides to disavow Trump tried to fire special counsel.
- Trump threatens to fire lawyer McGahn if he refuses to rebut news publicly.
12. Interacting with his personal lawyer
- Trump's lawyer tells Cohen to stay on message in regards to Trump Tower Project.
- Trump publicly calls Cohen a rat after cooperating with prosecutors.
posted by xammerboy at 10:54 PM on April 18, 2019 [49 favorites]
I suppose the missing ingredient is a quid pro quo.
It sure looks like a tacit agreement. Trump surely delivered on ending Russian sanctions, which is exactly what Russia asked his campaign team to do at Trump Tower. But can you prove it?
posted by xammerboy at 11:02 PM on April 18, 2019 [7 favorites]
It sure looks like a tacit agreement. Trump surely delivered on ending Russian sanctions, which is exactly what Russia asked his campaign team to do at Trump Tower. But can you prove it?
posted by xammerboy at 11:02 PM on April 18, 2019 [7 favorites]
Mueller's report would have signaled the end for anyone other than Trump
Guardian analysis by Jon Swaine.
It's a very succinct and clear piece and includes this lovely bit:
Guardian analysis by Jon Swaine.
It's a very succinct and clear piece and includes this lovely bit:
Mueller confirmed on Thursday that he considered prosecuting Trump Jr for taking the meeting but ultimately declined. Among other factors, Mueller explained, he would have had a difficult task proving that Donald Jr had a “culpable mental state”.posted by mumimor at 1:35 AM on April 19, 2019 [22 favorites]
Not, one might think, anything to boast about.
Yet with a brass neck shinier than the interior of his father’s home, Trump Jr on Thursday could not contain his joy at getting away with it. “Better luck next hoax,” he said to his critics. We won. Tough luck. Get over it.
Still going through my morning "paper":
'Whimsical, uninformed': French ambassador's parting verdict on Trump
Gérard Araud compares regime to court of Louis XIV and warns UK over post-Brexit trade
'Whimsical, uninformed': French ambassador's parting verdict on Trump
Gérard Araud compares regime to court of Louis XIV and warns UK over post-Brexit trade
“It’s like [trying] to analyse the court of Louis XIV,” Araud said. “You have an old king, a bit whimsical, unpredictable, uninformed, but he wants to be the one deciding.”posted by mumimor at 1:46 AM on April 19, 2019 [14 favorites]
Like the Sun King who dominated France in the 17th and 18th centuries, Trump “doesn’t want to appear under any influence and he wants to show it”, Araud said.
He portrayed the current situation as the opposite extreme of the meticulous though sometimes ponderous decision-making process pursued by the previous administration.
“Obama was the ultimate bureaucrat: you know every night he was going to bed with 60 pages and in the morning they were coming back all annotated by the president,” he said. For decisions such as the troop surge in Afghanistan, there were months of meetings between the relevant government departments.
Now that inter-agency process is largely dead, killed off and replaced by John Bolton, the ultra-hawkish national security adviser, while other centres of power in the state department and Pentagon are withering, weakened by multiple unfilled senior positions, and top officials serving in acting capacity only, without Senate confirmation.
“Actually, we don’t have interlocutors,” Araud said. “[When] we have people to talk to, they are acting, so they don’t have real authority or access. Basically, the consequence is that there is only one centre of power: the White House.
But a thing about "Make Republicans defend him!" is that I believe that almost the entire set of Americans who are currently unsure whether the Republican Party is totally compromised/corrupt would also accept, with a shrug, whatever finding was reached. In other words, how many people gain information that is both true and new to them when they see impeachment proceedings and the subsequent not-guilty verdict?
Exactly! I am listening to the latest Ana Marie Cox With Friends Like These podcast. I was feeling very pro impeachment, as I have been for some time, when Rick Wilson, Republican operative and writer, pointed out that the minute the House begins impeachment the Trump 2020 campaign will raise millions and millions and millions of dollars from his base rushing to defend him. (Wilson actually used the B word, for billions.)
From Politico: Money has long been a key factor in political success: The more candidates raise, the more they have to spend on advertising, door-knocking and other important campaign functions. ... While the Democrats gear up for a primary, their ultimate opponent is working on his own campaign. President Donald Trump has amassed $40.8 million in his campaign account as of the end of March, and Trump is rapidly raising and spending money for a campaign infrastructure to take on the eventual Democratic nominee — more than a year before the Democratic primary is through. So Trump has twice as much as the top D primary fundraiser already.
Is it obviously the moral action to impeach knowing that A. The Senate will never vote to remove Trump from office and B. Impeachment will fill Trump's campaign coffers even more, giving him a huge financial edge in the election, which increases the odds that he wins the election? Because his reelection would mean C. More children in more cages, as well as another four years of destroying our democracy, loading the courts with scary/retro/anti-female, -PoC, -LQBTQ judges, and coming up with additional ways to be shitty to basically everyone: our environment, our laws, our citizens, our residents, our allies, you name it.
Under the circumstances, that is not a gamble I would be willing to take. I think Congress needs to aggressively investigate Trump and all of his officials and associates; all of his companies; all of his properties, etc., and prosecute when that is possible. Meanwhile, from now until election day D candidates and the national Democratic leaders need to trumpet that Trump and his cronies are crooks while also talking about the most important (few) issues that voters care about. And that mostly means health care, IMO.
posted by Bella Donna at 2:20 AM on April 19, 2019 [10 favorites]
Exactly! I am listening to the latest Ana Marie Cox With Friends Like These podcast. I was feeling very pro impeachment, as I have been for some time, when Rick Wilson, Republican operative and writer, pointed out that the minute the House begins impeachment the Trump 2020 campaign will raise millions and millions and millions of dollars from his base rushing to defend him. (Wilson actually used the B word, for billions.)
From Politico: Money has long been a key factor in political success: The more candidates raise, the more they have to spend on advertising, door-knocking and other important campaign functions. ... While the Democrats gear up for a primary, their ultimate opponent is working on his own campaign. President Donald Trump has amassed $40.8 million in his campaign account as of the end of March, and Trump is rapidly raising and spending money for a campaign infrastructure to take on the eventual Democratic nominee — more than a year before the Democratic primary is through. So Trump has twice as much as the top D primary fundraiser already.
Is it obviously the moral action to impeach knowing that A. The Senate will never vote to remove Trump from office and B. Impeachment will fill Trump's campaign coffers even more, giving him a huge financial edge in the election, which increases the odds that he wins the election? Because his reelection would mean C. More children in more cages, as well as another four years of destroying our democracy, loading the courts with scary/retro/anti-female, -PoC, -LQBTQ judges, and coming up with additional ways to be shitty to basically everyone: our environment, our laws, our citizens, our residents, our allies, you name it.
Under the circumstances, that is not a gamble I would be willing to take. I think Congress needs to aggressively investigate Trump and all of his officials and associates; all of his companies; all of his properties, etc., and prosecute when that is possible. Meanwhile, from now until election day D candidates and the national Democratic leaders need to trumpet that Trump and his cronies are crooks while also talking about the most important (few) issues that voters care about. And that mostly means health care, IMO.
posted by Bella Donna at 2:20 AM on April 19, 2019 [10 favorites]
NYTimes has a neat graphic showing which parts of the report are redacted See Which Sections of the
Mueller Report Were Redacted
One part that is heavily redacted is "Mueller’s decision on whether or not to bring charges", and I think this is probably the most suspicious part. The others are understandable in relation to intelligence and ongoing investigations.
posted by mumimor at 2:55 AM on April 19, 2019 [13 favorites]
Mueller Report Were Redacted
One part that is heavily redacted is "Mueller’s decision on whether or not to bring charges", and I think this is probably the most suspicious part. The others are understandable in relation to intelligence and ongoing investigations.
posted by mumimor at 2:55 AM on April 19, 2019 [13 favorites]
From Reuters: The United Constitutional Patriots, who claim to be mainly military veterans, have been patrolling the U.S.-Mexico border near Sunland Park, New Mexico, since late February in search of illegal border crossers.
They post near daily videos showing members dressed in camouflage and armed with semi-automatic rifles holding groups of migrants, many of them Central American families seeking asylum, until U.S. Border Patrol agents arrive to arrest them.
The small volunteer group says it is helping Border Patrol deal with a surge in undocumented migrants but civil rights organizations like the ACLU say it is a “fascist militia organization” operating outside the law.
“We cannot allow racist and armed vigilantes to kidnap and detain people seeking asylum,” the ACLU said in a letter to New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham and Attorney General Hector Balderas.
posted by Bella Donna at 3:32 AM on April 19, 2019 [22 favorites]
They post near daily videos showing members dressed in camouflage and armed with semi-automatic rifles holding groups of migrants, many of them Central American families seeking asylum, until U.S. Border Patrol agents arrive to arrest them.
The small volunteer group says it is helping Border Patrol deal with a surge in undocumented migrants but civil rights organizations like the ACLU say it is a “fascist militia organization” operating outside the law.
“We cannot allow racist and armed vigilantes to kidnap and detain people seeking asylum,” the ACLU said in a letter to New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham and Attorney General Hector Balderas.
posted by Bella Donna at 3:32 AM on April 19, 2019 [22 favorites]
If they're going to get him on something, they're going to get him on obstruction.
Of course, the issue here is that Trump didn't successfully obstruct the investigation in any meaningful way. He sure as heck wanted to, and he looked for every angle to do so, going as far as directing people - but his lieutenants refused to comply.
Trump felt it was a witch hunt and wanted to shut it down is different than Trump was trying to hide things and shut the investigation down to prevent those things from being disclosed.
At its core, Mueller determined there wasn't collusion, and that overall, the actions of the Trump team were ham handed and sloppy attempts at stopping an investigation they thought was unjust. The resulting actions to stop the investigation could very well be interpreted as either obstruction, or, defensive moves.
posted by tgrundke at 4:00 AM on April 19, 2019 [1 favorite]
Of course, the issue here is that Trump didn't successfully obstruct the investigation in any meaningful way. He sure as heck wanted to, and he looked for every angle to do so, going as far as directing people - but his lieutenants refused to comply.
Trump felt it was a witch hunt and wanted to shut it down is different than Trump was trying to hide things and shut the investigation down to prevent those things from being disclosed.
At its core, Mueller determined there wasn't collusion, and that overall, the actions of the Trump team were ham handed and sloppy attempts at stopping an investigation they thought was unjust. The resulting actions to stop the investigation could very well be interpreted as either obstruction, or, defensive moves.
posted by tgrundke at 4:00 AM on April 19, 2019 [1 favorite]
I knew the UCP story Bella Donna links to would get buried in yesterday's Mueller news drop, but it's alarming as hell. Former military and cops, holding migrants at gunpoint and "commanding" them, just to help out the existing legal authorities? This is some brownshirt shit, and it must be dealt with as a crime.
posted by Rykey at 4:10 AM on April 19, 2019 [47 favorites]
posted by Rykey at 4:10 AM on April 19, 2019 [47 favorites]
Nadler on Good Morning America just now: subpoena will come in the next couple of hours
posted by XMLicious at 4:18 AM on April 19, 2019 [10 favorites]
posted by XMLicious at 4:18 AM on April 19, 2019 [10 favorites]
Obstruction to Barr requires corrupt intent (and a Democratic Party affiliation). To Mueller it was an entirely academic question because he wasn't allowed to charge it, so he limited himself to compiling evidence and then told Congress that it's their job to decide whether it proved a high crime and/or misdemeanor.
(Also Mueller never affirmatively found "no collusion" and pointedly mentions areas where he was unable to fully explore what happened because the Trump camp lied, refused to cooperate or concealed evidence, which sounds a lot like successful obstruction)
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 5:00 AM on April 19, 2019 [14 favorites]
(Also Mueller never affirmatively found "no collusion" and pointedly mentions areas where he was unable to fully explore what happened because the Trump camp lied, refused to cooperate or concealed evidence, which sounds a lot like successful obstruction)
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 5:00 AM on April 19, 2019 [14 favorites]
Meredith Shiner
Former Senator Bill Nelson claimed Russian hackers had gained access to Florida election systems. He was mocked. The Mueller Report confirms this happened. Think about how close his race was and the gubernatorial!
Mother Jones: Mueller Report Bolsters Claims That Russia Penetrated Election Systems in Florida
posted by chris24 at 5:09 AM on April 19, 2019 [63 favorites]
Former Senator Bill Nelson claimed Russian hackers had gained access to Florida election systems. He was mocked. The Mueller Report confirms this happened. Think about how close his race was and the gubernatorial!
Mother Jones: Mueller Report Bolsters Claims That Russia Penetrated Election Systems in Florida
posted by chris24 at 5:09 AM on April 19, 2019 [63 favorites]
Elizabeth de la Vega
If you think the party that finds it politically inconvenient to begin an impeachment inquiry in the face of overwhelming evidence of Trump's abuses of power will allow him to be indicted federally if they do defeat him in 2020, think again. They won't --politically inconvenient.
posted by chris24 at 5:18 AM on April 19, 2019 [17 favorites]
If you think the party that finds it politically inconvenient to begin an impeachment inquiry in the face of overwhelming evidence of Trump's abuses of power will allow him to be indicted federally if they do defeat him in 2020, think again. They won't --politically inconvenient.
posted by chris24 at 5:18 AM on April 19, 2019 [17 favorites]
The UCP militia on the border story is horrifying, but not unusual, or new. Border militia groups have been taking the same actions for years. Mother Jones recently (2016) covered a group, by joining one undercover. There are also interviews with some of similar groups in recent documentaries, like Katheryn Bigelow's Cartel Land, 2015, which partly follows the Arizona Border Recon, another vigilante group.
posted by Harry Caul at 5:19 AM on April 19, 2019 [7 favorites]
posted by Harry Caul at 5:19 AM on April 19, 2019 [7 favorites]
Not to derail but will note this article posted by homunculus in the Assange thread from The Daily Beast. Mueller Report: Assange Smeared Seth Rich to Cover for Russians. Julian Assange repeatedly blamed Seth Rich, the murdered DNC staffer, for Russia’s leaks. The Mueller report shows that Assange was lying from the start. Kindly go to that thread to discuss the despicable Assange. Thank you.
posted by Bella Donna at 5:20 AM on April 19, 2019 [44 favorites]
posted by Bella Donna at 5:20 AM on April 19, 2019 [44 favorites]
I imagine that if Mueller had actually tried to impeach Trump, he'd be called out for gross abuse of power.
posted by ZeusHumms at 5:21 AM on April 19, 2019
posted by ZeusHumms at 5:21 AM on April 19, 2019
But Mueller specifically did not look at “collusion” he looked at criminal conspiracy and concluded he didn’t have the evidence to determine it was a conspiracy (direct coordination of the parties).
Even beyond that it was a specific category of conspiracy that he found insufficient evidence for, involving the Russian government as one of the other parties among further details. I noted with interest (though without any legal expertise) that at Barr's spin conference yesterday morning he appeared to very specifically delineate the IRA, for example, as a separate entity from the Russian government.
So that seems like it leaves open the possibility of sufficient evidence for conspiracies involving Russian entities that don't count as the Russian government. Sort of like how Judge Ellis, who presided over a Manafort case, insisted that prosecutors not use the term “oligarch”. And of course it seems like there might be evidence of conspiracies that don't involve any Russians at all.
As far as “either obstruction, or, defensive moves” that sounds like a false dichotomy to me. Clumsily abusing power in a defensive move could certainly also count as criminal obstruction of justice, I'd think.
posted by XMLicious at 5:24 AM on April 19, 2019 [3 favorites]
A few words on timing from 1998, and some wild speculation:
The Starr Report was released on September 11, 1998.
The House Judiciary Committee (Hyde) talked a lot about impeachment but didn't do anything before the election, because they already had the Starr Report. This was a different approach than Rodino's Judiciary Committee took in 1974. After the election (they lost 5 seats), they reported out 4 articles of impeachment on December 15. The House approved 2 of the articles on December 19.
The Senate trial ran from January 7, 1999 through February 12. Part time, with open and closed sessions, but about 5-6 weeks.
In this case, House Judiciary Committee (Nadler) will do their own investigation; they've said as much yesterday. It'll probably take through the summer, at least. If the House does go forward with impeachment, the timing around the election could be interesting (but probably won't be):
The senators are going to have to stay in town for the trial. This will be inconvenient for the Democratic senators who are running for President (which is all of them), which to my mind makes it more likely McConnell will let it go forward. If the trial doesn't get started until the winter, this will pull them off the campaign trail. Most primaries are in March.
If it drags on long enough, some ambitious Republican senators (which is all of them) will see the opportunity to get Trump out of the way, bar him from office, and go to an wide-open party convention with no nominee. This is unlikely, but I'll bet you Ted Cruz, Mitt Romney and Marco Rubio are looking at the convention rules now, if they haven't already. You'd think it would backfire, but if you're secure enough in your own seat, this might be as close as you'd ever get.
posted by Huffy Puffy at 5:31 AM on April 19, 2019 [7 favorites]
The Starr Report was released on September 11, 1998.
The House Judiciary Committee (Hyde) talked a lot about impeachment but didn't do anything before the election, because they already had the Starr Report. This was a different approach than Rodino's Judiciary Committee took in 1974. After the election (they lost 5 seats), they reported out 4 articles of impeachment on December 15. The House approved 2 of the articles on December 19.
The Senate trial ran from January 7, 1999 through February 12. Part time, with open and closed sessions, but about 5-6 weeks.
In this case, House Judiciary Committee (Nadler) will do their own investigation; they've said as much yesterday. It'll probably take through the summer, at least. If the House does go forward with impeachment, the timing around the election could be interesting (but probably won't be):
The senators are going to have to stay in town for the trial. This will be inconvenient for the Democratic senators who are running for President (which is all of them), which to my mind makes it more likely McConnell will let it go forward. If the trial doesn't get started until the winter, this will pull them off the campaign trail. Most primaries are in March.
If it drags on long enough, some ambitious Republican senators (which is all of them) will see the opportunity to get Trump out of the way, bar him from office, and go to an wide-open party convention with no nominee. This is unlikely, but I'll bet you Ted Cruz, Mitt Romney and Marco Rubio are looking at the convention rules now, if they haven't already. You'd think it would backfire, but if you're secure enough in your own seat, this might be as close as you'd ever get.
posted by Huffy Puffy at 5:31 AM on April 19, 2019 [7 favorites]
Eliza Relman and Sonam Sheth for Business Insider: "Mueller referred 14 criminal matters to other prosecutors, but only 2 of them are public so far"
Besides the obstruction of justice stuff, before the report came out I said I was most interested in learning more about the nuclear plan Flynn, Bannon et al had for Saudi Arabia, and about the role of Cambridge Analytica. I am super disappointed that stuff isn't in there.
I am hoping that means these matters have been referred out to other offices for further investigation rather than that they were ignored. If they are indeed the subjects of ongoing investigations, of course, anything about them would be redacted from this report (or not included in the first place.)
I can see where the Saudi Arabia stuff might be something Mueller sees as peripheral to his "Russian election interference investigation" mandate (though Russian companies were allegedly involved) and thus a good candidate for a referral.
But Cambridge Analytica? Cambridge Analytica had previously been led by Steve Bannon, and had direct links to Russia. It "used Russian researchers to gather its data, (and) openly shared information" with entities linked to the Russian intelligence agency FSB. At the same time, it “tested US voter opinion on Putin’s leadership, and hired hackers from Russia.“ Those quotes are per Andrew Wylie, a former employee who testified before Congress. And the CEO of Cambridge Analytica reached out to Assange about getting copies of the emails. And the business model of Cambridge Analytica closely resembles that of the Internet Research Agency -- they had overlapping actvities. And Sam Patten, who worked with Manafort and admitted in his guilty plea that he had illegally steered donations from Ukranian oligarchs to the Trump inaugural committee, was also employed by Cambridge Analytica's parent company Why no mention of Cambridge Analytica in the Mueller report?
And that is really just the tip of the iceberg.
Because they weren't formally part of the campaign... only contracted to do most of the media strategy? Would that be reason enough for Mueller to refer this out?
If we don't ever learn more about Cambridge Analytica, I think it will indicate that there has been at least a partially successful cover up.
posted by OnceUponATime at 5:35 AM on April 19, 2019 [27 favorites]
The two criminal investigations we know of that were referred by Mueller are those dealing with Michael Cohen, President Donald Trump's former lawyer, and Gregory Craig, the former White House counsel under former President Barack Obama.Wasn't Maria Butina's case a Mueller referral? Or did it originate in another jurisdiction? I was really joping we'd learn more about her interactions with the NRA (and about NRA campaign spending) in this report. Or at least about her and Torshin's interactioms with the Trump family.
Besides the obstruction of justice stuff, before the report came out I said I was most interested in learning more about the nuclear plan Flynn, Bannon et al had for Saudi Arabia, and about the role of Cambridge Analytica. I am super disappointed that stuff isn't in there.
I am hoping that means these matters have been referred out to other offices for further investigation rather than that they were ignored. If they are indeed the subjects of ongoing investigations, of course, anything about them would be redacted from this report (or not included in the first place.)
I can see where the Saudi Arabia stuff might be something Mueller sees as peripheral to his "Russian election interference investigation" mandate (though Russian companies were allegedly involved) and thus a good candidate for a referral.
But Cambridge Analytica? Cambridge Analytica had previously been led by Steve Bannon, and had direct links to Russia. It "used Russian researchers to gather its data, (and) openly shared information" with entities linked to the Russian intelligence agency FSB. At the same time, it “tested US voter opinion on Putin’s leadership, and hired hackers from Russia.“ Those quotes are per Andrew Wylie, a former employee who testified before Congress. And the CEO of Cambridge Analytica reached out to Assange about getting copies of the emails. And the business model of Cambridge Analytica closely resembles that of the Internet Research Agency -- they had overlapping actvities. And Sam Patten, who worked with Manafort and admitted in his guilty plea that he had illegally steered donations from Ukranian oligarchs to the Trump inaugural committee, was also employed by Cambridge Analytica's parent company Why no mention of Cambridge Analytica in the Mueller report?
And that is really just the tip of the iceberg.
Because they weren't formally part of the campaign... only contracted to do most of the media strategy? Would that be reason enough for Mueller to refer this out?
If we don't ever learn more about Cambridge Analytica, I think it will indicate that there has been at least a partially successful cover up.
posted by OnceUponATime at 5:35 AM on April 19, 2019 [27 favorites]
Sarah Kendzior, as usual, brings the goods.
Fighting only the battles that you know you will win is a sure way of ensuring you lose. Preemptive surrender, in a rapidly consolidating autocracy, is permanent surrender. . . . Our media is largely sponsored by dictators or dictated by sponsors. It is critical that officials present evidence to the public directly.
I myself am sympathetic to strategic concerns but Kendzior makes a persuasive argument that there is no rational alternative to public hearings (which it sounds like we will have) and impeachment.
posted by 6thsense at 5:36 AM on April 19, 2019 [76 favorites]
Fighting only the battles that you know you will win is a sure way of ensuring you lose. Preemptive surrender, in a rapidly consolidating autocracy, is permanent surrender. . . . Our media is largely sponsored by dictators or dictated by sponsors. It is critical that officials present evidence to the public directly.
I myself am sympathetic to strategic concerns but Kendzior makes a persuasive argument that there is no rational alternative to public hearings (which it sounds like we will have) and impeachment.
posted by 6thsense at 5:36 AM on April 19, 2019 [76 favorites]
I guess we have another Times headline we can add to “Investigating Donald Trump, F.B.I. Sees No Clear Link to Russia” and “Donald the Dove, Hillary the Hawk” infamy.
March 25: “Mueller Finds No Trump-Russia Conspiracy”
Yet today...
April 19: “Mueller Report Lays Out Russian Contacts And Trump’s Frantic Efforts to Foil Inquiry”
posted by chris24 at 6:10 AM on April 19, 2019 [23 favorites]
March 25: “Mueller Finds No Trump-Russia Conspiracy”
Yet today...
April 19: “Mueller Report Lays Out Russian Contacts And Trump’s Frantic Efforts to Foil Inquiry”
posted by chris24 at 6:10 AM on April 19, 2019 [23 favorites]
Heather Digby Parton at Salon: Mueller's report has a clear purpose: It's a roadmap for impeachment
posted by soundguy99 at 6:38 AM on April 19, 2019 [14 favorites]
posted by soundguy99 at 6:38 AM on April 19, 2019 [14 favorites]
Am I missing something, or are there not many mentions of Bannon in all this? I know he was more on the white supremacy side of the team than the corrupt grifter side of the team, but surely he knew what was happening?
posted by harriet vane at 6:59 AM on April 19, 2019 [1 favorite]
posted by harriet vane at 6:59 AM on April 19, 2019 [1 favorite]
Bannon joined the campaign late. He appears to have been fairly forthcoming on what Erik Prince was up to.
posted by holgate at 7:03 AM on April 19, 2019 [1 favorite]
posted by holgate at 7:03 AM on April 19, 2019 [1 favorite]
There looks to be a significant amount redacted about Bannon and Eric Prince working with mutual associates, starting around Vol I, p 147.
posted by Harry Caul at 7:04 AM on April 19, 2019 [5 favorites]
posted by Harry Caul at 7:04 AM on April 19, 2019 [5 favorites]
Ashley Feinberg (HuffPo)
just had a vision of trump at a rally screaming "if there was really a crime, the democrats would have impeached"
posted by chris24 at 7:19 AM on April 19, 2019 [32 favorites]
just had a vision of trump at a rally screaming "if there was really a crime, the democrats would have impeached"
posted by chris24 at 7:19 AM on April 19, 2019 [32 favorites]
Bella Donna: I was feeling very pro impeachment, as I have been for some time, when Rick Wilson, Republican operative and writer, pointed out that the minute the House begins impeachment the Trump 2020 campaign will raise millions and millions and millions of dollars from his base rushing to defend him.
While that's definitely true, I actually think that, at that stage of the process, the Democratic side would benefit even more, especially in terms of voter enthusiasm.
I'm seeing a widespread sense among Dems and would-be Dems that (though I personally disagree) a failure to impeach is inexcusable, though this may just be an Internet Liberal Bubble thing. Impeaching would flip this around fast, and the momentum would, I think, turn against Trump hard.
(One reason is that while the fascist mentality of Trump and co always straddles the line between "We are all-powerful" and "We are in terrible danger", it prefers the first narrative to the second. Trump has a better path to victory if the economy does well and the press is good than if he's forced into the mode of ranting about fake news, witch hunts, and his usual xenophobic scaremongering. Contrary to some common assumptions, he's not more of a danger when cornered; in a weird way, impeachment will help the country's marginalized because it will make him feel a little smaller, and will suck up more of his energy otherwise devoted to the fascism.)
The worrying part to me about impeachment isn't the momentum it gives Republicans, or any public perception by the mushy middle that Democrats were now getting too aggressive and political and can't we just have nice things again. That would be a thing for sure, but I think leftward-base enthusiasm overwhelms that. Nope... per and old adage about falling, the worrying part is the sudden stop at the end.
I've seen people outside of here speculate that McConnell might just refuse to take up the issue even after the House passed it, a Merrick Garland 2.0 situation with even more flagrant ignorance of Constitutional duty. But I don't think he would, because he's smarter than that. I'd perversely hope he would block it, because it would be a fantastic demonstration of his venality, specifically, in a way that Republicans voting to acquit (which they have every Constitutional right to do) would not be. So: once he puts it on the calendar, yeah, that's a fair bit of pain for Senate Republicans, to confront all these issues in debate. But after that, their pain is over with the bliss of ~!~vindication~!~.
We've just gotta prepare the public for that last part. If enough Dems can bring themselves to say "The other side simply does not operate in good faith", my confidence is raised. My concern is that this won't happen, the process will be perceived as muddled, parts of the left will be disappointed that Pelosi didn't do The One Obvious Thing that would secure victory (just as certain parts are disappointed that impeachment didn't happen immediately), and the right will crow victory because the media failed to shame them (and inform the public) with a "He's Clearly Guilty, What Happens Next?" narrative, opting for a different kind of horse-race instead.
Regardless, I lean about 65% in favor of pushing this rock and starting the avalanche; the winds are favorable.
posted by InTheYear2017 at 7:20 AM on April 19, 2019 [9 favorites]
While that's definitely true, I actually think that, at that stage of the process, the Democratic side would benefit even more, especially in terms of voter enthusiasm.
I'm seeing a widespread sense among Dems and would-be Dems that (though I personally disagree) a failure to impeach is inexcusable, though this may just be an Internet Liberal Bubble thing. Impeaching would flip this around fast, and the momentum would, I think, turn against Trump hard.
(One reason is that while the fascist mentality of Trump and co always straddles the line between "We are all-powerful" and "We are in terrible danger", it prefers the first narrative to the second. Trump has a better path to victory if the economy does well and the press is good than if he's forced into the mode of ranting about fake news, witch hunts, and his usual xenophobic scaremongering. Contrary to some common assumptions, he's not more of a danger when cornered; in a weird way, impeachment will help the country's marginalized because it will make him feel a little smaller, and will suck up more of his energy otherwise devoted to the fascism.)
The worrying part to me about impeachment isn't the momentum it gives Republicans, or any public perception by the mushy middle that Democrats were now getting too aggressive and political and can't we just have nice things again. That would be a thing for sure, but I think leftward-base enthusiasm overwhelms that. Nope... per and old adage about falling, the worrying part is the sudden stop at the end.
I've seen people outside of here speculate that McConnell might just refuse to take up the issue even after the House passed it, a Merrick Garland 2.0 situation with even more flagrant ignorance of Constitutional duty. But I don't think he would, because he's smarter than that. I'd perversely hope he would block it, because it would be a fantastic demonstration of his venality, specifically, in a way that Republicans voting to acquit (which they have every Constitutional right to do) would not be. So: once he puts it on the calendar, yeah, that's a fair bit of pain for Senate Republicans, to confront all these issues in debate. But after that, their pain is over with the bliss of ~!~vindication~!~.
We've just gotta prepare the public for that last part. If enough Dems can bring themselves to say "The other side simply does not operate in good faith", my confidence is raised. My concern is that this won't happen, the process will be perceived as muddled, parts of the left will be disappointed that Pelosi didn't do The One Obvious Thing that would secure victory (just as certain parts are disappointed that impeachment didn't happen immediately), and the right will crow victory because the media failed to shame them (and inform the public) with a "He's Clearly Guilty, What Happens Next?" narrative, opting for a different kind of horse-race instead.
Regardless, I lean about 65% in favor of pushing this rock and starting the avalanche; the winds are favorable.
posted by InTheYear2017 at 7:20 AM on April 19, 2019 [9 favorites]
Nice to see CNN's Wolf Blitzer choosing to quote the President's use of "bullshit" without self-censorship. I hope other journalists follow suit. I want people to be uncomfortable and angry about this President's words.
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 7:31 AM on April 19, 2019 [12 favorites]
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 7:31 AM on April 19, 2019 [12 favorites]
Assuming their assumptions that the Senate would not convict are true, the Democrats have the choice of two different Trump attack lines in 2020:
1. "The Democrats spent two years saying I was colluding with Russia. If they though it was so bad, why didn't they impeach me?"
2. "The Democrats tried to impeach me, but couldn't get it done, thanks to my beautiful Senate! Losers!"
Which one would you rather defend against?
The point is, initiating an impeachment investigation allows the Democratic Party to choose the battlefield. Otherwise, Trump chooses the battlefield.
posted by vibrotronica at 7:35 AM on April 19, 2019 [34 favorites]
1. "The Democrats spent two years saying I was colluding with Russia. If they though it was so bad, why didn't they impeach me?"
2. "The Democrats tried to impeach me, but couldn't get it done, thanks to my beautiful Senate! Losers!"
Which one would you rather defend against?
The point is, initiating an impeachment investigation allows the Democratic Party to choose the battlefield. Otherwise, Trump chooses the battlefield.
posted by vibrotronica at 7:35 AM on April 19, 2019 [34 favorites]
I imagine that if Mueller had actually tried to impeach Trump, he'd be called out for gross abuse of power.
Only the House of Representatives can impeach. I agree that Mueller would've gotten a lot of heat for trying to subpoena or indict Trump. (Which doesn't mean he shouldn't have done those things.)
posted by kirkaracha at 7:36 AM on April 19, 2019 [1 favorite]
Only the House of Representatives can impeach. I agree that Mueller would've gotten a lot of heat for trying to subpoena or indict Trump. (Which doesn't mean he shouldn't have done those things.)
posted by kirkaracha at 7:36 AM on April 19, 2019 [1 favorite]
There's a scene in The Informant! (Possibly actually happened) where the FBI decides they don't have enough to nail ADG and other companies for price fixing because the members of the conspiracy didn't actually say the words that they were in agreement. Even though they clearly were in agreement there was not enough certainty for the FBI to go ahead with arrests. In a comical fashion, their informant Mark Whitacre ends up getting the group on tape saying they were all in agreement without him saying it first.
And that's how you break the law to become president and get away with it
posted by Green With You at 7:36 AM on April 19, 2019 [8 favorites]
And that's how you break the law to become president and get away with it
posted by Green With You at 7:36 AM on April 19, 2019 [8 favorites]
Nice to see CNN's Wolf Blitzer choosing to quote the President's use of "bullshit" without self-censorship.
That's part of a very authentic multi-part rant about "the Crazy Mueller Report", "18 Angry Democrat Trump Haters", "an Illegally Started Hoax", etc. from @realDonaldTrump that, two hours remains incomplete. Daniel Dale drily remarks that Trump has since left for his golf club. (And Kyle Griffin marks today's occasion of Trump's 182nd day at a Trump golf club and 244th day at a Trump property as president.)
posted by Doktor Zed at 7:45 AM on April 19, 2019 [6 favorites]
That's part of a very authentic multi-part rant about "the Crazy Mueller Report", "18 Angry Democrat Trump Haters", "an Illegally Started Hoax", etc. from @realDonaldTrump that, two hours remains incomplete. Daniel Dale drily remarks that Trump has since left for his golf club. (And Kyle Griffin marks today's occasion of Trump's 182nd day at a Trump golf club and 244th day at a Trump property as president.)
posted by Doktor Zed at 7:45 AM on April 19, 2019 [6 favorites]
Democrats Impeachment Panic is Endangering the Country (Brain Beutler, Crooked Media)
"At some point soon, Democratic leaders will have to reckon with the fact that the founders created the impeachment power for precisely this moment. That impeachment is their basic obligation."
"And if the Mueller report makes one thing clear it’s that if Democrats fail to meet that obligation, Trump won’t be chastened—to the contrary, he will be more emboldened in his abuses of power, and the country will be in even greater danger."
posted by diogenes at 7:48 AM on April 19, 2019 [54 favorites]
"At some point soon, Democratic leaders will have to reckon with the fact that the founders created the impeachment power for precisely this moment. That impeachment is their basic obligation."
"And if the Mueller report makes one thing clear it’s that if Democrats fail to meet that obligation, Trump won’t be chastened—to the contrary, he will be more emboldened in his abuses of power, and the country will be in even greater danger."
posted by diogenes at 7:48 AM on April 19, 2019 [54 favorites]
If the house moves to impeach, and millions flow into Trump's campaign, and he is convicted, or is primaried or otherwise loses the nomination, isn't that money wasted, in the sense that it won't be used against the democratic candidate? That could be a tactical win
posted by M-x shell at 7:52 AM on April 19, 2019 [11 favorites]
posted by M-x shell at 7:52 AM on April 19, 2019 [11 favorites]
So I don't know who (if anyone) would benefit politically from Articles of Impeachment. I very much doubt any of the other folks commenting do either. I am certain, however, that pre-empively dismissing impeachment as an option, the way Hoyer has done, is strategically terrible. Whether or not the game plan involves impeachment, it should absolutely include continued investigation with impeachment always presented as an option. Whether or not they actually impeach, well, everyone here's gone over why that's a good idea or a bad idea or whatever, but surely the House Committees should be continuing investigations. And you don't get people to take your investigation seriously if you pre-emptively say you're not going to follow the only possible remedy for malfeasance you turn up.
The investigations are important ethically because they bear witness to immoral acts. They're important politically because, as we saw in 2016, a low but persistent hum of suspicion of corruption is pretty effective at moving the middle. They''re important tactically because they keep the administration on the defensive and distracted from doing the horrible things they do when they think they're not threatened.
I don't know whether an impeachment is anyone's actual long-term plan, but no matter what the House actually plans to do, there should be message discipline that it remains an option to be considered, because that's the only way to make sure the media keeps paying attention.
posted by jackbishop at 7:55 AM on April 19, 2019 [23 favorites]
The investigations are important ethically because they bear witness to immoral acts. They're important politically because, as we saw in 2016, a low but persistent hum of suspicion of corruption is pretty effective at moving the middle. They''re important tactically because they keep the administration on the defensive and distracted from doing the horrible things they do when they think they're not threatened.
I don't know whether an impeachment is anyone's actual long-term plan, but no matter what the House actually plans to do, there should be message discipline that it remains an option to be considered, because that's the only way to make sure the media keeps paying attention.
posted by jackbishop at 7:55 AM on April 19, 2019 [23 favorites]
Republican Group Will Run Fox News Ad Urging GOP to Hold Trump Accountable (Newsweek)
Here's the group, here's the ad.
It features clips of Steve Chabot (R-OH), Fred Upton (R-MI), John Thune (R-SD), and Rob Portman (R-OH)--they're all still in office, though Thune and Portman are senators now--talking about obstructing justice. The YouTube video has about 3,400 views. After I watched it, YouTube suggested I watch something called 'Ben Shapiro Destroys Socialism.' I declined.
posted by box at 7:59 AM on April 19, 2019 [22 favorites]
Here's the group, here's the ad.
It features clips of Steve Chabot (R-OH), Fred Upton (R-MI), John Thune (R-SD), and Rob Portman (R-OH)--they're all still in office, though Thune and Portman are senators now--talking about obstructing justice. The YouTube video has about 3,400 views. After I watched it, YouTube suggested I watch something called 'Ben Shapiro Destroys Socialism.' I declined.
posted by box at 7:59 AM on April 19, 2019 [22 favorites]
They could just put socialism on the top shelf, safely out of Shapiro's reach.
posted by delfin at 8:06 AM on April 19, 2019 [23 favorites]
posted by delfin at 8:06 AM on April 19, 2019 [23 favorites]
Brian Fallon
NEW POLL: When provided the arguments for and against adding seats to the Supreme Court, Democrats support the idea 75-25 and independents support it 55-45.
posted by chris24 at 8:25 AM on April 19, 2019 [25 favorites]
NEW POLL: When provided the arguments for and against adding seats to the Supreme Court, Democrats support the idea 75-25 and independents support it 55-45.
posted by chris24 at 8:25 AM on April 19, 2019 [25 favorites]
that young Ben Shapiro really needs to stop destroying things ...
But seriously, assuming that there is still a viable something-or-other called Conservatism once (if) all this Trump foofurrah finally plays out, I fear it's going to involve this guy's ongoing fast-talking for decades to come. Shapiro's not exactly a Never Trumper, but he didn't vote for him and has always maintained a distance.
posted by philip-random at 8:31 AM on April 19, 2019
But seriously, assuming that there is still a viable something-or-other called Conservatism once (if) all this Trump foofurrah finally plays out, I fear it's going to involve this guy's ongoing fast-talking for decades to come. Shapiro's not exactly a Never Trumper, but he didn't vote for him and has always maintained a distance.
posted by philip-random at 8:31 AM on April 19, 2019
Jake Sherman:
NEW.. PELOSI announces Monday conference call in letter to democrats and says this:posted by a snickering nuthatch at 8:39 AM on April 19, 2019 [48 favorites]
The Mueller report states, "We concluded Congress has authority to prohibit a president's corrupt use of his authority in order to protect the integrity of the administration of justice," which "accords with our constitutional system of checks and balances and the principle that no person is above the law." Congress will not be silent.
So, maybe Hoyer really was just talking out of his ass?
If Pelosi's pledging further action (and implying impeachment, albeit without using the word directly), I'm a LOT less freaked-out.
posted by schmod at 8:51 AM on April 19, 2019 [12 favorites]
If Pelosi's pledging further action (and implying impeachment, albeit without using the word directly), I'm a LOT less freaked-out.
posted by schmod at 8:51 AM on April 19, 2019 [12 favorites]
I would be a little surprised if the Monday call will turn out to be to the effect of "we're going to impeach now". I am going to speculate that they're not going to try to impeach right away; rather, they're going to encourage Nadler and Schiff to press on with their investigations and, if Mueller's testimony before Nadler is suitably compelling, use that as the starting point for impeachment.
The report is complex, nuanced, and incomplete, and more to the point, it's a lot of *text*, so most people will process it through their preferred news sources' filter (summaries, "takeaways", etc). But when Mueller testifies before Nadler, that's something that can be televised or streamed in raw video form. If it's anything like as dramatic as Comey's testimony was, it will be something that will be a lot easier to point to as an impetus for impeachment than the report itself.
posted by a snickering nuthatch at 9:01 AM on April 19, 2019 [30 favorites]
The report is complex, nuanced, and incomplete, and more to the point, it's a lot of *text*, so most people will process it through their preferred news sources' filter (summaries, "takeaways", etc). But when Mueller testifies before Nadler, that's something that can be televised or streamed in raw video form. If it's anything like as dramatic as Comey's testimony was, it will be something that will be a lot easier to point to as an impetus for impeachment than the report itself.
posted by a snickering nuthatch at 9:01 AM on April 19, 2019 [30 favorites]
As I stated above, proceeding with impeachment for the Russia stuff right now is a loser. Ben Shapiro’s take of “immoral but not illegal” is about the best we can hope for from Republicans. The Senate will squash articles of impeachment and do so with a smirk on Mitch McConnell’s smarmy-ass turtle-face.
HOWEVER.
If the House can unearth emoluments violations (this is why the tax returns are so important!) and they can unearth promises of pardons to administration in exchange for breaking the law, then there is a very strong impeachment case to be made.
To win, Democrats need to make a distinction that impeachment isn’t about policy but behavior. Right now, the GOP will bang the “they’re jealous of our policy wins and will do anything to stop us” drum in order to distract their base.
posted by Big Al 8000 at 9:36 AM on April 19, 2019 [8 favorites]
HOWEVER.
If the House can unearth emoluments violations (this is why the tax returns are so important!) and they can unearth promises of pardons to administration in exchange for breaking the law, then there is a very strong impeachment case to be made.
To win, Democrats need to make a distinction that impeachment isn’t about policy but behavior. Right now, the GOP will bang the “they’re jealous of our policy wins and will do anything to stop us” drum in order to distract their base.
posted by Big Al 8000 at 9:36 AM on April 19, 2019 [8 favorites]
White House deputy press secretary says they plan to refuse to comply with Nadler's subpoenas.
posted by contraption at 9:43 AM on April 19, 2019 [6 favorites]
posted by contraption at 9:43 AM on April 19, 2019 [6 favorites]
April 19: “Mueller Report Lays Out Russian Contacts And Trump’s Frantic Efforts to Foil Inquiry”
But on the NYT Opinion page today: Barr Is Right About Everything. Admit You Were Wrong.—After Trump’s vindication, the liberal media and its allies in government should face a reckoning. I’m not holding my breath. by contributing opinion writer Christopher Buskirk, author of the forthcoming Trump vs. the Leviathan, just in case there was any doubt about his Trumpist credentials. (Yes, cancel your subscriptions.)
posted by Doktor Zed at 9:47 AM on April 19, 2019 [6 favorites]
But on the NYT Opinion page today: Barr Is Right About Everything. Admit You Were Wrong.—After Trump’s vindication, the liberal media and its allies in government should face a reckoning. I’m not holding my breath. by contributing opinion writer Christopher Buskirk, author of the forthcoming Trump vs. the Leviathan, just in case there was any doubt about his Trumpist credentials. (Yes, cancel your subscriptions.)
posted by Doktor Zed at 9:47 AM on April 19, 2019 [6 favorites]
The case against Trump could not be clearer morally or politically. What is one to make of an unwillingness to go after a party that systematically puts kids in cages, and orders subordinates to break the law as normal operating procedure? Or an unwillingness to call out a president who funded his campaign, in part, by stealing money from his own charity for war veterans? Grossly incompetent? Morally bankrupt? Nerveless?
You do not find out that your political opponent has been found stealing candy from a baby on video and then debate whether or not it's worthwhile to press the issue. You do not hide from making your argument to the people that they would be better off with healthcare, education, and a temperate planet. If you are not up for this challenge, you have no business in politics. Politics is making a case, and when that case is as clear cut as today's, you don't hesitate.
Has it really been the case that when Democrats make a fair argument for a position one wouldn't really think the public is ready for they lose? Buttigieg is making an argument for court packing, and the majority is behind him. Cortez brought up the idea of taxing income at 70% for the rich and the majority is behind her. Bernie showed us universal healthcare was really popular after all. How many times does this lesson need to be learned?
But instead of moving forward, I see Democrats go on tv and call their own policy platform too radical for the people. The party leadership tells the people they don't think the evidence is clear cut enough to impeach Trump. They don't believe in a Green New Deal. This is utter stupidity, and I refuse to be told it is really fifth dimensional chess I don't understand.
posted by xammerboy at 9:57 AM on April 19, 2019 [50 favorites]
You do not find out that your political opponent has been found stealing candy from a baby on video and then debate whether or not it's worthwhile to press the issue. You do not hide from making your argument to the people that they would be better off with healthcare, education, and a temperate planet. If you are not up for this challenge, you have no business in politics. Politics is making a case, and when that case is as clear cut as today's, you don't hesitate.
Has it really been the case that when Democrats make a fair argument for a position one wouldn't really think the public is ready for they lose? Buttigieg is making an argument for court packing, and the majority is behind him. Cortez brought up the idea of taxing income at 70% for the rich and the majority is behind her. Bernie showed us universal healthcare was really popular after all. How many times does this lesson need to be learned?
But instead of moving forward, I see Democrats go on tv and call their own policy platform too radical for the people. The party leadership tells the people they don't think the evidence is clear cut enough to impeach Trump. They don't believe in a Green New Deal. This is utter stupidity, and I refuse to be told it is really fifth dimensional chess I don't understand.
posted by xammerboy at 9:57 AM on April 19, 2019 [50 favorites]
First year House Dems taking the charge, and being refreshingly clear in their intent and leadership on dealing with our national crisis. Impeach + MF = Congressional Duty. < Vox:Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez says it’s time to investigate Trump for impeachment
posted by Harry Caul at 10:06 AM on April 19, 2019 [10 favorites]
posted by Harry Caul at 10:06 AM on April 19, 2019 [10 favorites]
Nice to see CNN's Wolf Blitzer choosing to quote the President's use of "bullshit" without self-censorship.
One tweet I read asked if Trump kisses his wife with that mouth. Or her body double.
I remember when the NYTimes censored some of his previous comments, which led to enough outrage for editors to review and edit old pieces to put the uncensored language back in.
People should know the character and mental health of someone who can singularly vaporize millions at the touch of a button. If you use certain language to characterize women, say, or the results of an independent legal investigation, that reflects on who you are as a person, how you treat others, how you value truth, and how honest you are about reality. People should know about these things.
Still, evangelical Christians seem to be behind Trump, ride or die, and they aren't watching CNN or reading the NYTimes, bastions of fake news that they are, so while it's great that some in the media are choosing to report language in a more honest way, I doubt that reporting gets relayed to his base in any way that will change their opinion of him.
If it was Pat Robertson on the 700 Club reporting on the language Trump uses, without censorship, I'd perk up with some measure of interest and hope.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 10:11 AM on April 19, 2019 [3 favorites]
One tweet I read asked if Trump kisses his wife with that mouth. Or her body double.
I remember when the NYTimes censored some of his previous comments, which led to enough outrage for editors to review and edit old pieces to put the uncensored language back in.
People should know the character and mental health of someone who can singularly vaporize millions at the touch of a button. If you use certain language to characterize women, say, or the results of an independent legal investigation, that reflects on who you are as a person, how you treat others, how you value truth, and how honest you are about reality. People should know about these things.
Still, evangelical Christians seem to be behind Trump, ride or die, and they aren't watching CNN or reading the NYTimes, bastions of fake news that they are, so while it's great that some in the media are choosing to report language in a more honest way, I doubt that reporting gets relayed to his base in any way that will change their opinion of him.
If it was Pat Robertson on the 700 Club reporting on the language Trump uses, without censorship, I'd perk up with some measure of interest and hope.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 10:11 AM on April 19, 2019 [3 favorites]
It's been clear for a while that we need to fight not only 99% of the Republican party establishment, but also 70% of the Democratic establishment to veer away from our current oligarchy.
posted by benzenedream at 10:12 AM on April 19, 2019 [37 favorites]
posted by benzenedream at 10:12 AM on April 19, 2019 [37 favorites]
Republicans don't care about any of this. They applaud it, so impeachment will backfire.
I agree with this, but only up to a point. I think we've so far made it easy to conveniently overlook Trump's crimes by (A) focusing solely on Russia, (B) Waiting for the Mueller report, and (C) making all of these charges needlessly complex.
There are two swing Republican cohorts to my mind. I will call them "Soccer Moms" and "Clueless". Soccer Moms care about being clean cut, following norms, and being respectable. They are the Blue New Wave. Clueless just want to avoid conflict and confusion. They ultimately want their political decisions made for them.
If you want to swing Soccer Moms, you need to make them feel dirty. You need to show them the pictures of the kids in cages, and you need to show them that their orderly life of rules and easy moral justification and superiority is at risk. Their greatest fear is getting serious and deserving side eye from their social peers.
If you want to swing Clueless you need to make your case very, very simple and black and white. They voted for Trump because they heard Hillary called them deplorable, and what is health care anyway? Democrats are very bad at reaching this group, but with Trump they really have a chance to soundbite their messaging in terms Clueless understands.
It doesn't have to be impeachment, but that forum would be a great opportunity, to my mind, to put forward your message to these two groups, even if impeachment is doomed to fail. Simply get across that he is socially unacceptable and is morally unfit in a black and white manner. That would be my strategy, and I would push as hard at it as possible, rather than attempt a strategy of pulling all my punches, thinking that what people really want is some kind of watered down, milquetoast respectability.
posted by xammerboy at 10:29 AM on April 19, 2019 [11 favorites]
I agree with this, but only up to a point. I think we've so far made it easy to conveniently overlook Trump's crimes by (A) focusing solely on Russia, (B) Waiting for the Mueller report, and (C) making all of these charges needlessly complex.
There are two swing Republican cohorts to my mind. I will call them "Soccer Moms" and "Clueless". Soccer Moms care about being clean cut, following norms, and being respectable. They are the Blue New Wave. Clueless just want to avoid conflict and confusion. They ultimately want their political decisions made for them.
If you want to swing Soccer Moms, you need to make them feel dirty. You need to show them the pictures of the kids in cages, and you need to show them that their orderly life of rules and easy moral justification and superiority is at risk. Their greatest fear is getting serious and deserving side eye from their social peers.
If you want to swing Clueless you need to make your case very, very simple and black and white. They voted for Trump because they heard Hillary called them deplorable, and what is health care anyway? Democrats are very bad at reaching this group, but with Trump they really have a chance to soundbite their messaging in terms Clueless understands.
It doesn't have to be impeachment, but that forum would be a great opportunity, to my mind, to put forward your message to these two groups, even if impeachment is doomed to fail. Simply get across that he is socially unacceptable and is morally unfit in a black and white manner. That would be my strategy, and I would push as hard at it as possible, rather than attempt a strategy of pulling all my punches, thinking that what people really want is some kind of watered down, milquetoast respectability.
posted by xammerboy at 10:29 AM on April 19, 2019 [11 favorites]
MSNBC has been talking to Trump country diner-goer's all day about how nobody cares about the Mueller report and it's just time to move on. So I guess the media narrative is pretty well set.
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 10:35 AM on April 19, 2019 [5 favorites]
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 10:35 AM on April 19, 2019 [5 favorites]
Was the rapid response activated for today or is that not a thing anymore?
posted by 922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a at 10:39 AM on April 19, 2019 [1 favorite]
posted by 922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a at 10:39 AM on April 19, 2019 [1 favorite]
The Mueller report, on the obstruction side at least, boils down to one question: Trump orders his employees to break the law. Sometimes by violating human rights. When they don't, he threatens and fires them. Is that okay?
Hopefully, the impeachment investigation will not just be about the Mueller report, but rather treat is as one among many bullet points. The other bullet points would include putting kids in cages, paying no taxes illegally, stealing from vets, and lying to the public as a high crime.
posted by xammerboy at 10:52 AM on April 19, 2019 [13 favorites]
Hopefully, the impeachment investigation will not just be about the Mueller report, but rather treat is as one among many bullet points. The other bullet points would include putting kids in cages, paying no taxes illegally, stealing from vets, and lying to the public as a high crime.
posted by xammerboy at 10:52 AM on April 19, 2019 [13 favorites]
Was the rapid response activated for today or is that not a thing anymore?
It might still be lurching along in zombie form, but it's not a thing in any sense that matters. It was activated a few weeks ago to little fanfare.
posted by diogenes at 11:06 AM on April 19, 2019 [4 favorites]
It might still be lurching along in zombie form, but it's not a thing in any sense that matters. It was activated a few weeks ago to little fanfare.
posted by diogenes at 11:06 AM on April 19, 2019 [4 favorites]
“He doesn’t have to say ‘let’s obstruct justice’ for it to be a crime.” — Lindsey Graham, 1999
“If the report indicates no collusion found by Mueller, done, over, for me.” — Lindsey Graham, 2019
posted by kirkaracha at 11:07 AM on April 19, 2019 [18 favorites]
“If the report indicates no collusion found by Mueller, done, over, for me.” — Lindsey Graham, 2019
posted by kirkaracha at 11:07 AM on April 19, 2019 [18 favorites]
If the sticking point about impeachment is the effect the Senate's refusal to convict would have on the 2020 election, and as Huffy Puffy mentions upthread, removals from office can take a long time to carry out...
Why don't the Dems start the impeachment process, constantly amplifying the findings of their hearings and investigations to the public, while at the same time ramping up efforts to defeat Trump in 2020, with the goal of getting Trump out off office before taking the vote on impeachment? That way, the impeachment proceedings would themselves, in effect, serve as campaign messaging for Dem candidates.
Yes, there are lots of "what ifs" here, and yes, the Republicans will scream bloody murder that the Dems are playing dirty, but there always are anyhow, and they always will anyhow. Even if Trump gets (shudder) re-elected, then finish the impeachment proceedings and re-group for 2022/2024. Not a perfect plan, but it's all I've got.
posted by Rykey at 11:17 AM on April 19, 2019 [6 favorites]
Why don't the Dems start the impeachment process, constantly amplifying the findings of their hearings and investigations to the public, while at the same time ramping up efforts to defeat Trump in 2020, with the goal of getting Trump out off office before taking the vote on impeachment? That way, the impeachment proceedings would themselves, in effect, serve as campaign messaging for Dem candidates.
Yes, there are lots of "what ifs" here, and yes, the Republicans will scream bloody murder that the Dems are playing dirty, but there always are anyhow, and they always will anyhow. Even if Trump gets (shudder) re-elected, then finish the impeachment proceedings and re-group for 2022/2024. Not a perfect plan, but it's all I've got.
posted by Rykey at 11:17 AM on April 19, 2019 [6 favorites]
Good news: Steny Hoyer is now facing the first serious primary challenger he's seen in decades. Her name is Mckayla Wilkes, and she's a 28-year-old progressive woman of color. Her platform is excellent.
posted by Faint of Butt at 11:21 AM on April 19, 2019 [76 favorites]
posted by Faint of Butt at 11:21 AM on April 19, 2019 [76 favorites]
“Total Bullshit”: Trump Lashes Out at Mueller Report (Inae Oh, Mother Jones)
posted by ZeusHumms at 11:23 AM on April 19, 2019 [4 favorites]
The president also asserted, without evidence, that witnesses had fabricated notes they used to document conversations with him. “Watch out for people that take so-called ‘notes,’ when the notes never existed until needed,” Trump tweeted, a reference to those in his inner circle who recorded events involving the president as they happened. The special counsel relied on such notes, including one document from former Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ then-chief of staff that recorded Trump saying “I’m fucked” upon learning of Robert Mueller’s appointment as special counsel. […]Interesting point. What he says isn't impossible; but there are reasons behind taking notes, and he always provides those reasons. Also, who's to say that Roy Cohn didn't take notes privately when no one was looking?
Trump’s denunciation of note-takers also underscores an account in the Mueller report that the president once complained to former White House counsel Don McGahn that he had been taking notes of their conversation. “I’ve had a lot of great lawyers, like Roy Cohn. He did not take notes,” Trump said, according to the report. […]
posted by ZeusHumms at 11:23 AM on April 19, 2019 [4 favorites]
While NPR was entertaining the delusions of the spokeswoman for the president's campaign, she contended that continuing to discuss the contents of the report was anathema to positive D election results in 2020. I don't think it is, because of that soccer mom contingent. If something gross enough to alienate them from wanting to be associated with the administration can be unearthed, the conversation will likely become about the thing itself instead of "isn't it so mean and divisive that they found it". After a non-stop litany of scandals and instances of corruption, there are some people that may be tired after paying even casual, spotty attention to real news. We have our differences when it comes to pursuing impeachment, but I agree that the party needs to dig into this with both hands.
posted by Selena777 at 11:26 AM on April 19, 2019 [2 favorites]
posted by Selena777 at 11:26 AM on April 19, 2019 [2 favorites]
Interesting point. What he says isn't impossible; but there are reasons behind taking notes, and he always provides those reasons. Also, who's to say that Roy Cohn didn't take notes privately when no one was looking?
Maybe he was like Cohen and recorded instead.
posted by srboisvert at 11:26 AM on April 19, 2019 [4 favorites]
Maybe he was like Cohen and recorded instead.
posted by srboisvert at 11:26 AM on April 19, 2019 [4 favorites]
Good news: Steny Hoyer is now facing the first serious primary challenger he's seen in decades. Her name is Mckayla Wilkes, and she's a 28-year-old progressive woman of color.
Good, because it seems like Hoyer has been an especially nasty piece of shit towards young, progressive women of color since the freshman class was sworn it. Publicly at least, it feels like he's been spending more time attacking them than bigoted old conservative white men, or at least in his free time away from kneecapping the various working groups headed by progressive WoC to prevent them from subpoenaing and questioning dirty motherfuckers like the oil and gas industries.
posted by zombieflanders at 11:30 AM on April 19, 2019 [23 favorites]
Good, because it seems like Hoyer has been an especially nasty piece of shit towards young, progressive women of color since the freshman class was sworn it. Publicly at least, it feels like he's been spending more time attacking them than bigoted old conservative white men, or at least in his free time away from kneecapping the various working groups headed by progressive WoC to prevent them from subpoenaing and questioning dirty motherfuckers like the oil and gas industries.
posted by zombieflanders at 11:30 AM on April 19, 2019 [23 favorites]
Landspeed record from total exoneration to total bullshit.
And on Cohn...
Matthew Miller (MSNBC) retweeted Joshua Zietz
It really doesn’t get enough attention that Trump’s model for a good lawyer is one of the most loathsome figures in both American legal and political history.
And on Cohn...
Matthew Miller (MSNBC) retweeted Joshua Zietz
It really doesn’t get enough attention that Trump’s model for a good lawyer is one of the most loathsome figures in both American legal and political history.
- Joshua Zeitz (Politico)posted by chris24 at 11:32 AM on April 19, 2019 [47 favorites]
Roy Cohn, who served as chief counsel to disgraced Senator Joseph McCarthy, was disbarred in 1986 by a five-judge panel in New York for misappropriating client funds, compelling a client to change his will (and name him a beneficiary), and lying on his bar application. -
The unfortunate truth is that for impeachment to succeed, you have to overcome confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance before any of the stuff Trump has done will stick in the conscience of many (most?) Republicans. Trump has spent the last two years inoculating them with “Fake News” and “No Collusion”. They want to believe he’s innocent so they won’t believe otherwise.
posted by Big Al 8000 at 11:42 AM on April 19, 2019 [1 favorite]
posted by Big Al 8000 at 11:42 AM on April 19, 2019 [1 favorite]
To my pint above, this is the top trending article in my Apple News feed.
That is some next-level denialism right there.
posted by Big Al 8000 at 11:46 AM on April 19, 2019 [4 favorites]
That is some next-level denialism right there.
posted by Big Al 8000 at 11:46 AM on April 19, 2019 [4 favorites]
From Nancy Pelosi's email newsletter this morning:
I can honestly see an advantage to this approach (run a bunch of investigations, and THEN announce impeachment proceedings when you've got all the evidence out to the public already) rather than talking up impeachment a lot at the start: it gives the less-attentive parts of the public time to assimilate each newly investigated crime, and for those people (and the Rule of Law Republicans - thanks, box!) to pressure the Republican majority in the Senate to act.
I mean, of course, I know he's committed a zillion obviously impeachable acts already. But we've seen big changes in the way the press is reporting the Mueller report in just the few hours since it's been released. I think investigations are the best move forward right now, and it sounds like Pelosi is planning to keep going with them - as are Waters, Nadler, Cummings, Neal, Schiff, and a bunch of other individual Representatives.
posted by kristi at 11:50 AM on April 19, 2019 [29 favorites]
On Thursday, the Mueller Report was released, which does not exonerate the President. Instead, it concludes that the Trump team was aware of and openly supportive of Russian attempts to interfere in the election because they “expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts.” Further, it lays out ten instances of the President trying to obstruct the investigation — and explicitly states that the decision not to charge the President was guided by a Trump Administration DOJ policy, not a lack of evidence.Personally, I think the Democrats are avoiding SAYING that they're working on impeachment, while going ahead and just continuing the process without explicitly naming the process right now. (Steny Honer aside.)
Disturbingly, Attorney General Barr deliberately distorted significant portions of the Mueller Report, which have resulted in a crisis of confidence in his independence and impartiality. The only way to begin restoring public trust in the handling of the Special Counsel’s investigation is for Special Counsel Mueller himself to provide public testimony in the House and Senate as soon as possible. The American people deserve to hear the truth.
The integrity of our democracy is at stake. The Congress will continue to uphold our constitutional duty to hold the President accountable for his deceit, lies and improper behavior. No one is above the law.
I can honestly see an advantage to this approach (run a bunch of investigations, and THEN announce impeachment proceedings when you've got all the evidence out to the public already) rather than talking up impeachment a lot at the start: it gives the less-attentive parts of the public time to assimilate each newly investigated crime, and for those people (and the Rule of Law Republicans - thanks, box!) to pressure the Republican majority in the Senate to act.
I mean, of course, I know he's committed a zillion obviously impeachable acts already. But we've seen big changes in the way the press is reporting the Mueller report in just the few hours since it's been released. I think investigations are the best move forward right now, and it sounds like Pelosi is planning to keep going with them - as are Waters, Nadler, Cummings, Neal, Schiff, and a bunch of other individual Representatives.
posted by kristi at 11:50 AM on April 19, 2019 [29 favorites]
I read a summary last night that went something like this:
posted by bjrubble at 11:53 AM on April 19, 2019 [100 favorites]
Our country was the target of a Russian military operation, and while the Trump campaign may -- MAY -- not have actually helped organize it (despite their best efforts), they did publicly invite and celebrate it, they did everything they could to maximally profit from it, and they lied repeatedly about all this for years.Democrats need to have a pithy summary like this, and preface everything with it.
posted by bjrubble at 11:53 AM on April 19, 2019 [100 favorites]
Also, I would love to see someone Ctrl-F "no evidence" on every purported "news" article since the Barr letter, and publicly shame every reporter whose name appears on the byline.
As far as journalistic malpractice goes, I find it hard to think of a more blatant and clear-cut example. And it's everywhere.
posted by bjrubble at 11:56 AM on April 19, 2019 [7 favorites]
As far as journalistic malpractice goes, I find it hard to think of a more blatant and clear-cut example. And it's everywhere.
posted by bjrubble at 11:56 AM on April 19, 2019 [7 favorites]
Can we retire "soccer mom"? It's part of that perennial, anti-women low-level radiation field. Male Trump supporters are not defined by their parenthood.
posted by Iris Gambol at 12:00 PM on April 19, 2019 [66 favorites]
posted by Iris Gambol at 12:00 PM on April 19, 2019 [66 favorites]
If you still have a local newspaper, consider writing a letter to the editor about the Mueller report and impeachment. Or, if you have any pull (or credentials that an editor might be impressed by), submit an op-ed. Even if newspaper readers tilt older and conservative (but I suspect not nearly as skewed as Fox News watchers), it still matters. Get it into print that local person living in that local area supports impeachment or at least further investigation. In some respects, the smaller and more obscure the better I would guess. My city's newspaper is more likely to publish a letter from me than the L.A. Times.
posted by spamandkimchi at 12:03 PM on April 19, 2019 [11 favorites]
posted by spamandkimchi at 12:03 PM on April 19, 2019 [11 favorites]
Male Trump supporters are not defined by their parenthood.
"lawnmower dads"
posted by Faint of Butt at 12:08 PM on April 19, 2019 [14 favorites]
"lawnmower dads"
posted by Faint of Butt at 12:08 PM on April 19, 2019 [14 favorites]
Super-recent; soccer mom has a wikipedia page and an urban dictionary entry. (Also, punching down vs. punching up.)
posted by Iris Gambol at 12:11 PM on April 19, 2019 [3 favorites]
posted by Iris Gambol at 12:11 PM on April 19, 2019 [3 favorites]
Sarah Sanders keeps digging herself in deeper after Mueller showed she lied (Aaron Rupar, Vox)
The press secretary is now lying about lies.
posted by Barack Spinoza at 12:11 PM on April 19, 2019 [16 favorites]
The press secretary is now lying about lies.
posted by Barack Spinoza at 12:11 PM on April 19, 2019 [16 favorites]
And yet she was invited to spread her propaganda not just by FNC, but NBC and CBS as well, in both evening and morning primetime talk show slots.
posted by zombieflanders at 12:13 PM on April 19, 2019 [16 favorites]
posted by zombieflanders at 12:13 PM on April 19, 2019 [16 favorites]
To my point above, this is the top trending article in my Apple News feed.
That is some next-level denialism right there.
At the top of this op-ed:
That is some next-level denialism right there.
At the top of this op-ed:
Editor's Note: Scott Jennings, a CNN contributor, is a former special assistant to President George W. Bush and former campaign adviser to Sen. Mitch McConnell. He is a partner at RunSwitch Public Relations in Louisville, Kentucky. Follow him on Twitter @ScottJenningsKY. The opinions expressed in this commentary are his own. View more opinion articles on CNN.posted by ZeusHumms at 12:16 PM on April 19, 2019 [2 favorites]
I ... think that the last uncountable number of Scaramuccis have deeply entrenched us in a cycle where
1. Many pols on both sides express "concern" or somesuch at the blatant illegality and horror of what's clear and how it's just unacceptable!
2. The next day we get series of "increasingly isolated" articles, demonstrating how ignorant and crazy and all the Dumpster is; then
3. Ooooh, shiny! Something else crazy happens (North Korea, childnapping, climate, terror, whatever), the clock ticks past another Scaramucci, and in the meantime we have internalized and accepted the unacceptable again, and
4. We still have a Dumpster fire destroying the country from the inside out. With our assent.
Impeachment should absolutely happen. It has to happen.
But we've already boiled the "this has to stop" frog, and too many people have made handwavy noises about the Senate or elections or or or or and waited for this too to pass. And the media will just plan their next "both sides do things" article.
posted by Dashy at 12:39 PM on April 19, 2019 [10 favorites]
1. Many pols on both sides express "concern" or somesuch at the blatant illegality and horror of what's clear and how it's just unacceptable!
2. The next day we get series of "increasingly isolated" articles, demonstrating how ignorant and crazy and all the Dumpster is; then
3. Ooooh, shiny! Something else crazy happens (North Korea, childnapping, climate, terror, whatever), the clock ticks past another Scaramucci, and in the meantime we have internalized and accepted the unacceptable again, and
4. We still have a Dumpster fire destroying the country from the inside out. With our assent.
Impeachment should absolutely happen. It has to happen.
But we've already boiled the "this has to stop" frog, and too many people have made handwavy noises about the Senate or elections or or or or and waited for this too to pass. And the media will just plan their next "both sides do things" article.
posted by Dashy at 12:39 PM on April 19, 2019 [10 favorites]
I was rereading the Clint Watts piece in NYT pointed out by OnceUponATime upthread right before going on to click on the Buskirk article (also in NYT, but I refuse to link to it here), and then out of morbid curiousity I looked at the reader responses to Buskirk. The coincidence that followed could not be more striking. Clint Watts wrote last year:
posted by StrawberryPie at 12:45 PM on April 19, 2019 [20 favorites]
Mr. Putin has succeeded where his Soviet forefathers failed by leveraging money and cyberspace to subtly infiltrate and influence Americans while maintaining plausible deniability of their efforts. And the Kremlin’s ground game “cut outs” — intermediaries who facilitate communication between agents — conducted a more complex game.And here is the 2nd response I read on the Buskirk article:
Wow-- thanks Christopher. Nice job, and kudos to the NYT for publishing your piece even though it probably grates on them.Whether this reader is a useful idiot or a cut-out, I have no idea, but the continued effectiveness of Russian disinformation campaigns on this country is obvious and depressing.
The thing that finally won me over to Trump during the Republican primaries was when he asked, Wouldn't it be nice to get along with Russia? There is no organic reason for the US to be enemies with that country. Forget all the cold war stuff, and just think about it. Nothing wrong w/the Russians.
So for me, the biggest downside of all this Russia collusion business has been the harmful effect it must have had on our President's ability to improve that relationship. I've often thought he should just blow off the Mueller thing and it's media clowns, and invite Putin to the WH for a beer. Freak out, folks. This is what I'm doing.
Everybody needs to move on now.
posted by StrawberryPie at 12:45 PM on April 19, 2019 [20 favorites]
Nothing will make me happier than if someone leaks the unredacted report this weekend, before Trump's people have time to organize a coherent defense, and the BS they drop today becomes their famous last words.
posted by saysthis at 12:47 PM on April 19, 2019 [12 favorites]
posted by saysthis at 12:47 PM on April 19, 2019 [12 favorites]
Apropos the question of impeachment, Jeet Heer posted a short Twitter thread laying out a concise reason for. Unrolled version available here but it's short enough to post inline:
posted by StrawberryPie at 12:55 PM on April 19, 2019 [38 favorites]
1. It's worth unpacking Nancy Pelosi's case against impeachment: "You're wasting your time, unless the evidence is so conclusive that the Republicans will understand." She's giving the GOP veto power over impeachment.
2. If you say, "we won't impeach unless we have GOP buy-in" you are saying "impeachment decision won't be made on the merit but on whether GOP wants to." Bu we already know where GOP stands: he can shoot someone on 7th Ave. & they will stick to him.
3. The Mueller report is only the latest it of evidence that Trump has committed acts that at the least merit an impeachment process. But Dem leadership has handed over veto on initiating that process to Trump's own party.
4. Mueller has given a roadmap to impeachment & Trump a roadmap for future Republican presidents to commit crimes: keep GOP on your side and there will be no impeachment. That's a terrible precedence.
5. It's worth noting that this is asymmetrical surrender. The GOP won't extend the same courtesy to Dems. They impeached Clinton for far lesser offences.
posted by StrawberryPie at 12:55 PM on April 19, 2019 [38 favorites]
I remember about a year ago when an acquaintance began explaining how he'd been learning on the internet how great Russia was. He really had been learning that it was the land of plenty.
posted by angrycat at 1:08 PM on April 19, 2019 [6 favorites]
posted by angrycat at 1:08 PM on April 19, 2019 [6 favorites]
The way I see it, if impeachment is such a pointless, risky, failing strategy for the Democrats, then the Republicans would be arguing strongly in favor of us doing it and falling on our faces. Instead, they seem to be very happy with our current waffling and indecision.
I mean, we should do the right thing for its own sake (and hold impeachment hearings), but when it's hard to figure out what the right thing is, rule of thumb, figure out what the Republicans want, do the opposite.
posted by xigxag at 1:08 PM on April 19, 2019 [12 favorites]
I mean, we should do the right thing for its own sake (and hold impeachment hearings), but when it's hard to figure out what the right thing is, rule of thumb, figure out what the Republicans want, do the opposite.
posted by xigxag at 1:08 PM on April 19, 2019 [12 favorites]
The fact that Trump was in a flop sweat yesterday and this morning at the prospect of further investigations seems a good argument for doing it.
posted by chris24 at 1:18 PM on April 19, 2019 [33 favorites]
posted by chris24 at 1:18 PM on April 19, 2019 [33 favorites]
In case you're not frustrated enough, Romney's response to the report starts with "It is good news that there was insufficient evidence to charge the President... with having obstructed justice."
I guess he missed the part of the report that says "we determined not to apply an approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the President committed crimes."
If you're Mueller, and you wanted to write a report that led to the truth, you failed if your report allows a Senator to proclaim the opposite of what you intended. If your goal was to muddy the waters, you succeeded admirably.
posted by diogenes at 1:35 PM on April 19, 2019 [6 favorites]
I guess he missed the part of the report that says "we determined not to apply an approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the President committed crimes."
If you're Mueller, and you wanted to write a report that led to the truth, you failed if your report allows a Senator to proclaim the opposite of what you intended. If your goal was to muddy the waters, you succeeded admirably.
posted by diogenes at 1:35 PM on April 19, 2019 [6 favorites]
Elizabeth Warren tweeted support for impeachment proceedings, and that lady has my vote.
posted by angrycat at 1:49 PM on April 19, 2019 [52 favorites]
posted by angrycat at 1:49 PM on April 19, 2019 [52 favorites]
First question for Mueller testimony: "If Donald Trump were applying for a job at the FBI is there anything in your report that would prevent you from hiring him?"
posted by M-x shell at 1:49 PM on April 19, 2019 [50 favorites]
posted by M-x shell at 1:49 PM on April 19, 2019 [50 favorites]
Elizabeth Warren's post is the most uncompromising stance on impeachment I've seen so far from a Dem senator or a presidential candidate:
posted by Doktor Zed at 1:52 PM on April 19, 2019 [93 favorites]
The Mueller report lays out facts showing that a hostile foreign government attacked our 2016 election to help Donald Trump and Donald Trump welcomed that help. Once elected, Donald Trump obstructed the investigation into that attack.Incidentally, she was in Romney's home turf of Salt Lake City on Wednesday.
Mueller put the next step in the hands of Congress: “Congress has authority to prohibit a President’s corrupt use of his authority in order to protect the integrity of the administration of justice.” The correct process for exercising that authority is impeachment.
To ignore a President’s repeated efforts to obstruct an investigation into his own disloyal behavior would inflict great and lasting damage on this country, and it would suggest that both the current and future Presidents would be free to abuse their power in similar ways.
The severity of this misconduct demands that elected officials in both parties set aside political considerations and do their constitutional duty. That means the House should initiate impeachment proceedings against the President of the United States.
posted by Doktor Zed at 1:52 PM on April 19, 2019 [93 favorites]
Noah Berlatsky:
I don't really understand why Dems think an impeachment would harm them. Trump's extremely unpopular. It's clear he committed impeachable offenses. make the case and let the Republicans staple themselves to him if they want.
posted by chris24 at 1:55 PM on April 19, 2019 [40 favorites]
I don't really understand why Dems think an impeachment would harm them. Trump's extremely unpopular. It's clear he committed impeachable offenses. make the case and let the Republicans staple themselves to him if they want.
posted by chris24 at 1:55 PM on April 19, 2019 [40 favorites]
They're extrapolating from the Clinton debacle in the 90s. Everybody fights the last war.
posted by Justinian at 2:16 PM on April 19, 2019 [13 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 2:16 PM on April 19, 2019 [13 favorites]
NBC News, The counterintelligence investigation of the Trump team and Russia hasn't stopped
NYT op-ed, Joshua A. Geltzer and Ryan Goodman, Mueller Hints at a National-Security Nightmare: The missing piece of the report is a counterintelligence investigation that should set off alarm bells about our democracy and security.
NYT op-ed, Joshua A. Geltzer and Ryan Goodman, Mueller Hints at a National-Security Nightmare: The missing piece of the report is a counterintelligence investigation that should set off alarm bells about our democracy and security.
The stark reality is that one might have a moderate to high confidence that decisions are being made by an American president who, in the process of getting elected and after assuming office, has acted with the interests of an often-hostile foreign power influencing him.posted by zachlipton at 2:16 PM on April 19, 2019 [16 favorites]
And that conclusion is deeply worrisome as a national security matter.
A failure by political leaders to condemn the activities of a Trump campaign that openly welcomed Russian hacking and privately encouraged timely releases of damaging information about the campaign’s opponent would put our nation at further risk.
In case you're not frustrated enough, Romney's response to the report
On the plus side, he's graduated from "concerned" to "sickened" and "appalled"?
posted by Slothrup at 2:21 PM on April 19, 2019 [4 favorites]
On the plus side, he's graduated from "concerned" to "sickened" and "appalled"?
posted by Slothrup at 2:21 PM on April 19, 2019 [4 favorites]
That's part of a very authentic multi-part rant about "the Crazy Mueller Report", "18 Angry Democrat Trump Haters", "an Illegally Started Hoax", etc. from @realDonaldTrump that, two hours remains incomplete. Daniel Dale drily remarks that Trump has since left for his golf club.
Nine hours later, after a leisurely round or two of golf with Rush Limbaugh and some other friends, Trump finished his rant, complaining about how the Mueller probe was a "big, fat, waste of time, energy and money" (which, he omits, seized $46 million in assets from his former campaign manager, finishing well in the black). More ominously, he threatens, "It is now finally time to turn the tables and bring justice to some very sick and dangerous people who have committed very serious crimes, perhaps even Spying or Treason." That "perhaps" is doing a lot of work to prevent Trump's Mirror from shattering under the pressure he's feeling.
He's now calling the NYT and WaPo "the Enemy of the People" again.
posted by Doktor Zed at 2:31 PM on April 19, 2019 [15 favorites]
Nine hours later, after a leisurely round or two of golf with Rush Limbaugh and some other friends, Trump finished his rant, complaining about how the Mueller probe was a "big, fat, waste of time, energy and money" (which, he omits, seized $46 million in assets from his former campaign manager, finishing well in the black). More ominously, he threatens, "It is now finally time to turn the tables and bring justice to some very sick and dangerous people who have committed very serious crimes, perhaps even Spying or Treason." That "perhaps" is doing a lot of work to prevent Trump's Mirror from shattering under the pressure he's feeling.
He's now calling the NYT and WaPo "the Enemy of the People" again.
posted by Doktor Zed at 2:31 PM on April 19, 2019 [15 favorites]
Fun fact - the Kremlin also has not gotten the message that Manafort covered the cost of the investigation.
posted by Selena777 at 2:37 PM on April 19, 2019 [3 favorites]
posted by Selena777 at 2:37 PM on April 19, 2019 [3 favorites]
Politico, Trump campaign punishes Don McGahn's law firm
posted by zachlipton at 2:40 PM on April 19, 2019 [14 favorites]
Campaign officials and advisers cast the decision to hire Nathan Groth – a former lawyer for the Republican National Committee and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker – as a money-saving move, supported by the businessman-turned-president who loves to cut costs.In other news, Trump now has the first Presidential retweet of the phrase “circle jerk.”
But close Trump advisers say the decision also stems from disappointment with the White House’s former top attorney and current Jones Day partner, Don McGahn, whose behavior has irked the president and some of his family members.
Taking business away from Jones Day is payback, these advisers say, for McGahn’s soured relationship with the Trump family and a handful articles in high-profile newspapers that the family blames, unfairly or not, on the former White House counsel. “Why in the world would you want to put your enemy on the payroll?” said one adviser close to the White House. “They do not want to reward his firm. Trump arrived at that point long ago, but the security clearance memo stories put a fine point on it.”
posted by zachlipton at 2:40 PM on April 19, 2019 [14 favorites]
Switching to a cheap lawyer to own the libs! It's tough working with the mob, I guess.
At any rate, McGahn doesn't need Trump.
posted by rhizome at 2:54 PM on April 19, 2019 [5 favorites]
At any rate, McGahn doesn't need Trump.
posted by rhizome at 2:54 PM on April 19, 2019 [5 favorites]
Udall, Heinrich Statement on Militia Group Illegally Operating in New Mexico
WASHINGTON – Today, U.S. Senators Tom Udall (D-N.M.) and Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.) issued the following statement in response to reports of a militia group illegally detaining migrant families and asylum seekers at the border in New Mexico:
“Reports of a militia group illegally operating in New Mexico and intimidating asylum seekers must be immediately investigated by the proper authorities. Vigilante groups attempting to utilize authorities reserved for law enforcement cannot be tolerated. Threatening innocent children and families fleeing violence and seeking asylum is unacceptable and flies in the face of our values as a state and a nation. We will closely monitor this situation and work with local and federal authorities to ensure a full investigation, and that public safety and the rule of law is upheld.”
Whether or not livestreamed mass kidnapping at gunpoint leads to arrests should be a good barometer of the continued existence of the rule of law in New Mexico.
posted by Rust Moranis at 3:13 PM on April 19, 2019 [39 favorites]
WASHINGTON – Today, U.S. Senators Tom Udall (D-N.M.) and Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.) issued the following statement in response to reports of a militia group illegally detaining migrant families and asylum seekers at the border in New Mexico:
“Reports of a militia group illegally operating in New Mexico and intimidating asylum seekers must be immediately investigated by the proper authorities. Vigilante groups attempting to utilize authorities reserved for law enforcement cannot be tolerated. Threatening innocent children and families fleeing violence and seeking asylum is unacceptable and flies in the face of our values as a state and a nation. We will closely monitor this situation and work with local and federal authorities to ensure a full investigation, and that public safety and the rule of law is upheld.”
Whether or not livestreamed mass kidnapping at gunpoint leads to arrests should be a good barometer of the continued existence of the rule of law in New Mexico.
posted by Rust Moranis at 3:13 PM on April 19, 2019 [39 favorites]
Samuel Sinyangwe
Warren is the probably the only candidate running right now with the guts to hold the Trump administration criminally accountable for its actions.
posted by chris24 at 3:23 PM on April 19, 2019 [38 favorites]
Warren is the probably the only candidate running right now with the guts to hold the Trump administration criminally accountable for its actions.
posted by chris24 at 3:23 PM on April 19, 2019 [38 favorites]
Elizabeth Warren is unflappable and I desperately hope she becomes our next president.
posted by triggerfinger at 3:29 PM on April 19, 2019 [65 favorites]
posted by triggerfinger at 3:29 PM on April 19, 2019 [65 favorites]
Just finished reading the report. Here is my two sentence summary:
Trump acted as an unwitting agent of Russia. Embarrassed, he obstructed justice to cover that up.
posted by OnceUponATime at 3:46 PM on April 19, 2019 [75 favorites]
Trump acted as an unwitting agent of Russia. Embarrassed, he obstructed justice to cover that up.
posted by OnceUponATime at 3:46 PM on April 19, 2019 [75 favorites]
(Manafort and Gates were of course witting agents of the Yanukovych government. I still think Bannon and Cambridge Analytica might be witting agents of someone connected to Russia too, and I really want someone to tell me they are still under investigation, along with the NRA and possible Trump Org money laundering.)
posted by OnceUponATime at 3:55 PM on April 19, 2019 [17 favorites]
posted by OnceUponATime at 3:55 PM on April 19, 2019 [17 favorites]
It's still not clear how all of this shakes out with respect to the rule of law in the US. Talking about how impeachment affects electoral prospects already cedes it. The Democratic Party has two options at this point:
If the Democrats go with the idea that they can only be funded legally by the US people, while Republicans are allowed to seek global funding and assistance and receive due deference if it brings the desired result, they are as much to blame as 45 for what happens.
The 2020 elections will decide whether this is an anomaly or the new normal, and the rest of the world, both enemies and allies, will adjust accordingly. All the countries currently sitting out the current presidency will have to take a position eventually.
posted by Wrinkled Stumpskin at 4:04 PM on April 19, 2019 [6 favorites]
- Come at the King and not miss.
- Find a hostile foreign power that doesn't appreciate economic nationalism to prop up campaign coffers.
If the Democrats go with the idea that they can only be funded legally by the US people, while Republicans are allowed to seek global funding and assistance and receive due deference if it brings the desired result, they are as much to blame as 45 for what happens.
The 2020 elections will decide whether this is an anomaly or the new normal, and the rest of the world, both enemies and allies, will adjust accordingly. All the countries currently sitting out the current presidency will have to take a position eventually.
posted by Wrinkled Stumpskin at 4:04 PM on April 19, 2019 [6 favorites]
All of those other pending investigations are now under the direction of Bill Barr. All of the federal attorneys work for Bill Barr. The director of the FBI works for Bill Barr.
posted by JackFlash at 4:07 PM on April 19, 2019 [13 favorites]
posted by JackFlash at 4:07 PM on April 19, 2019 [13 favorites]
> Whether or not livestreamed mass kidnapping at gunpoint leads to arrests should be a good barometer of the continued existence of the rule of law in New Mexico.
Incidentally, one way to get around posse comitatus would be to determine that a state of insurrection or lawlessness exists that state authorities can't or won't deal with.
posted by BungaDunga at 4:25 PM on April 19, 2019 [4 favorites]
Incidentally, one way to get around posse comitatus would be to determine that a state of insurrection or lawlessness exists that state authorities can't or won't deal with.
posted by BungaDunga at 4:25 PM on April 19, 2019 [4 favorites]
Trump acted as an unwitting agent of Russia. Embarrassed, he obstructed justice to cover that up.
The problem is the report is incomplete, because Mueller acknowledges Trump campaign principals and associates destroyed relevant evidence. We, and Mueller, are unable to say whether Trump was witting or unwitting, or to what extend he aided the attack on America. Because his campaign destroyed evidence. That's a pattern of conduct that normally gives rise to an adverse inference instruction in other legal contexts. It's perfectly valid, and appropriate, to conclude that the reason for the destruction was to hide the extend of the conspiracy, and indeed to frustrate a later investigation exactly like Mueller's, which succeeded.
By every standard other than "beyond a reasonable doubt", Trump actively participated in a treason conspiracy with a hostile power to steal the election, and obstructed justice to cover it up. If "preponderance" is 51% likelihood, and "beyond a reasonable doubt" is, let's call it, 90% likely, Mueller laid out 89% likelihood that there was a conspiracy.
posted by T.D. Strange at 4:34 PM on April 19, 2019 [13 favorites]
The problem is the report is incomplete, because Mueller acknowledges Trump campaign principals and associates destroyed relevant evidence. We, and Mueller, are unable to say whether Trump was witting or unwitting, or to what extend he aided the attack on America. Because his campaign destroyed evidence. That's a pattern of conduct that normally gives rise to an adverse inference instruction in other legal contexts. It's perfectly valid, and appropriate, to conclude that the reason for the destruction was to hide the extend of the conspiracy, and indeed to frustrate a later investigation exactly like Mueller's, which succeeded.
By every standard other than "beyond a reasonable doubt", Trump actively participated in a treason conspiracy with a hostile power to steal the election, and obstructed justice to cover it up. If "preponderance" is 51% likelihood, and "beyond a reasonable doubt" is, let's call it, 90% likely, Mueller laid out 89% likelihood that there was a conspiracy.
posted by T.D. Strange at 4:34 PM on April 19, 2019 [13 favorites]
There are so many good reasons not to talk about impeachment! (Alexandra Petri, WaPo)
— “Impeach” is a pretty strong word, even when not followed by that other word Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) used, which was much, much too strong and very unpresidential.posted by Johnny Wallflower at 4:35 PM on April 19, 2019 [20 favorites]
— Besides, if you say the word “impeach” three times, Newt Gingrich will appear in your house and you will have to include him in your evening plans. […]
— There is an election in the future.
— (Technically, there is no time when there isn’t an election in the future, and I think we should remember that more.)
— Look, impeachment is for if the American people put someone in office who turns out to be unfit for the job. But in this case, some number of American people enthusiastically elected someone who was already obviously unfit for the job, so impeachment — even if the president had done a crime — feels almost disrespectful to their wishes.
— If I took one thing from that Niemoller quote, it is that you need to wait for them to come for at least two groups before you say anything.
Elizabeth Warren tweeted support for impeachment proceedings, and that lady has my vote.
Mine, too. It is comforting to see someone with guts.
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 4:41 PM on April 19, 2019 [12 favorites]
Mine, too. It is comforting to see someone with guts.
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 4:41 PM on April 19, 2019 [12 favorites]
Trump acted as an unwitting agent of Russia. Embarrassed, he obstructed justice to cover that up.
I'm definitely not conceding "unwitting."
posted by diogenes at 4:54 PM on April 19, 2019 [18 favorites]
I'm definitely not conceding "unwitting."
posted by diogenes at 4:54 PM on April 19, 2019 [18 favorites]
The Trump team was aware of and openly supportive of Russian attempts to interfere in the election because they “expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts.”
The report calls this out as being illegal. The only reason Mueller didn't indict Jr. was that he felt he couldn't prove Jr. knew it was illegal, which actually matters in campaign finance law. Now that's taking the concept of idiot proofing your campaign to a new level.
posted by xammerboy at 4:54 PM on April 19, 2019 [16 favorites]
The report calls this out as being illegal. The only reason Mueller didn't indict Jr. was that he felt he couldn't prove Jr. knew it was illegal, which actually matters in campaign finance law. Now that's taking the concept of idiot proofing your campaign to a new level.
posted by xammerboy at 4:54 PM on April 19, 2019 [16 favorites]
Trump acted as an unwitting agent of Russia. Embarrassed, he obstructed justice to cover that up.
posted by mazola at 4:56 PM on April 19, 2019 [20 favorites]
I'm definitely not conceding "unwitting."I'm definitely not conceding "embarrassed".
posted by mazola at 4:56 PM on April 19, 2019 [20 favorites]
At least we all agree that he's an agent of Russia and obstructed justice to cover it up :)
posted by diogenes at 4:58 PM on April 19, 2019 [9 favorites]
posted by diogenes at 4:58 PM on April 19, 2019 [9 favorites]
Let me just correct the error in footnote 239, v1 p58:
Candidate Trump can be heard off cameramaking graphic statements about women admitting to sexually assaulting women.
There. Far more accurate.
posted by adept256 at 5:10 PM on April 19, 2019 [22 favorites]
Candidate Trump can be heard off camera
There. Far more accurate.
posted by adept256 at 5:10 PM on April 19, 2019 [22 favorites]
I'm definitely not conceding "unwitting."
I'm definitely not conceding "embarrassed".
It's worth considering that his base are probably happier with him being a conscious actor (however dubious and/or criminal his acts) than a useful idiot.
posted by philip-random at 5:25 PM on April 19, 2019 [5 favorites]
I'm definitely not conceding "embarrassed".
It's worth considering that his base are probably happier with him being a conscious actor (however dubious and/or criminal his acts) than a useful idiot.
posted by philip-random at 5:25 PM on April 19, 2019 [5 favorites]
Per public statements from Rudy Giuliani (and possibly others), wasn't there supposed to be a written rebuttal by the White House/Trump's lawyers in response to the Mueller report? As of three days ago, they supposedly were putting the "finishing touches" on it, though it sounds like the page count will be significantly lower than originally touted.
Has anyone seen/heard any more recent news about this? Are they still planning on putting it out, or have they punted on that?
posted by Nat "King" Cole Porter Wagoner at 5:27 PM on April 19, 2019 [2 favorites]
Has anyone seen/heard any more recent news about this? Are they still planning on putting it out, or have they punted on that?
posted by Nat "King" Cole Porter Wagoner at 5:27 PM on April 19, 2019 [2 favorites]
If I was asking the questions when Mueller testifies, it would go something like this:
Me: If you believed that there was evidence that the president committed a crime, would you have said so in your report?
Mueller: No (followed by explanation of why he left that determination to Congress).
Me: If you believed that there wasn't evidence that the president committed a crime, would you have said that in your report.
Mueller: Yes (followed by him reading the passage of the report that says as much).
Me: I leave the rest of this logic exercise to the listeners.
Everybody: Yay! Yay for diogenes! We win! It's all over now!
posted by diogenes at 5:33 PM on April 19, 2019 [28 favorites]
Me: If you believed that there was evidence that the president committed a crime, would you have said so in your report?
Mueller: No (followed by explanation of why he left that determination to Congress).
Me: If you believed that there wasn't evidence that the president committed a crime, would you have said that in your report.
Mueller: Yes (followed by him reading the passage of the report that says as much).
Me: I leave the rest of this logic exercise to the listeners.
Everybody: Yay! Yay for diogenes! We win! It's all over now!
posted by diogenes at 5:33 PM on April 19, 2019 [28 favorites]
Buttigieg: "[Trump] deserves to be impeached".
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 5:55 PM on April 19, 2019 [9 favorites]
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 5:55 PM on April 19, 2019 [9 favorites]
It's pretty much what Diogenes said. Mueller was pretty clear: "I'm not allowed to indict the president. I also won't say someone committed a crime without indicting them, because that's not fair, a person should get their day in court if accused. But I definitely won't say he didn't commit a crime." The subtext is very clearly "BECAUSE HE HELLA DID". It's a shame how many reporters are falling down on this.
posted by uosuaq at 6:01 PM on April 19, 2019 [50 favorites]
posted by uosuaq at 6:01 PM on April 19, 2019 [50 favorites]
Tbe other thing the media isn't quite covering is Mueller's view of the obstruction as being in two phases: the first to obstruct the investigation into Russia (including the Comey firing) followed by the effort to obstruct Mueller's obstruction investigation. That is that a lot of the obstruction was to cover up Trump's prior obstruction, which makes both parts of the obstruction look even more criminal.
posted by BungaDunga at 6:10 PM on April 19, 2019 [4 favorites]
posted by BungaDunga at 6:10 PM on April 19, 2019 [4 favorites]
The first question to Mueller when before the House Judiciary should be “If Trump wasn’t president with what you and OLC think is exception from indictment, would you have indicted him for Obstruction?”
posted by chris24 at 6:20 PM on April 19, 2019 [3 favorites]
posted by chris24 at 6:20 PM on April 19, 2019 [3 favorites]
Warren was just on Maddow and fantastic in explaining exactly why she was for impeachment. Great framing and rationale.
And then Eric Swalwell gets on and is waffly about needing to get the unredacted Mueller report and hear from Mueller before thinking about it.
posted by chris24 at 6:52 PM on April 19, 2019 [10 favorites]
And then Eric Swalwell gets on and is waffly about needing to get the unredacted Mueller report and hear from Mueller before thinking about it.
posted by chris24 at 6:52 PM on April 19, 2019 [10 favorites]
We, and Mueller, are unable to say whether Trump was witting or unwitting,
This is the part that sold me on "unwitting" in the sense that most of these guys, including Trump, were just tools. (Which doesn't make any of this okay. They let themselves be used.)
They do seem somewhat conscious that Russians were trying to exploit them...
Of course, whenever they were convinced that the person approaching them REALLY WAS connected to Putin... they took the meeting. But the connections were always a little disappointing to them, because all of these guys were at one or two removes at least, kind of acting on their own initiative. Several of them dangled the possibility of a personal meeting with Putin, but never came through.
But the eagerness with which all of these guys pursued THAT bait is totally damning.
posted by OnceUponATime at 7:15 PM on April 19, 2019 [20 favorites]
This is the part that sold me on "unwitting" in the sense that most of these guys, including Trump, were just tools. (Which doesn't make any of this okay. They let themselves be used.)
As soon as news broke that Trump had been elected President, Russian government officials and prominent Russian businessmen began trying to make inroads into the new Administration. They appeared not to have preexisting contacts and struggled to connect with senior officials around the President-Elect.It really seems like all the people who approached Don Jr, Kushner, Papadopoulos, even Cohen... they were dangling lures. Which those guys nibbled at. But the Russians were never able to completely reel any of them in. There are lots of stories in the report of Trump people turning down meetings because meeting with Russians while people were already accusing Trump of being Putin's puppet would look bad. (The Trump Tower meeting was in June, before that was a big story.)
They do seem somewhat conscious that Russians were trying to exploit them...
During this period of time [Aug 2016] the Campaign received a request for a high-level Campaign official to meet with an officer at a Russian state-owned bank "to discuss an offer [that officer] claims to be carrying from President Putin to meet with" candidate Trump. [...] Copying Manafort and Gates, Kushner responded, "Pass on this. A lot of people come claiming to carry messages. Very few are able to verify. For now I think we decline such meetings. Most likely these people go back home and claim they have special access to gain importance for themselves. Be careful."The people reaching out to them were working on behalf of Putin but not directly FOR Putin...
Petr Aven, a Russian national who heads Alfa-Bank, Russia's largest commercial bank, described to the Office interactions with Putin during this time period that might account for the flurry of Russian activity. Aven told the Office that he is one of approximately 50 wealthy Russian businessmen who regularly meet with Putin in the Kremlin; these 50 men are often referred to as "oligarchs." Aven told the Office that he met on a quarterly basis with Putin, including in the fourth quarter (Q4) of 2016, shortly after the U.S. presidential election. According to Aven, although Putin did not expressly direct him to reach out to the Trump Transition Team, Aven understood that Putin expected him to try to respond to the concerns he had raised"So a bunch of oligarchs at that point all independently take the initiative to reach out to Trump people, who blow a lot of them off because they don't believe most of them really speak for Putin.
Of course, whenever they were convinced that the person approaching them REALLY WAS connected to Putin... they took the meeting. But the connections were always a little disappointing to them, because all of these guys were at one or two removes at least, kind of acting on their own initiative. Several of them dangled the possibility of a personal meeting with Putin, but never came through.
But the eagerness with which all of these guys pursued THAT bait is totally damning.
posted by OnceUponATime at 7:15 PM on April 19, 2019 [20 favorites]
This is what Kislyak explained to Kushner when he asked for a direct back channel to Putin. You don't collude face to face. You have go betweens. You think I want to deal with you? You don't ask me for dirt. You use code and hints. You think I'm meeting with your campaign about adoptions? It's too bad Donald has to stay in a room just upstairs for this exact reason, as he understands all this stuff intuitively.
And... it works, apparently.
posted by xammerboy at 7:29 PM on April 19, 2019 [7 favorites]
And... it works, apparently.
posted by xammerboy at 7:29 PM on April 19, 2019 [7 favorites]
The bait for Trump himself was "Trump Tower Moscow," and he took it hook, line, and sinker.
posted by OnceUponATime at 7:37 PM on April 19, 2019 [7 favorites]
posted by OnceUponATime at 7:37 PM on April 19, 2019 [7 favorites]
The President retweeted a thing that referred to the DNC as a "circle jerk" so yeah I'd say it's going well over there
posted by tivalasvegas at 7:39 PM on April 19, 2019 [1 favorite]
posted by tivalasvegas at 7:39 PM on April 19, 2019 [1 favorite]
Sort of like the realization that there was a new blue wave came a few days after the fact, it's starting to look like the media is slowly waking up to the fact that the Mueller report is explicitly saying Trump committed a lot of impeachable crimes. There's a growing consensus that Barr may have committed a crime. It will be interesting to see where we're at three or four days from now.
posted by xammerboy at 7:40 PM on April 19, 2019 [21 favorites]
posted by xammerboy at 7:40 PM on April 19, 2019 [21 favorites]
Quinta Jurecic made a helpful chart of the possible obstruction charges Mueller considered, color-coded to show the instances where he appears to conclude all three prongs of the statute were violated. As you can see, that’s eight different charges where he seems to be saying Trump committed all three elements.
posted by zachlipton at 7:43 PM on April 19, 2019 [43 favorites]
posted by zachlipton at 7:43 PM on April 19, 2019 [43 favorites]
You don't ask me for dirt. You use code and hints.
Or if you want to pass on a message that there is a pee tape without saying there is a pee tape, you might say, for example, "Stopped flow of tapes from Russia but not sure if there's anything else. Just so you know ...." (page 239)
posted by stopgap at 7:44 PM on April 19, 2019 [6 favorites]
Or if you want to pass on a message that there is a pee tape without saying there is a pee tape, you might say, for example, "Stopped flow of tapes from Russia but not sure if there's anything else. Just so you know ...." (page 239)
posted by stopgap at 7:44 PM on April 19, 2019 [6 favorites]
that’s eight different charges where he seems to be saying Trump committed all three elements.
Which could lead to up to 40 years in prison. Wow, better not lose in 2020.
posted by xammerboy at 8:13 PM on April 19, 2019 [2 favorites]
Which could lead to up to 40 years in prison. Wow, better not lose in 2020.
posted by xammerboy at 8:13 PM on April 19, 2019 [2 favorites]
Nah, he just ran as a vanity thing and then caught the damn car. And now we're all stuck in the car with him.
Also there's a cliff that was approaching but we already drove off it and are currently in midair, Wile E. Coyote style.
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:09 PM on April 19, 2019 [40 favorites]
Also there's a cliff that was approaching but we already drove off it and are currently in midair, Wile E. Coyote style.
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:09 PM on April 19, 2019 [40 favorites]
Also there's a cliff that was approaching but we already drove off it and are currently in midair, Wile E. Coyote style.
This is a really useful and evocative metaphor. The anti-impeachment Dems' argument is basically "don't look down or gravity will kick in and we'll fall."
posted by contraption at 9:26 PM on April 19, 2019 [32 favorites]
This is a really useful and evocative metaphor. The anti-impeachment Dems' argument is basically "don't look down or gravity will kick in and we'll fall."
posted by contraption at 9:26 PM on April 19, 2019 [32 favorites]
This is the part that sold me on "unwitting" in the sense that most of these guys, including Trump, were just tools. (Which doesn't make any of this okay. They let themselves be used.)
See, for me, ALL of this, ALL of it, is undermined by the use of Signal and other encryption and the intentional destruction of evidence.
Yes, there's arguments for use of these technologies for dissidents and activists and others seeking shelter from government reprisals...but Trump used these technologies to thwart the US intelligence apparatus he sought to lead in favor of a foreign power. We know they conceived of this in real time. It was intentional. We will never know the content of those messages, which very well may go the the very heart of intent and an intentional agreement to subvert US democracy, because they chose to conceal, in James Comey's words. That's treason. That's the conspiracy. In intent. And they destroyed evidence to hide it. This is a proven fact. It's "witting". Even if not intent to commit treason, its so overt as to be indistinguishable. And "asymptotic treason" but never getting to cross the line of "actual treason" cannot be the standard by which we judge the President.
posted by T.D. Strange at 10:29 PM on April 19, 2019 [55 favorites]
See, for me, ALL of this, ALL of it, is undermined by the use of Signal and other encryption and the intentional destruction of evidence.
Yes, there's arguments for use of these technologies for dissidents and activists and others seeking shelter from government reprisals...but Trump used these technologies to thwart the US intelligence apparatus he sought to lead in favor of a foreign power. We know they conceived of this in real time. It was intentional. We will never know the content of those messages, which very well may go the the very heart of intent and an intentional agreement to subvert US democracy, because they chose to conceal, in James Comey's words. That's treason. That's the conspiracy. In intent. And they destroyed evidence to hide it. This is a proven fact. It's "witting". Even if not intent to commit treason, its so overt as to be indistinguishable. And "asymptotic treason" but never getting to cross the line of "actual treason" cannot be the standard by which we judge the President.
posted by T.D. Strange at 10:29 PM on April 19, 2019 [55 favorites]
Trump acted as an unwitting agent of Russia.
Oh bullshit. You don't get involved in a hotel deal where a mysterious newly created Russian company fronts all the money and you get $400 million for nothing (while dealing with a blacklisted Russian bank) without having a clue that you may be expected to reciprocate.
posted by benzenedream at 11:23 PM on April 19, 2019 [38 favorites]
Oh bullshit. You don't get involved in a hotel deal where a mysterious newly created Russian company fronts all the money and you get $400 million for nothing (while dealing with a blacklisted Russian bank) without having a clue that you may be expected to reciprocate.
posted by benzenedream at 11:23 PM on April 19, 2019 [38 favorites]
I think what we see is that the entire Republican establishment has been corrupt for decades, and that some time ago Putin and his corruption crossed into and mixed with their corruption. When we saw the passing of the Magnitsky Act, Putin went apeshit because how dare you, we have all been doing this very same thing! and he set out to both explicitly put one of his own into power and to let it be known across the Republican establishment that he had their receipts and would use them.
Which brings me to the Dems. Quite a few Dems got nice and comfy and intertwined with their friends across the aisle over the past many years, so much so that it's now become "not worth it" to impeach Trump for some of them, because to do so means to bring down the whole Republican party, which will inevitably, unpredictably, and very messily drag down also a bunch of these compromised Dems. The ones who've made long careers out of politics. You know, the ones in charge of the impeachment process. So for them, why not just drag this out and look to beat Trump in 2020, keeping their sinecures (and keeping their own corruption on the dl)?
What I'm getting at is that very many of our governmental representatives have been monumentally corrupt for so long, and that this was one of the key "preexisting conditions" which Putin was able to latch on to. There are just enough Democrats in high places who are wolves in sheeps' clothing working with the Putin/Trump-led Republicans, consciously or not, because they cannot afford to have the truth about themselves be known, maybe even to themselves. They're the 3rd-way frogs who've been boiling so long in the waters of bipartisanship and compromise that they've become unbenownst to themselves that sad traitorous mutant version of a Democrat, the Lieberman.
This is the level of corruption we've been living with lo these many many years while telling ourselves we lived under law and order in the land of the free.
It'll be the AOCs and Ilhans and other leftist, liberal, and progressive newcomers not tied to this institutionalized corruption that will have to lead impeachment decisions, the Democratic party, and the nation. Because more of the same will yield ... more of the same.
posted by riverlife at 11:48 PM on April 19, 2019 [54 favorites]
Which brings me to the Dems. Quite a few Dems got nice and comfy and intertwined with their friends across the aisle over the past many years, so much so that it's now become "not worth it" to impeach Trump for some of them, because to do so means to bring down the whole Republican party, which will inevitably, unpredictably, and very messily drag down also a bunch of these compromised Dems. The ones who've made long careers out of politics. You know, the ones in charge of the impeachment process. So for them, why not just drag this out and look to beat Trump in 2020, keeping their sinecures (and keeping their own corruption on the dl)?
What I'm getting at is that very many of our governmental representatives have been monumentally corrupt for so long, and that this was one of the key "preexisting conditions" which Putin was able to latch on to. There are just enough Democrats in high places who are wolves in sheeps' clothing working with the Putin/Trump-led Republicans, consciously or not, because they cannot afford to have the truth about themselves be known, maybe even to themselves. They're the 3rd-way frogs who've been boiling so long in the waters of bipartisanship and compromise that they've become unbenownst to themselves that sad traitorous mutant version of a Democrat, the Lieberman.
This is the level of corruption we've been living with lo these many many years while telling ourselves we lived under law and order in the land of the free.
It'll be the AOCs and Ilhans and other leftist, liberal, and progressive newcomers not tied to this institutionalized corruption that will have to lead impeachment decisions, the Democratic party, and the nation. Because more of the same will yield ... more of the same.
posted by riverlife at 11:48 PM on April 19, 2019 [54 favorites]
ThinkProgress has noticed inconsistencies between Erik Prince’s congressional testimony and the findings of the Mueller report. Prince’s “congressional testimony suggests that he and Dmitriev, a close Putin ally, were simply like-minded businessmen chatting over beers. But the Mueller report paints them as cutouts forging a secret backchannel between the Kremlin and Trump Tower. Even if their meeting was banal, however, the inconsistencies between Prince’s congressional testimony and his statements to the special counsel could land him in legal peril. Mueller indicted former Trump aides Roger Stone and Michael Cohen for making false statements to Congress. Now, with the Mueller report in hand, House Democrats are increasingly flexing their oversight muscles.” Make it so, Congress.
posted by Bella Donna at 2:24 AM on April 20, 2019 [20 favorites]
posted by Bella Donna at 2:24 AM on April 20, 2019 [20 favorites]
Video of Warren about impeachment on Maddow last night.
posted by chris24 at 3:33 AM on April 20, 2019 [12 favorites]
posted by chris24 at 3:33 AM on April 20, 2019 [12 favorites]
Video of Barbara Jordan on impeachment in 1974.
posted by 6thsense at 5:00 AM on April 20, 2019 [9 favorites]
posted by 6thsense at 5:00 AM on April 20, 2019 [9 favorites]
Video of Warren about impeachment on Maddow last night.
Elizabeth Warren is fearless - that video makes the case for impeachment in a powerful and convincing way.
posted by bluesky43 at 5:15 AM on April 20, 2019 [10 favorites]
Elizabeth Warren is fearless - that video makes the case for impeachment in a powerful and convincing way.
posted by bluesky43 at 5:15 AM on April 20, 2019 [10 favorites]
and Barbara Jordan is fearless - that video makes the case for impeachment in a powerful and convincing way in 1974.
posted by bluesky43 at 5:23 AM on April 20, 2019 [8 favorites]
posted by bluesky43 at 5:23 AM on April 20, 2019 [8 favorites]
OnceUponATime makes some well-reasoned points, and I think that those points are largely in keeping with Mueller's conclusions. Nothing rose to the point of knowingly aiding any of Russia's interference operations. But it seems to me that Trump and multiple members of his campaign absolutely were "witting" actors.
Trump Jr., Manafort, Kushner, Flynn, Papadapoulos and others were all aware the Russian government itself had A) reached out to help and B) had the power to help. Through the mere act of being receptive, they communicated something extremely valuable to the Russian government: "We know you're trying to help. When you act, we can see you helping. We would be advantaged by that help, and when this is all said and done, we will be in a position to help you." On multiple occasions, this is almost literally what was communicated: Trump Jr. acknowledged in the Trump Tower meeting that they could "revisit the issue if and when they were in the white house". As Manafort worked with Deripaska's cutouts, he was practically begging to feed them information. The campaign was attempting to set up a meeting between Trump and Putin. And Trump himself, all throughout the campaign, sent signals that he wanted the "relationship" with Russia to be much better.
If Trump knew about any of the overtures offering help, he was "witting". And while there's no definitive proof he did, it's extremely difficult for me to believe he did not.
Post script: There was no need for any quid pro quo. Both sides could accept deferred payment, and I think on some level they trusted eachother to do so. And it happened. Flynn gets on the phone with the Russian Ambassador after the election and tells him to cool it on reciprocal sanctions. After Trump is in, his administration slow walks implementation of Congressional sanctions. They didn't need to agree on any specific transaction here; it's enough that someone did you a huge favor and then in return, down the road, you pay that favor back without being specifically asked to.
posted by Room 101 at 5:31 AM on April 20, 2019 [10 favorites]
Trump Jr., Manafort, Kushner, Flynn, Papadapoulos and others were all aware the Russian government itself had A) reached out to help and B) had the power to help. Through the mere act of being receptive, they communicated something extremely valuable to the Russian government: "We know you're trying to help. When you act, we can see you helping. We would be advantaged by that help, and when this is all said and done, we will be in a position to help you." On multiple occasions, this is almost literally what was communicated: Trump Jr. acknowledged in the Trump Tower meeting that they could "revisit the issue if and when they were in the white house". As Manafort worked with Deripaska's cutouts, he was practically begging to feed them information. The campaign was attempting to set up a meeting between Trump and Putin. And Trump himself, all throughout the campaign, sent signals that he wanted the "relationship" with Russia to be much better.
If Trump knew about any of the overtures offering help, he was "witting". And while there's no definitive proof he did, it's extremely difficult for me to believe he did not.
Post script: There was no need for any quid pro quo. Both sides could accept deferred payment, and I think on some level they trusted eachother to do so. And it happened. Flynn gets on the phone with the Russian Ambassador after the election and tells him to cool it on reciprocal sanctions. After Trump is in, his administration slow walks implementation of Congressional sanctions. They didn't need to agree on any specific transaction here; it's enough that someone did you a huge favor and then in return, down the road, you pay that favor back without being specifically asked to.
posted by Room 101 at 5:31 AM on April 20, 2019 [10 favorites]
and then in return, down the road, you pay that favor back without being specifically asked to.
Or...being specifically asked to, but with nobody taking notes. (Lack of evidence != evidence of lack)
"Someday, and that day may never come, I'll call upon you to do a service for me. But until that day, accept this justice as a gift on my daughter's wedding day."
Trade out a few nouns & adjectives, and Vlad's your uncle.
posted by perspicio at 5:46 AM on April 20, 2019 [1 favorite]
Or...being specifically asked to, but with nobody taking notes. (Lack of evidence != evidence of lack)
"Someday, and that day may never come, I'll call upon you to do a service for me. But until that day, accept this justice as a gift on my daughter's wedding day."
Trade out a few nouns & adjectives, and Vlad's your uncle.
posted by perspicio at 5:46 AM on April 20, 2019 [1 favorite]
Sean Maloney D NY-08 just begging to be primaried to Joy Reid
Sean Maloney has the lopsided smirk of a DreamWorks character.
Also, I learned at Seder last night that I may be distantly related to Jared Kushner, on my mother's side. I'm not happy about this.
posted by Faint of Butt at 5:50 AM on April 20, 2019 [4 favorites]
Sean Maloney has the lopsided smirk of a DreamWorks character.
Also, I learned at Seder last night that I may be distantly related to Jared Kushner, on my mother's side. I'm not happy about this.
posted by Faint of Butt at 5:50 AM on April 20, 2019 [4 favorites]
Paul Waldman:
Just so we’re clear: If Dems advocate for impeachment, the election will be a referendum on impeachment. If Dems table impeachment and say let the voters decide, then the election will be a referendum on impeachment.
posted by chris24 at 6:16 AM on April 20, 2019 [42 favorites]
Just so we’re clear: If Dems advocate for impeachment, the election will be a referendum on impeachment. If Dems table impeachment and say let the voters decide, then the election will be a referendum on impeachment.
posted by chris24 at 6:16 AM on April 20, 2019 [42 favorites]
Axios made a nice tool for searching the Mueller Report."[Axios] categorized each passage of the text to note what events, people, organization and places are mentioned. We ended up categorizing over 2,500 bits of text, and found over 400 unique entities."
posted by MonkeyToes at 6:16 AM on April 20, 2019 [8 favorites]
posted by MonkeyToes at 6:16 AM on April 20, 2019 [8 favorites]
They were going to be honored to witness Jr. finally be showered with long absent father praise.
posted by Harry Caul at 7:17 AM on April 20, 2019 [2 favorites]
posted by Harry Caul at 7:17 AM on April 20, 2019 [2 favorites]
In all of this I've yet to understand what they actually thought was so important to get in "Hillary's emails"
They assume everyone else is as corrupt as they are, so of course they thought there would be tons of illegal stuff Hillary tried to hide by saying these were personal emails.
Remember, pretty much every email we’ve seen from Trump & Co. has been incriminating. “If it’s what you say I love it!” etc. It’s all projection.
posted by chris24 at 7:20 AM on April 20, 2019 [33 favorites]
They assume everyone else is as corrupt as they are, so of course they thought there would be tons of illegal stuff Hillary tried to hide by saying these were personal emails.
Remember, pretty much every email we’ve seen from Trump & Co. has been incriminating. “If it’s what you say I love it!” etc. It’s all projection.
posted by chris24 at 7:20 AM on April 20, 2019 [33 favorites]
The worst of it all was that the Obama administration - including Hillary - seems to have been the least corrupt in a long time. It's hard to believe in honesty, but one must.
posted by Devonian at 7:29 AM on April 20, 2019 [3 favorites]
posted by Devonian at 7:29 AM on April 20, 2019 [3 favorites]
A company that wanted to build a 500-person ICE detention center in Wisconsin withdrew its plans because of local zoning issues.
posted by adamg at 7:37 AM on April 20, 2019 [6 favorites]
posted by adamg at 7:37 AM on April 20, 2019 [6 favorites]
odinsdream: Ben Browder was accused of breaking Russian laws (hilariously useless accusation there, if you know anything about who he is to Russia) and then donating money to Democratic candidates in the US (a completely legal, normal thing to do).
I think you mean Bill Browder (Ben Browder is the actor who played John Chrichton in Farscape).
posted by InTheYear2017 at 7:41 AM on April 20, 2019 [13 favorites]
I think you mean Bill Browder (Ben Browder is the actor who played John Chrichton in Farscape).
posted by InTheYear2017 at 7:41 AM on April 20, 2019 [13 favorites]
Access to the Butter Emails server would've given them a treasure trove of information to dig through -- how Hillary thinks, how she plans, how she operates, whom she relies upon, what she had her hand in as SoS, what she didn't, whom she had contact with, whom she worked with. Information to mine and refine to be able to paint Hillary as corrupt and incompetent, using the tiniest of pretexts to support those claims. Even if it was all strictly personal emails, they could embarrass and harass her in a myriad of ways; any crumbs they could turn into SCANDAL! would be a huge bonus.
You know, the kind of thing that they're accusing Hillary's campaign of having done. SPYING ON OUR CAMPAIGN! Which is, of course, OKIYAR.
posted by delfin at 7:51 AM on April 20, 2019 [9 favorites]
You know, the kind of thing that they're accusing Hillary's campaign of having done. SPYING ON OUR CAMPAIGN! Which is, of course, OKIYAR.
posted by delfin at 7:51 AM on April 20, 2019 [9 favorites]
In all of this I've yet to understand what they actually thought was so important to get in "Hillary's emails"
The content didn't matter. Feeding the media hunger to "get" Clinton did. All we saw in Podesta's emails was mediocre pasta, and the NYT treated it like Watergate anyway, to the exclusion of all other topics. They needed to keep the fake scandal going as long as possible.
posted by T.D. Strange at 7:55 AM on April 20, 2019 [27 favorites]
The content didn't matter. Feeding the media hunger to "get" Clinton did. All we saw in Podesta's emails was mediocre pasta, and the NYT treated it like Watergate anyway, to the exclusion of all other topics. They needed to keep the fake scandal going as long as possible.
posted by T.D. Strange at 7:55 AM on April 20, 2019 [27 favorites]
I'm not totally sure whether Bill Browder is a US citizen, I was recalling maybe he was a UK citizen, which would put donations to US campaigns into an illegal category
You are repeating a Trump lie via Putin. Browder was accused by Putin of not paying $400 million in taxes in Russia. Apparently Browder wasn't playing by typical Russian mafia rules and paying off the right people. This dispute is behind the murder of Magnitsky by Putin and the enactment of the Magnitsky Act putting sanctions on Russian oligarchs.
It was Putin himself who first made the absurd accusation that the $400 million somehow ended up in Clinton's campaign fund. Trump then dutifully repeated his master's accusation many times during the campaign.
Browder was born in New Jersey but later renounced his US citizenship and became a British citizen. Browder made no contributions to the Clinton campaign. However, there were several US employees of Browder's US business in New York who made contributions to the Clinton campaign. There's nothing illegal about that.
It is weird the way all the crooked Clinton myths have permeated even this forum. "Hey, everyone knows she's crooked, so any plausible accusation must have a grain of truth."
posted by JackFlash at 9:15 AM on April 20, 2019 [62 favorites]
You are repeating a Trump lie via Putin. Browder was accused by Putin of not paying $400 million in taxes in Russia. Apparently Browder wasn't playing by typical Russian mafia rules and paying off the right people. This dispute is behind the murder of Magnitsky by Putin and the enactment of the Magnitsky Act putting sanctions on Russian oligarchs.
It was Putin himself who first made the absurd accusation that the $400 million somehow ended up in Clinton's campaign fund. Trump then dutifully repeated his master's accusation many times during the campaign.
Browder was born in New Jersey but later renounced his US citizenship and became a British citizen. Browder made no contributions to the Clinton campaign. However, there were several US employees of Browder's US business in New York who made contributions to the Clinton campaign. There's nothing illegal about that.
It is weird the way all the crooked Clinton myths have permeated even this forum. "Hey, everyone knows she's crooked, so any plausible accusation must have a grain of truth."
posted by JackFlash at 9:15 AM on April 20, 2019 [62 favorites]
After Putin tried to rehash the claims about Browder funnelling money to the Clinton campaign at the Helsinki press conference with Trump, Browder defended himself in Time magazine: I'm Bill Browder. Here's the Biggest Mistake Putin Made When Trying to Get Access to Me Through Trump . In his account of Putin's longstanding with feud with him, he stated bluntly, "I’ve never made a political donation to Hillary Clinton or any other political candidate."
c.f. PolitiFact: Putin's Pants-on-Fire claim about $400 million donation to Clinton from Bill Browder partners
posted by Doktor Zed at 9:20 AM on April 20, 2019 [17 favorites]
c.f. PolitiFact: Putin's Pants-on-Fire claim about $400 million donation to Clinton from Bill Browder partners
posted by Doktor Zed at 9:20 AM on April 20, 2019 [17 favorites]
The anti-impeachment Dems' argument...
I still believe Dem leadership is gulling Trump. Clinton's impeachment only took 5 months, so any "but mah elections" complaints are less than credible. It could be smart money for Chuck 'n Nance to hang back and let other people bring the pressure, which will be necessary.
"You come at the king, you best not miss" is not just a pat Twitter response: if impeachment is attempted and fails, The Trump Administration will create an open door to become monumentally, historically, worse than Hitler bad! Stephen-Miller-is-just-hitting-his-stride bad.
Impeachment is the process, we get one shot, and public opinion will have a lot to do with how Congress votes. Everybody (at least a supermajority) needs to be behind it.
Don't despair
posted by rhizome at 9:46 AM on April 20, 2019 [4 favorites]
I still believe Dem leadership is gulling Trump. Clinton's impeachment only took 5 months, so any "but mah elections" complaints are less than credible. It could be smart money for Chuck 'n Nance to hang back and let other people bring the pressure, which will be necessary.
"You come at the king, you best not miss" is not just a pat Twitter response: if impeachment is attempted and fails, The Trump Administration will create an open door to become monumentally, historically, worse than Hitler bad! Stephen-Miller-is-just-hitting-his-stride bad.
Impeachment is the process, we get one shot, and public opinion will have a lot to do with how Congress votes. Everybody (at least a supermajority) needs to be behind it.
Don't despair
posted by rhizome at 9:46 AM on April 20, 2019 [4 favorites]
From the Raleigh News Observer: The Mueller report released Thursday found that Russian spies successfully hacked into a U.S. voting software company during the 2016 elections, and North Carolina officials think there’s a chance it was software that’s in use here.
The N.C. Board of Elections now has sent a letter to VR Systems, whose voting software was used by 21 North Carolina counties in 2016. The letter, which was first reported by WRAL, asks the company to “provide immediate, written insurance regarding the security of your network.”
The Mueller report didn’t specifically name the company. But VR Systems confirmed in a written statement that it’s the company in question. The company’s software can’t be used to count or change votes. Instead, it manages the electronic polling books used to check in voters, to make sure people don’t vote twice. The Mueller report found that “Russian cyber actors in 2016 targeted” the company, and “installed malware on the company network.”
Durham County, which had numerous problems and delays in the 2016 elections, was using the company’s check-in software at the time. The Mueller report does not go into the full extent of the hacking, and while it does say at least one Florida county was hacked, the report does not name any North Carolina successes for the hackers.
Susan Greenhalgh (@SEGreenhalgh) has a long Twitter thread about election irregularities in NC and how "there was no investigation from the state and the DHS and FBI can't investigate unless the state identifies a possible crime. We need to change the culture so that irregularities will be considered promptly in the lens of the possibility of interference and investigated."
posted by Bella Donna at 9:47 AM on April 20, 2019 [14 favorites]
The N.C. Board of Elections now has sent a letter to VR Systems, whose voting software was used by 21 North Carolina counties in 2016. The letter, which was first reported by WRAL, asks the company to “provide immediate, written insurance regarding the security of your network.”
The Mueller report didn’t specifically name the company. But VR Systems confirmed in a written statement that it’s the company in question. The company’s software can’t be used to count or change votes. Instead, it manages the electronic polling books used to check in voters, to make sure people don’t vote twice. The Mueller report found that “Russian cyber actors in 2016 targeted” the company, and “installed malware on the company network.”
Durham County, which had numerous problems and delays in the 2016 elections, was using the company’s check-in software at the time. The Mueller report does not go into the full extent of the hacking, and while it does say at least one Florida county was hacked, the report does not name any North Carolina successes for the hackers.
Susan Greenhalgh (@SEGreenhalgh) has a long Twitter thread about election irregularities in NC and how "there was no investigation from the state and the DHS and FBI can't investigate unless the state identifies a possible crime. We need to change the culture so that irregularities will be considered promptly in the lens of the possibility of interference and investigated."
posted by Bella Donna at 9:47 AM on April 20, 2019 [14 favorites]
"You come at the king, you best not miss" is not just a pat Twitter response: if impeachment is attempted and fails, The Trump Administration will create an open door to become monumentally, historically, worse than Hitler bad! Stephen-Miller-is-just-hitting-his-stride bad.
What does "failing" mean? Because acquittal is near-guaranteed. We essentially have to imagine the Constitution states "No Senator shall vote to convict a president of the same faction or party", or else in our conversation about this stuff, we'll be giving low-information voters the wrong impression about the significance of a verdict.
Still, this is an age of miracles and wonder! I can envision the tide turning so hard that even Republicans abandon him. And I think the area of Trumpian malfeasance that most promises this would be, not finances or foreign ties, but anything of a sexual nature. The Mueller report seemed to affirm that Trump and Cohen, at the least, thought "tapes" existed. And there's the extensive record of Trump's horrible comments -- not just the Access Hollywood thing, but about young women and even girls. And there's his relationships to Jeffrey Epstein and Cindy Yang, and some very blurry, circumstantial evidence that Mar-a-Lago sent "models/escorts" the way of one or both of those people. I think Epstein should be called to testify, at least in a closed-door context. I know, I know, I know about numbers being set in stone, but think there's a genuine possibility of something sick enough to lose all but the hardest core of the base.
But of course, as a counterpoint: Roy goddamn Moore. So, as usual, that's one for the magic 8-ball.
posted by InTheYear2017 at 10:03 AM on April 20, 2019 [3 favorites]
What does "failing" mean? Because acquittal is near-guaranteed. We essentially have to imagine the Constitution states "No Senator shall vote to convict a president of the same faction or party", or else in our conversation about this stuff, we'll be giving low-information voters the wrong impression about the significance of a verdict.
Still, this is an age of miracles and wonder! I can envision the tide turning so hard that even Republicans abandon him. And I think the area of Trumpian malfeasance that most promises this would be, not finances or foreign ties, but anything of a sexual nature. The Mueller report seemed to affirm that Trump and Cohen, at the least, thought "tapes" existed. And there's the extensive record of Trump's horrible comments -- not just the Access Hollywood thing, but about young women and even girls. And there's his relationships to Jeffrey Epstein and Cindy Yang, and some very blurry, circumstantial evidence that Mar-a-Lago sent "models/escorts" the way of one or both of those people. I think Epstein should be called to testify, at least in a closed-door context. I know, I know, I know about numbers being set in stone, but think there's a genuine possibility of something sick enough to lose all but the hardest core of the base.
But of course, as a counterpoint: Roy goddamn Moore. So, as usual, that's one for the magic 8-ball.
posted by InTheYear2017 at 10:03 AM on April 20, 2019 [3 favorites]
The Mueller Report Demands an Impeachment Inquiry (Susan Hennessey and Quinta Jurecic, Lawfare)
The problem is that impeachment isn’t a purely political matter—though certainly it is political in part. It’s a constitutional expression of the separation of powers, of Congress’s ability to check a chief executive overrunning the bounds of his power. It’s also, under the OLC memo, the only release valve in the constitutional structure for the urgent and mounting pressure of an executive who may have committed serious wrongdoing. To say that the appropriate course is to simply wait for the next presidential election in 18 months, is to offer a judgment that—even in light of his conduct as described by Mueller—Trump is not truly unfit for the office. It is to say he is no different from, say, Vice President Mike Pence, who would take his place, or any other Republican for that matter. It is to say that what matters is winning elections, even if it risks further institutional harms.posted by BungaDunga at 10:07 AM on April 20, 2019 [12 favorites]
Rick Hasen on Why Mueller Should Have Gone After Don Jr.
posted by kirkaracha at 10:26 AM on April 20, 2019 [18 favorites]
It was surprising to see that not only did Mueller not attempt to indict Donald Trump Jr. for this conduct, but he didn’t even call him before the grand jury. This is especially surprising given that one of the reasons that Mueller gives for not prosecuting Donald Trump Jr. is lack of evidence of willfulness, the kind of mental state that you need in order for there to be criminal campaign-finance violation. And of course bringing someone under oath before a grand jury is a way to get that kind of information.Rick Hasen is a professor of law and political science at the University of California, Irvine.
So why not bring Trump Jr. before the grand jury?
It’s inexplicable to me why, if one of his problems is lack of evidence, he’s not seeking to get that evidence using the powers that he has. I think the answer must be that having called Donald Trump Jr. to the grand jury would have provoked Trump, and probably Mueller did not want to do that.
posted by kirkaracha at 10:26 AM on April 20, 2019 [18 favorites]
Question: "Do you think there should be a conversation about impeachment right now?"
Sen. Cory Booker: "No."
posted by waitingtoderail at 11:09 AM on April 20, 2019 [2 favorites]
Sen. Cory Booker: "No."
posted by waitingtoderail at 11:09 AM on April 20, 2019 [2 favorites]
So why not bring Trump Jr. before the grand jury?
Emptywheel said (somewhere I can't find right now) that she thinks Don Jr. telegraphed or actually communicated an intent to take the 5th in front of a GJ.
posted by rhizome at 11:13 AM on April 20, 2019 [2 favorites]
Emptywheel said (somewhere I can't find right now) that she thinks Don Jr. telegraphed or actually communicated an intent to take the 5th in front of a GJ.
posted by rhizome at 11:13 AM on April 20, 2019 [2 favorites]
Question: "Do you think there should be a conversation about impeachment right now?"
Sen. Cory Booker: "No."
Profile in courage right there
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 11:19 AM on April 20, 2019 [16 favorites]
Sen. Cory Booker: "No."
Profile in courage right there
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 11:19 AM on April 20, 2019 [16 favorites]
Booker fumbled his response. He immediately went on to say, "I think right now we should continue this investigation, I think Mueller should come before and testify." (blah blah "pursue the facts" blah blah "read the report" blah blah.) There's no strategic value to taking impeachment off the table immediately since it concedes leverage to Team Trump, which right now is pressing their advantage by declaring exoneration and calling for the investigation of the investigators, from Christopher Steele onwards.
Another profile in courage comes from Maine Public Radio: Collins Says Mueller Report Points To 'Serious Threat To Our Democratic Institution'
posted by Doktor Zed at 11:31 AM on April 20, 2019 [1 favorite]
Another profile in courage comes from Maine Public Radio: Collins Says Mueller Report Points To 'Serious Threat To Our Democratic Institution'
“The Russians were determined to try to influence public opinion and interfere in our elections, and that is a serious threat to our democratic institution,” Collins says.And Pennsylvania's spineless Pat Toomey posted a statement to Facebook in which he said that "all Americans should be pleased that the Special Counsel concluded there was no collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia" and that he was "pleased that the report does not have any redactions based on executive privilege".
She says the attempts by the President to have Mueller fired are disturbing, saying “He was not only very upset by the special counsel’s investigations, but tried several times through intermediaries to end it, and it is an unflattering portrayal of the President.”
Collins also says the report opens up several additional areas for the [Senate Intelligence] committee to explore as part of its investigation of Russian efforts to influence U.S. elections.
“It is very clear that this report appears to have changed very few minds in Washington,” she says. “I, personally, found the report to be a very thorough undertaking.”
posted by Doktor Zed at 11:31 AM on April 20, 2019 [1 favorite]
A couple of podcast recommendations:
Behind the Bastards with Robert Evans usually tells the story of the biggest bastards in history, and this week they have a Mueller report special. A common theme that arises is that their comedian guest all arrive at the parallels between whatever POS they're talking about and Trump. It's not a big setup for that punchline, it's just that when you're chatting about total assholes, the deja vu is inevitable.
Look for their episode on Trump Univeristy, it's even worse than you imagined.
Mueller She Wrote is a binder full of women who have been podcasting about the investigation since it began. They've been doing a daily show for the patreon subscribers up until now, they've gone completely silent. They don't want to get caught up in the initial flurry of hot takes. They're not saying anything until they've digested their mental food. We can expect that on sunday.
Check out their archive before then, some of the best reporting I've heard. I switched to them when the PSA guys became too annoying.
Speaking of Crooked, With Friends Like These has a good interview with Rick Wilson, a rehabilitated republican asshole.
posted by adept256 at 11:52 AM on April 20, 2019 [17 favorites]
Behind the Bastards with Robert Evans usually tells the story of the biggest bastards in history, and this week they have a Mueller report special. A common theme that arises is that their comedian guest all arrive at the parallels between whatever POS they're talking about and Trump. It's not a big setup for that punchline, it's just that when you're chatting about total assholes, the deja vu is inevitable.
Look for their episode on Trump Univeristy, it's even worse than you imagined.
Mueller She Wrote is a binder full of women who have been podcasting about the investigation since it began. They've been doing a daily show for the patreon subscribers up until now, they've gone completely silent. They don't want to get caught up in the initial flurry of hot takes. They're not saying anything until they've digested their mental food. We can expect that on sunday.
Check out their archive before then, some of the best reporting I've heard. I switched to them when the PSA guys became too annoying.
Speaking of Crooked, With Friends Like These has a good interview with Rick Wilson, a rehabilitated republican asshole.
posted by adept256 at 11:52 AM on April 20, 2019 [17 favorites]
Regarding public support for impeachment, historian Kevin Kruse reminds us (with a graph):
It’s worth remembering how public opinion changed on Nixon’s impeachment.posted by Johnny Wallflower at 12:03 PM on April 20, 2019 [26 favorites]
A month into the Ervin Committee hearings, the percentage supporting Nixon's removal was still down in the teens.
A majority didn’t want him removed until late July 1974. He resigned two weeks later.
Mod note: Couple of comments deleted. We're not gonna dig into "Jimmy Carter: threat or menace" in this thread, just make a separate thread if people want to talk about that.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 12:12 PM on April 20, 2019 [11 favorites]
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 12:12 PM on April 20, 2019 [11 favorites]
The United States Owes the World $1 Trillion [Foreign Policy]
By failing to live up to its international climate change agreements, the United States has cost the world a bundle in damage.
posted by hugbucket at 12:15 PM on April 20, 2019 [9 favorites]
I think Josh Marshall's summary from TPM an hour ago is a pretty good pithy summary and talking point for anyone that wants my vote:
posted by lazaruslong at 1:29 PM on April 20, 2019 [42 favorites]
The simple takeaway from the Mueller Report is the President betrayed his country and spent two years lying and breaking the law to try to hide that fact. He should resign and be tried for his crimes.Sooooo right now that's just Warren, right?
posted by lazaruslong at 1:29 PM on April 20, 2019 [42 favorites]
A Technical and Cultural Assessment of the Mueller Report PDF
posted by kirkaracha at 1:31 PM on April 20, 2019 [11 favorites]...
- If Mueller delivered a "born digital" PDF to Justice, that file was printed and scanned back into a set of low-quality images for release; a disservice to all future users of the document, and also a violation of Section 508 regulations.
- If Mueller delivered a paper document to the Department of Justice which was subsequently scanned, DoJ's treatment of the document is more understandable, but still non-conforming with Section 508.
We assess that the document was most likely scanned twice, with redactions being added to the first scanned document using software.This implies that the document may have been provided to DoJ on paper rather than as an electronic document. If it was provided by Mueller to DoJ electronically, then printing it just to scan it back into another, far larger and less capable PDF is difficult to understand.
"“There are definitely days when I wake up now and I am, like, I am not equipped to do this,” Innamorato said later. “But I’ll figure it out. It’s a system. There are rules. It’s imperfect because it’s run by human beings, and I’ll figure it out.”
These Women Where Elected As Democratic Socialists, Now They're Trying To Figure Out What That Means
this is honestly terrific
posted by The Whelk at 1:48 PM on April 20, 2019 [28 favorites]
These Women Where Elected As Democratic Socialists, Now They're Trying To Figure Out What That Means
this is honestly terrific
posted by The Whelk at 1:48 PM on April 20, 2019 [28 favorites]
And if he’d been forced to actually do that, it would now be a part of the public record.
Maybe not. It would have been part of the Grand Jury records, which would still be redacted. The transcript of him taking the 5th would be, and I think the fact of it would arguably be, and Barr would have no qualms in redacting it.
posted by BungaDunga at 1:56 PM on April 20, 2019 [2 favorites]
Maybe not. It would have been part of the Grand Jury records, which would still be redacted. The transcript of him taking the 5th would be, and I think the fact of it would arguably be, and Barr would have no qualms in redacting it.
posted by BungaDunga at 1:56 PM on April 20, 2019 [2 favorites]
Emptywheel said (somewhere I can't find right now) that she thinks Don Jr. telegraphed or actually communicated an intent to take the 5th in front of a GJ.
The evidence of Junior violating 52 USC 30121, 18 USC 371, and 18 USC 1001 is so straightforward there was no reason to question him.
posted by mikelieman at 2:07 PM on April 20, 2019 [4 favorites]
The evidence of Junior violating 52 USC 30121, 18 USC 371, and 18 USC 1001 is so straightforward there was no reason to question him.
posted by mikelieman at 2:07 PM on April 20, 2019 [4 favorites]
And Pennsylvania's spineless Pat Toomey posted a statement to Facebook in which he said that "all Americans should be pleased that the Special Counsel concluded there was no collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia"
I also would have been very pleased to learn that, assuming it were true. Unfortunately, the Special Counsel concluded no such thing, so my pleasure at his purely hypothetical conclusion is itself purely hypothetical.
posted by wierdo at 2:21 PM on April 20, 2019 [6 favorites]
I also would have been very pleased to learn that, assuming it were true. Unfortunately, the Special Counsel concluded no such thing, so my pleasure at his purely hypothetical conclusion is itself purely hypothetical.
posted by wierdo at 2:21 PM on April 20, 2019 [6 favorites]
On page 20 of the report: "the pertinent activities of Michael Cohen , Richard Gates, (redacted) , Roger Stone, and (redacted space) (redacted space JUST big enough for the word "Jr" on the next line). That last one is defintely Don Jr, right?
posted by jenfullmoon at 2:47 PM on April 20, 2019 [2 favorites]
posted by jenfullmoon at 2:47 PM on April 20, 2019 [2 favorites]
So would “Sr.” :)
posted by Barack Spinoza at 2:56 PM on April 20, 2019 [4 favorites]
posted by Barack Spinoza at 2:56 PM on April 20, 2019 [4 favorites]
Are we to assume that Personal Privacy therefore relates to the Trump family members throughout the report?
There are other uses of Personal Privacy, for example masking the identity of a cloud service provider used by the DNC (Vol 1 pp 49-50).
Also, if it is Jr. (or Kushner), then note that Personal Privacy (as opposed to Harm to Ongoing Matter) suggests that there wasn't a case referred out against them.
posted by jedicus at 3:06 PM on April 20, 2019 [1 favorite]
There are other uses of Personal Privacy, for example masking the identity of a cloud service provider used by the DNC (Vol 1 pp 49-50).
Also, if it is Jr. (or Kushner), then note that Personal Privacy (as opposed to Harm to Ongoing Matter) suggests that there wasn't a case referred out against them.
posted by jedicus at 3:06 PM on April 20, 2019 [1 favorite]
House Judiciary Committee Democrats said Friday that they’ve engaged with the Justice Department about preliminary arrangements for special counsel Robert Mueller to testify next month.
I'm sure I'd understand better if I was a lawyer, but it seems like they could have anticipated wanting Mueller to testify and maybe started this process sooner.
The committee has yet to set an official date for Mueller to come in, but Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) has indicated he wants Mueller to testify no later than May 23.
Recent history suggests that the DOJ will be super cooperative and they will definitely just show up if you politely give them a deadline. After all, they've seen the repercussions of missing a deadline (i.e. a new deadline).
posted by diogenes at 3:08 PM on April 20, 2019 [2 favorites]
I'm sure I'd understand better if I was a lawyer, but it seems like they could have anticipated wanting Mueller to testify and maybe started this process sooner.
The committee has yet to set an official date for Mueller to come in, but Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) has indicated he wants Mueller to testify no later than May 23.
Recent history suggests that the DOJ will be super cooperative and they will definitely just show up if you politely give them a deadline. After all, they've seen the repercussions of missing a deadline (i.e. a new deadline).
posted by diogenes at 3:08 PM on April 20, 2019 [2 favorites]
One thing the Report clarifies is that the House definitely needs to get his fucking tax returns since for some reason Mueller didn’t investigate his finances at all to see if he was beholden to Russia or the Russian mob. Another thing an impeachment inquiry can dig into.
posted by chris24 at 3:12 PM on April 20, 2019 [35 favorites]
posted by chris24 at 3:12 PM on April 20, 2019 [35 favorites]
FBI arrests member of rightwing militia accused of detaining migrants: Larry Mitchell Hopkins accused of illegal weapons possession after videos apparently showed men stopping migrants in New Mexico
FBI's message: the next time you livestream yourself kidnapping a few hundred terrified civilians at gunpoint, make sure it's legal for you to carry that AR.
posted by Rust Moranis at 3:24 PM on April 20, 2019 [58 favorites]
FBI's message: the next time you livestream yourself kidnapping a few hundred terrified civilians at gunpoint, make sure it's legal for you to carry that AR.
posted by Rust Moranis at 3:24 PM on April 20, 2019 [58 favorites]
Also, if it is Jr. (or Kushner), then note that Personal Privacy (as opposed to Harm to Ongoing Matter) suggests that there wasn't a case referred out against them.
I believe, and I could be wrong here, that the Harm sections are only referring to existing indictments. IANAL
posted by waitingtoderail at 5:00 PM on April 20, 2019 [1 favorite]
I believe, and I could be wrong here, that the Harm sections are only referring to existing indictments. IANAL
posted by waitingtoderail at 5:00 PM on April 20, 2019 [1 favorite]
David Jolly:
Hate to frame it this way, but the inevitable finality facing House Dems is they either punish Trump for his acts of obstruction as detailed in the Mueller report, or history records that Congress sided with Bill Barr's conclusion that Trump's actions were legally permissible.
posted by chris24 at 5:24 PM on April 20, 2019 [50 favorites]
Hate to frame it this way, but the inevitable finality facing House Dems is they either punish Trump for his acts of obstruction as detailed in the Mueller report, or history records that Congress sided with Bill Barr's conclusion that Trump's actions were legally permissible.
posted by chris24 at 5:24 PM on April 20, 2019 [50 favorites]
Republican discussed violent attacks and surveillance with right-wingers - Washington state representative Matt Shea exchanged messages with far-right figures, chat records obtained by the Guardian reveal
You may remember Matt from such hits as “biblical basis for war”, ”kill all the (leftist) males”, and recommending using zip ties so tight around a woman’s genitals that she could be hoisted up a flag pole.
These are the people Republicans elect.
posted by SecretAgentSockpuppet at 5:36 PM on April 20, 2019 [28 favorites]
You may remember Matt from such hits as “biblical basis for war”, ”kill all the (leftist) males”, and recommending using zip ties so tight around a woman’s genitals that she could be hoisted up a flag pole.
These are the people Republicans elect.
posted by SecretAgentSockpuppet at 5:36 PM on April 20, 2019 [28 favorites]
David Neiwert: "Border militias are back in the news, thanks to the most recent incident in which they have detained border crossers. Where did these border militias come from? What are they really about? And why do they have such a history of criminality and death attached to them? Long thread follows." Unrolled thread.
posted by MonkeyToes at 5:37 PM on April 20, 2019 [17 favorites]
posted by MonkeyToes at 5:37 PM on April 20, 2019 [17 favorites]
If it was provided by Mueller to DoJ electronically, then printing it just to scan it back into another, far larger and less capable PDF is difficult to understand
There are a lot of incidents of information leakage due to unexpected things in a PDF. If you want to really be sure there isn't anything lurking there, that is the way to do it.
posted by Bovine Love at 6:03 PM on April 20, 2019 [24 favorites]
There are a lot of incidents of information leakage due to unexpected things in a PDF. If you want to really be sure there isn't anything lurking there, that is the way to do it.
posted by Bovine Love at 6:03 PM on April 20, 2019 [24 favorites]
Asked if she'll always tell the truth, Trump Re-election Campaign spokeswoman Kayleigh Mcenany says: "I could only hope to be as truthful as I think Press Secretary Sarah Sanders has been."
So, that right there is probably the most truthful statement you are going to hear from the mouth of Kayleigh McEnany in the next 18 months.
posted by JackFlash at 8:46 PM on April 20, 2019 [39 favorites]
So, that right there is probably the most truthful statement you are going to hear from the mouth of Kayleigh McEnany in the next 18 months.
posted by JackFlash at 8:46 PM on April 20, 2019 [39 favorites]
Hate to frame it this way, but the inevitable finality facing House Dems is they either punish Trump for his acts of obstruction as detailed in the Mueller report, or history records that Congress sided with Bill Barr's conclusion that Trump's actions were legally permissible.
I don't know what other way there is to frame it, and it is absolutely insane that our political class think they can just muddle through Trump and then get "back to normal".
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 1:28 AM on April 21, 2019 [14 favorites]
I don't know what other way there is to frame it, and it is absolutely insane that our political class think they can just muddle through Trump and then get "back to normal".
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 1:28 AM on April 21, 2019 [14 favorites]
But VR Systems confirmed in a written statement that it’s the company in question... The Mueller report found that “Russian cyber actors in 2016 targeted” the company, and “installed malware on the company network.”
Durham County, which had numerous problems and delays in the 2016 elections, was using the company’s check-in software at the time.
It is the complete pinnacle of Repub wrongness...
Why is a private company involved in the process? (graft for repub buddies) Of course little two bit companies are going to be more susceptible than strong US Fed controlled infrastructure.
Why do we need a fancy "check in" control system? That's what election volunteers and officials can do, with a phone book style printed list... easy. BUT THE VOTING THEFT MUST BE CONTROLLED oh noes FUD did you hear some dude voted twice, for Hillary?!?!...
And without all these hoops how do we stop non-repub voters from voting?
There is not one right thing going on in this scenario.
posted by Meatbomb at 2:10 AM on April 21, 2019 [4 favorites]
Durham County, which had numerous problems and delays in the 2016 elections, was using the company’s check-in software at the time.
It is the complete pinnacle of Repub wrongness...
Why is a private company involved in the process? (graft for repub buddies) Of course little two bit companies are going to be more susceptible than strong US Fed controlled infrastructure.
Why do we need a fancy "check in" control system? That's what election volunteers and officials can do, with a phone book style printed list... easy. BUT THE VOTING THEFT MUST BE CONTROLLED oh noes FUD did you hear some dude voted twice, for Hillary?!?!...
And without all these hoops how do we stop non-repub voters from voting?
There is not one right thing going on in this scenario.
posted by Meatbomb at 2:10 AM on April 21, 2019 [4 favorites]
From the UNITED STATES’ MEMORANDUM IN AID OF SENTENCING for defendant Mariia Butina (seen via a Rachel Maddow tweet):
In one of those proposals, sent to the Russian Official on November 10, 2016, she noted that its goal would be to “use the existing personal groundwork” she and the Russian Official had laid “in establishing informal relationships in U.S. political circles . . . for the purpose of assessing, monitoring, forecasting, and developing the policies of the [Russian Federation] vis-a-vis” the U.S. government. Butina also noted: During the last 5 years, [Russian Official] and Butina have constantly worked on establishing unofficial contact, based on common views and a system of conservative values, with a number of key [Political Party 1] organizations in the US, including the executive level of [Political Party 1], its intellectual establishment and [Political Party 1] organizations.
On the following day, November 11, the defendant provided the Russian Official with the name of an individual she claimed was being considered for Secretary of State. She asked the Russian Official to seek the input of the Russian government on the name she provided and told him, “our opinion will be taken into consideration” in the United States.
At first I found it hard to believe that "our opinion will be taken into consideration" was anything but Butina bullshitting her contacts. Then I remembered that Trump let three Mar-a-Lago buddies review and eventually edit "a $10 billion government contract to overhaul electronic health records for veterans even though they had no prior experience in the field." That Trump tapped a real estate lawyer who was a member of one of Trump's private golf clubs for ambassador to Romania. Of course, as you all know, he famously hired Paul Manafort to work without pay, and Manafort may not have been the only campaign official to work without pay. Also, that Don Jr. attempted to find someone to do that actual work of being President so his dad could just be the figurehead (sorry, cannot find the link).
TL;DR: Sounds legit!
posted by Bella Donna at 2:11 AM on April 21, 2019 [16 favorites]
In one of those proposals, sent to the Russian Official on November 10, 2016, she noted that its goal would be to “use the existing personal groundwork” she and the Russian Official had laid “in establishing informal relationships in U.S. political circles . . . for the purpose of assessing, monitoring, forecasting, and developing the policies of the [Russian Federation] vis-a-vis” the U.S. government. Butina also noted: During the last 5 years, [Russian Official] and Butina have constantly worked on establishing unofficial contact, based on common views and a system of conservative values, with a number of key [Political Party 1] organizations in the US, including the executive level of [Political Party 1], its intellectual establishment and [Political Party 1] organizations.
On the following day, November 11, the defendant provided the Russian Official with the name of an individual she claimed was being considered for Secretary of State. She asked the Russian Official to seek the input of the Russian government on the name she provided and told him, “our opinion will be taken into consideration” in the United States.
At first I found it hard to believe that "our opinion will be taken into consideration" was anything but Butina bullshitting her contacts. Then I remembered that Trump let three Mar-a-Lago buddies review and eventually edit "a $10 billion government contract to overhaul electronic health records for veterans even though they had no prior experience in the field." That Trump tapped a real estate lawyer who was a member of one of Trump's private golf clubs for ambassador to Romania. Of course, as you all know, he famously hired Paul Manafort to work without pay, and Manafort may not have been the only campaign official to work without pay. Also, that Don Jr. attempted to find someone to do that actual work of being President so his dad could just be the figurehead (sorry, cannot find the link).
TL;DR: Sounds legit!
posted by Bella Donna at 2:11 AM on April 21, 2019 [16 favorites]
Huh. That's pretty interesting in light of this story from March 2018...
The Daily Beast summarizing Wall Street Journal reporting...
The Daily Beast summarizing Wall Street Journal reporting...
Russian Trolls Tried to Sink Romney’s Secretary of State Bid, Tooposted by OnceUponATime at 2:27 AM on April 21, 2019 [13 favorites]
Russian online trolls tried to brand Mitt Romney a “two headed snake” and a “globalist puppet” as they flooded the internet in late 2016 in a bid to prevent him from becoming Donald Trump's secretary of State. An analysis by The Wall Street Journal shows now-deleted posts urged people to join a protest outside Trump Tower and also shared a petition in an attempt to block the 2012 presidential candidate from being chosen for the top job shortly after Trump’s election victory. The analysis comes alongside a report in The New Yorker that cites a Christopher Steele memo—based on contact with a “senior Russian official”—alleging that the Kremlin pressured Trump to choose a candidate for the job who was more favorable to Russia than Romney was perceived to be. Trump ultimately chose former ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson, who previously said he has a “very close relationship with” Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Following the report's mention of Florida, it's kind of astonishing how little coverage the Russian hacking of election-related systems in multiple states has had compared to either their Internet troll operation or the penetration of DNC/Podesta servers.
Are reporters wary of giving a false impression that data was changed when (officially, as far as we know, and I take this with a big spoon of salt) it was not? Because that applies to the DNC server too -- in both cases, just seeing secret data and leaving it untouched is valuable for the Kremlin. It's not impossible that specific voters were targeted on social media based, e.g, a party affiliation stored in a hacked county database.
Is there a similar worry that readers would too-easily conflate registration/rolls with the vote tabulation, which also was officially not touched (although I'm similarly unsure if we can trust that to be the case) and is broadly understood as what "real" tampering with an election means? Because conflation between the DNC server and Hillary's private one is also a challenge inherent to those stories.
Plus, as far as I'm concerned, the registration/tabulation distinction is smaller than some would paint it; a vote lost to "Sorry, you're not in our system" is almost the same as one lost by direct digital deletion (granting the existence of provisional ballots). Republican suppression relies in part on refusal to acknowledge the equivalence between pruning a leaf and pruning the branch further up the chain of causation.
Or... is the story just too scary to face head-on?
posted by InTheYear2017 at 3:53 AM on April 21, 2019 [21 favorites]
Are reporters wary of giving a false impression that data was changed when (officially, as far as we know, and I take this with a big spoon of salt) it was not? Because that applies to the DNC server too -- in both cases, just seeing secret data and leaving it untouched is valuable for the Kremlin. It's not impossible that specific voters were targeted on social media based, e.g, a party affiliation stored in a hacked county database.
Is there a similar worry that readers would too-easily conflate registration/rolls with the vote tabulation, which also was officially not touched (although I'm similarly unsure if we can trust that to be the case) and is broadly understood as what "real" tampering with an election means? Because conflation between the DNC server and Hillary's private one is also a challenge inherent to those stories.
Plus, as far as I'm concerned, the registration/tabulation distinction is smaller than some would paint it; a vote lost to "Sorry, you're not in our system" is almost the same as one lost by direct digital deletion (granting the existence of provisional ballots). Republican suppression relies in part on refusal to acknowledge the equivalence between pruning a leaf and pruning the branch further up the chain of causation.
Or... is the story just too scary to face head-on?
posted by InTheYear2017 at 3:53 AM on April 21, 2019 [21 favorites]
Here's a refresher from Dec 2016, on Paul Ryan's connection to hackers and shenanigans in Florida races at that time Milwaukee-Journal Sentinel
"The Congressional Leadership Fund, which is endorsed by Ryan, a Janesville Republican, and other House GOP leaders, ran an ad that targeted Florida Democrat Joe Garcia and used material allegedly exposed by a group of hackers operating under the name Guccifer 2.0. Garcia, who lost his race to Republican Carlos Curbelo, also made use of hacked material in criticizing his opponent in the Democratic primary, Annette Taddeo, according to the Times.
The Leadership Fund ad cites a "Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee internal document" as among its source materials, along with other sources like a story in the Miami Herald."
posted by Harry Caul at 4:51 AM on April 21, 2019 [4 favorites]
"The Congressional Leadership Fund, which is endorsed by Ryan, a Janesville Republican, and other House GOP leaders, ran an ad that targeted Florida Democrat Joe Garcia and used material allegedly exposed by a group of hackers operating under the name Guccifer 2.0. Garcia, who lost his race to Republican Carlos Curbelo, also made use of hacked material in criticizing his opponent in the Democratic primary, Annette Taddeo, according to the Times.
The Leadership Fund ad cites a "Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee internal document" as among its source materials, along with other sources like a story in the Miami Herald."
posted by Harry Caul at 4:51 AM on April 21, 2019 [4 favorites]
Asked if she'll always tell the truth, Trump Re-election Campaign spokeswoman Kayleigh Mcenany says: "I could only hope to be as truthful as I think Press Secretary Sarah Sanders has been."
This is your occasional reminder that when the so-called elite political press took its cue from conservative media -- again -- and rushed to its fainting couches over Naomi Wolf allegedly criticizing Sanders' appearance -- she didn't -- it conveniently avoided confronting the fact that Wolf called Sanders a liar and, by implication, the DC media stenographers for a liar.
posted by Gelatin at 5:56 AM on April 21, 2019 [8 favorites]
This is your occasional reminder that when the so-called elite political press took its cue from conservative media -- again -- and rushed to its fainting couches over Naomi Wolf allegedly criticizing Sanders' appearance -- she didn't -- it conveniently avoided confronting the fact that Wolf called Sanders a liar and, by implication, the DC media stenographers for a liar.
posted by Gelatin at 5:56 AM on April 21, 2019 [8 favorites]
Usual caveats about looking at averages, not just one poll, etc. etc., but he’s down to 37% in the first poll post-release, a 3% drop from April 15th, and a 6% drop from after the Barr letter last month.
Reuters: Trump approval drops 3 points to 2019 low after release of Mueller report
And he’s railing about investigations again this morning on Twitter. Which again, one of the best reasons to continue to investigate him and open an impeachment inquiry is that he’s so clearly scared by it. He’s dirty, we’ll find dirt, and it keeps him on the defensive. If we don’t, he’ll claim vindication and go after the investigators and Clinton.
posted by chris24 at 5:58 AM on April 21, 2019 [24 favorites]
Reuters: Trump approval drops 3 points to 2019 low after release of Mueller report
And he’s railing about investigations again this morning on Twitter. Which again, one of the best reasons to continue to investigate him and open an impeachment inquiry is that he’s so clearly scared by it. He’s dirty, we’ll find dirt, and it keeps him on the defensive. If we don’t, he’ll claim vindication and go after the investigators and Clinton.
posted by chris24 at 5:58 AM on April 21, 2019 [24 favorites]
I was recalling maybe he was a UK citizen, which would put donations to US campaigns into an illegal category, which is *still* not "dirt on Hillary" it would be dirt on Bill Browder.
Just as an FYI citizens of other countries can donate to US campaigns if they are US residents (There are 13 million of us).
posted by srboisvert at 6:03 AM on April 21, 2019 [12 favorites]
Just as an FYI citizens of other countries can donate to US campaigns if they are US residents (There are 13 million of us).
posted by srboisvert at 6:03 AM on April 21, 2019 [12 favorites]
How you know the Mueller Report doesn't show exoneration but rather that he's a traitorous fuck; now they're explicitly saying it's fine to be a traitorous fuck.
Jake Tapper
In our interview airing on @CNNSotu at 9 am ET, in response to criticism from @mittromney that Trump team was willing to accept help from Russia, Trump attorney @RudyGiuliani says there’s “nothing wrong” with a campaign accepting help from Russia. Tune in —
—
Always inevitable we’d get to collusion is fine.
posted by chris24 at 6:05 AM on April 21, 2019 [57 favorites]
Jake Tapper
In our interview airing on @CNNSotu at 9 am ET, in response to criticism from @mittromney that Trump team was willing to accept help from Russia, Trump attorney @RudyGiuliani says there’s “nothing wrong” with a campaign accepting help from Russia. Tune in —
—
Always inevitable we’d get to collusion is fine.
posted by chris24 at 6:05 AM on April 21, 2019 [57 favorites]
I decided to read some books about climate change to cheer myself up, and so I'm seeing everything through that lens, and one of my thoughts is how are we going to take on the corporate powers that be and reduce carbon emissions if we can't move to impeach when we have an ineluctable mountain of evidence of impeachable offenses before us? We're supposed to be a nation of laws; if we don't even have that, how are we going to surmount the obstacles presented by climate change in the next decade?
Happy Holidays!
posted by angrycat at 6:14 AM on April 21, 2019 [11 favorites]
Happy Holidays!
posted by angrycat at 6:14 AM on April 21, 2019 [11 favorites]
one of my thoughts is how are we going to take on the corporate powers that be and reduce carbon emissions if we can't move to impeach when we have an ineluctable mountain of evidence of impeachable offenses before us? We're supposed to be a nation of laws; if we don't even have that, how are we going to surmount the obstacles presented by climate change in the next decade?
Primary out 70% of elected democrats.
posted by Rust Moranis at 6:18 AM on April 21, 2019 [31 favorites]
Primary out 70% of elected democrats.
posted by Rust Moranis at 6:18 AM on April 21, 2019 [31 favorites]
Gelatin: This is your occasional reminder that when the so-called elite political press took its cue from conservative media -- again -- and rushed to its fainting couches over Naomi Wolf allegedly criticizing Sanders' appearance -- she didn't -- it conveniently avoided confronting the fact that Wolf called Sanders a liar and, by implication, the DC media stenographers for a liar.
Heh, looks like I've got a new regular thread chore! I think you mean Michelle Wolf (Naomi Wolf is a feminist author who advised Gore and Bill).
posted by InTheYear2017 at 6:39 AM on April 21, 2019 [16 favorites]
Heh, looks like I've got a new regular thread chore! I think you mean Michelle Wolf (Naomi Wolf is a feminist author who advised Gore and Bill).
posted by InTheYear2017 at 6:39 AM on April 21, 2019 [16 favorites]
The calm, steadying hand of normal leadership:
Trump mistakenly tweets millions dead in Sri Lanka explosions on Easter Sunday (USA Today)
posted by Barack Spinoza at 7:10 AM on April 21, 2019 [8 favorites]
Trump mistakenly tweets millions dead in Sri Lanka explosions on Easter Sunday (USA Today)
posted by Barack Spinoza at 7:10 AM on April 21, 2019 [8 favorites]
Having the Senate Republicans on the record as voting to acquit for impeachment is ammunition for the 2020 elections. Why is the Democratic party willing to forfeit that weapon, despite it having no cost. It would literally take them an afternoon. Pass it, punt it to the Senate, watch it go down, then start making campaign ads.
Mitch McConnell is up for re-election in 2020.
WTF is going on here, this political calculus makes no sense.
posted by butterstick at 7:28 AM on April 21, 2019 [26 favorites]
Mitch McConnell is up for re-election in 2020.
WTF is going on here, this political calculus makes no sense.
posted by butterstick at 7:28 AM on April 21, 2019 [26 favorites]
Loony leftist update, labor edition!
JANE MCALEVEY ON HOW TO ORGANIZE FOR POWER
The workers report low wages, scarce benefits, and unstable working conditions, calling the conditions unfitting of a museum that was founded to celebrate the labor struggles of immigrant families: Tenement Museum Workers Vote to Unionize
Union busting by Boeing results in shoddy manufacturing
The history of communists in the labor movement is complicated. It should neither be romanticized nor handwaved away. THREAD
Stop and Shop strike continues "In nearly 30 years, we haven’t seen a strike as effective and devastating as this one,"
posted by The Whelk at 7:37 AM on April 21, 2019 [26 favorites]
JANE MCALEVEY ON HOW TO ORGANIZE FOR POWER
The workers report low wages, scarce benefits, and unstable working conditions, calling the conditions unfitting of a museum that was founded to celebrate the labor struggles of immigrant families: Tenement Museum Workers Vote to Unionize
Union busting by Boeing results in shoddy manufacturing
The history of communists in the labor movement is complicated. It should neither be romanticized nor handwaved away. THREAD
Stop and Shop strike continues "In nearly 30 years, we haven’t seen a strike as effective and devastating as this one,"
posted by The Whelk at 7:37 AM on April 21, 2019 [26 favorites]
@JuliusGoat:
I’ve got news for Democrats: if after the last three years somebody is going to get angry that the president has been impeached? That isn’t a vote you were ever getting.
Those voices can be safely ignored.
posted by chris24 at 7:40 AM on April 21, 2019 [58 favorites]
I’ve got news for Democrats: if after the last three years somebody is going to get angry that the president has been impeached? That isn’t a vote you were ever getting.
Those voices can be safely ignored.
posted by chris24 at 7:40 AM on April 21, 2019 [58 favorites]
JANE MCALEVEY ON HOW TO ORGANIZE FOR POWER
I was just listening to McAlevy on The Dig and am convinced that we will be much better off once we clone her and use those clones to replace Chuck and Nancy. She is a tough, clear-eyed tactician who is obsessively focused on building organizational power and using it to advance progressive goals.
posted by contraption at 7:50 AM on April 21, 2019 [3 favorites]
I was just listening to McAlevy on The Dig and am convinced that we will be much better off once we clone her and use those clones to replace Chuck and Nancy. She is a tough, clear-eyed tactician who is obsessively focused on building organizational power and using it to advance progressive goals.
posted by contraption at 7:50 AM on April 21, 2019 [3 favorites]
Just as an FYI citizens of other countries can donate to US campaigns if they are US residents (There are 13 million of us).
Good point. The election donation law only applies to foreign nationals. A green card holder is not a foreign national because they are a permanent US resident.
posted by JackFlash at 7:56 AM on April 21, 2019
Good point. The election donation law only applies to foreign nationals. A green card holder is not a foreign national because they are a permanent US resident.
posted by JackFlash at 7:56 AM on April 21, 2019
Everybody should be calling their representatives, hounding them about the report and its conclusions and impeachment.
posted by gucci mane at 8:01 AM on April 21, 2019 [9 favorites]
posted by gucci mane at 8:01 AM on April 21, 2019 [9 favorites]
US citizens living abroad (whether or not dual citizens) are also allowed to donate money, as far as I know. Periodically Republicans attempt to disenfranchise us (I know, shocking) because expats tend to vote for the Democratic Party.
Democrats Abroad is the official Democratic Party arm for the millions of Americans living outside the United States. We strive to provide Americans abroad a Democratic voice in our government and elect Democratic candidates by mobilizing the overseas vote. Democrats Abroad has 42 country committees throughout Europe, the Americas, the Middle East, Africa and Asia. These country committees keep Americans abroad informed of their rights and help them participate in the U.S. political process. Our members live in more than 190 countries around the globe and vote in every state and Congressional district in the U.S.
posted by Bella Donna at 8:05 AM on April 21, 2019 [4 favorites]
Democrats Abroad is the official Democratic Party arm for the millions of Americans living outside the United States. We strive to provide Americans abroad a Democratic voice in our government and elect Democratic candidates by mobilizing the overseas vote. Democrats Abroad has 42 country committees throughout Europe, the Americas, the Middle East, Africa and Asia. These country committees keep Americans abroad informed of their rights and help them participate in the U.S. political process. Our members live in more than 190 countries around the globe and vote in every state and Congressional district in the U.S.
posted by Bella Donna at 8:05 AM on April 21, 2019 [4 favorites]
Kyle Griffin (MSNBC):
Elijah Cummings says that even if the House moves to impeach Trump and the Senate votes against it, "history would smile upon us for standing up for the Constitution."
VIDEO
posted by chris24 at 8:05 AM on April 21, 2019 [60 favorites]
Elijah Cummings says that even if the House moves to impeach Trump and the Senate votes against it, "history would smile upon us for standing up for the Constitution."
VIDEO
posted by chris24 at 8:05 AM on April 21, 2019 [60 favorites]
It would literally take them an afternoon. Pass it, punt it to the Senate
This is exactly the wrong way to go about it, because it would be seen as a transparent political ploy. The right way is a wide-ranging House investigation with gavel-to-gavel coverage, concluding with an impeachment referral. Get the facts out there without letting Trump control the news cycle.
posted by Johnny Wallflower at 8:13 AM on April 21, 2019 [48 favorites]
This is exactly the wrong way to go about it, because it would be seen as a transparent political ploy. The right way is a wide-ranging House investigation with gavel-to-gavel coverage, concluding with an impeachment referral. Get the facts out there without letting Trump control the news cycle.
posted by Johnny Wallflower at 8:13 AM on April 21, 2019 [48 favorites]
I think the progressive folk out there like us are maybe miscalculating on how much of the Democratic party actually also needs to be replaced ASAP to get justice and save our planet.
Impeachment saves the planet if it saves 2020. That's it. The party is currently crunching its calculus, and I think some of their numbers are probably incorrect. I think it does save 2020. But the underlying rationale is not wrong. The climate can't afford a political party tilting at windmills because of "principles".
This is different from the failure to prosecute war criminals and recession architects, and it's different from the push for healthcare reform that gave us Obamacare. All of those things either would have, or did, cost major political capital. Democrats lost seats to the ACA pushback --- but they also directly saved lives. In some other timeline, perhaps they lost even more seats and actually locked Donald Rumsfeld or Phil Gramm behind bars.
But impeachment is a statement, a grand gesture, a yell at the skies. It will save lives because it will save the election and establish a strong precedent for future rule of law. (A muted one, because the precedent will be that if you're as bad as Trump, you have to endure a big nasty trial that spells out all your evils, and in the end you get off.) But if there was really good reason to think that the gamble pays the other way, then it would be a very bad idea. I think this Vox piece is worth a read.
posted by InTheYear2017 at 8:14 AM on April 21, 2019 [4 favorites]
Impeachment saves the planet if it saves 2020. That's it. The party is currently crunching its calculus, and I think some of their numbers are probably incorrect. I think it does save 2020. But the underlying rationale is not wrong. The climate can't afford a political party tilting at windmills because of "principles".
This is different from the failure to prosecute war criminals and recession architects, and it's different from the push for healthcare reform that gave us Obamacare. All of those things either would have, or did, cost major political capital. Democrats lost seats to the ACA pushback --- but they also directly saved lives. In some other timeline, perhaps they lost even more seats and actually locked Donald Rumsfeld or Phil Gramm behind bars.
But impeachment is a statement, a grand gesture, a yell at the skies. It will save lives because it will save the election and establish a strong precedent for future rule of law. (A muted one, because the precedent will be that if you're as bad as Trump, you have to endure a big nasty trial that spells out all your evils, and in the end you get off.) But if there was really good reason to think that the gamble pays the other way, then it would be a very bad idea. I think this Vox piece is worth a read.
posted by InTheYear2017 at 8:14 AM on April 21, 2019 [4 favorites]
Everybody should be calling their representatives, hounding them about the report and its conclusions and impeachment.
Nadler, Schumer and Gillibrand are mine and I’ve been using ResistBot to send them messages daily. It makes it very easy to do. Today’s message if it might help others compose theirs:
“An impeachment inquiry needs to be started immediately. Without one, we are effectively saying we will never impeach a president. If not now, with this president and crimes, when? We will be excusing traitorous if not technically treasonous crimes. And we will be letting a lawless president get away with even more and be effectively above the law. If we don't fight this battle, we will be defending against his attacks on the investigators and Clinton. And there's so much more criminal activity to be found and confirmed, including his finances and possible ties to Russia/Russian mob and money laundering. Any Democrat who does not support proceedings will not have my vote or donations in the future. Their primary opponents will. Do your job!”
posted by chris24 at 8:17 AM on April 21, 2019 [31 favorites]
Nadler, Schumer and Gillibrand are mine and I’ve been using ResistBot to send them messages daily. It makes it very easy to do. Today’s message if it might help others compose theirs:
“An impeachment inquiry needs to be started immediately. Without one, we are effectively saying we will never impeach a president. If not now, with this president and crimes, when? We will be excusing traitorous if not technically treasonous crimes. And we will be letting a lawless president get away with even more and be effectively above the law. If we don't fight this battle, we will be defending against his attacks on the investigators and Clinton. And there's so much more criminal activity to be found and confirmed, including his finances and possible ties to Russia/Russian mob and money laundering. Any Democrat who does not support proceedings will not have my vote or donations in the future. Their primary opponents will. Do your job!”
posted by chris24 at 8:17 AM on April 21, 2019 [31 favorites]
Appending to what I wrote -- I think the biggest mistake Ezra Klein made in the piece I linked is imagining that the economy will be good in 2020, when just about all the experts say we're due for a recession. That fact strengthens my resolve a lot. A combination of impeachment and recession will put the regime in such a bad position that even the proverbial "just start a war!" won't save them, I think.
And just to play my broken record more: If impeachment happens (or even if it doesn't, really) your coworkers in water-cooler conversations are going to have to be persuaded that one of the two major political parties operates in bad faith and does not care about rules, while the other one does. One of them kicked out Al Franken and the other stuck to Roy Moore. Ergo, any ultimate verdict is meaningless unless it is (miracle of miracles) a finding of guilt.
posted by InTheYear2017 at 8:27 AM on April 21, 2019 [3 favorites]
And just to play my broken record more: If impeachment happens (or even if it doesn't, really) your coworkers in water-cooler conversations are going to have to be persuaded that one of the two major political parties operates in bad faith and does not care about rules, while the other one does. One of them kicked out Al Franken and the other stuck to Roy Moore. Ergo, any ultimate verdict is meaningless unless it is (miracle of miracles) a finding of guilt.
posted by InTheYear2017 at 8:27 AM on April 21, 2019 [3 favorites]
In moral philosophy there is a distinction between "consequentialist" or "utilitarian" ethics (the right thing to do is thing thing which you estimate will increase happiness or prevent suffering overall to the greatest degree) and "deontological" ethics (the right thing to do is to stick to your principles -- most of which can be expressed explicitly in terms of respecting various rights -- even if it seems possible or likely that it could backfire and accidentally harm innocent people.)
If you would like to understand this debate I can recommend the book "Moral Tribes" by Joshua Greene. It's been raging for millenia, and is still not settled because both approaches sometimes lead to terrible outcomes.
Anyway, I think that's the root of the impeachment debate. Politicians tend to be more utilitarian (after all they are held responsible for the consequences of their decisions) and activists tend to be more deontological -- committment to principles is what makes them activists.
I guess my point is... consider that people who disagree with you on this issue may not be unethical. They may may be just as strongly committed to their ethical framework as you are to yours. And if you want to argue that yours is better, be prepared for the fact that no one has won that argument yet in the thousands of years it has been going on.
posted by OnceUponATime at 8:36 AM on April 21, 2019 [37 favorites]
If you would like to understand this debate I can recommend the book "Moral Tribes" by Joshua Greene. It's been raging for millenia, and is still not settled because both approaches sometimes lead to terrible outcomes.
Anyway, I think that's the root of the impeachment debate. Politicians tend to be more utilitarian (after all they are held responsible for the consequences of their decisions) and activists tend to be more deontological -- committment to principles is what makes them activists.
I guess my point is... consider that people who disagree with you on this issue may not be unethical. They may may be just as strongly committed to their ethical framework as you are to yours. And if you want to argue that yours is better, be prepared for the fact that no one has won that argument yet in the thousands of years it has been going on.
posted by OnceUponATime at 8:36 AM on April 21, 2019 [37 favorites]
(If you prefer your moral philosophy lessons in sitcom form, "The Good Place" is also a good survey of this debate.)
posted by OnceUponATime at 8:41 AM on April 21, 2019 [7 favorites]
posted by OnceUponATime at 8:41 AM on April 21, 2019 [7 favorites]
I’m think it’s clear that impeachment is the right decision under both viewpoints. Definitely the right thing to do on principle. And also the right thing to do consequentially. He’s hugely unpopular, investigating these and additional crimes will damage him, prevent him from going full dictator, and there’s no proof it will hurt Dems. Benghazi investigated 7 times? Rs win all branches of government. Clinton impeached? Rs win all branches of government.
posted by chris24 at 8:46 AM on April 21, 2019 [4 favorites]
posted by chris24 at 8:46 AM on April 21, 2019 [4 favorites]
NYT graphics
Mueller Report Shows Depth of Connections Between Trump
Campaign and Russians.
posted by adamvasco at 8:46 AM on April 21, 2019 [6 favorites]
Mueller Report Shows Depth of Connections Between Trump
Campaign and Russians.
posted by adamvasco at 8:46 AM on April 21, 2019 [6 favorites]
that no one has won that argument yet in the thousands of years it has been going on.
The only utilitarian argument against impeachment is that it will cause a Trump win in 2020, which is not actually a fact. It is a fear.
posted by benzenedream at 8:57 AM on April 21, 2019 [14 favorites]
The only utilitarian argument against impeachment is that it will cause a Trump win in 2020, which is not actually a fact. It is a fear.
posted by benzenedream at 8:57 AM on April 21, 2019 [14 favorites]
NYT, How Michael Cohen Turned Against President Trump
posted by zachlipton at 8:58 AM on April 21, 2019 [11 favorites]
Now, as Mr. Cohen prepares to head to prison in two weeks, dozens of previously unreported emails, text messages and other confidential documents reviewed by The New York Times suggest that his falling out with Mr. Trump may have been avoidable.This is all written like a mob movie.
Missed cues, clashing egos, veiled threats and unaddressed money worries all contributed to Mr. Cohen’s halting decision to turn on a man he had long idolized and even once vowed to take a bullet for, according to the documents and interviews with people close to the events. Some of the documents have been turned over to the prosecutors in Manhattan, and a small number were mentioned in the special counsel’s report released on Thursday, which dealt extensively with Mr. Cohen and referred to him more than 800 times.
Mr. Cohen held out hope for a different outcome until the very end, when he pleaded guilty and confessed to paying the illegal hush money to avert a potential sex scandal during the presidential campaign. Just hours earlier, wracked with indecision, he was still seeking guidance, looking, as one informal adviser put it, “for another way out.”
posted by zachlipton at 8:58 AM on April 21, 2019 [11 favorites]
For the consequentialist crowd. Letting him get away with being a traitor and cheating on an election makes it more likely he wins in 2020. Cuz he’ll do it again. And more.
Charles Pierce
It should occur to people that, without inflicting the most serious constitutional sanction on the president*, the 2020 election is under extreme peril.
posted by chris24 at 9:02 AM on April 21, 2019 [39 favorites]
Charles Pierce
It should occur to people that, without inflicting the most serious constitutional sanction on the president*, the 2020 election is under extreme peril.
posted by chris24 at 9:02 AM on April 21, 2019 [39 favorites]
Possibly, but these are practical arguments that folks in the Dem leadership who think impeachment is the wrong thing to do are basing that belief on incorrect assumptions, not arguments that their position is unethical which is what OUAT was pushing back against. If you truly believe that a failed impeachment means Trump gets re-elected in 2020 while not impeaching means a good chance he loses, then the ethical utilitarian position is not to impeach and concentrate on voting him out.
I tend to agree that Pelosi and Hoyer are drawing too close a parallel between this situation and Clinton's in the 90s. That seems to happen as we age; everything gets compared to something that happened when we were younger even if it isn't totally apt. Look at how often forking boomers go on and on about the various Kennedys!
The point being, Pelosi and Hoyer are not being bad people with their position though they may well be wrong.
posted by Justinian at 9:08 AM on April 21, 2019 [9 favorites]
I tend to agree that Pelosi and Hoyer are drawing too close a parallel between this situation and Clinton's in the 90s. That seems to happen as we age; everything gets compared to something that happened when we were younger even if it isn't totally apt. Look at how often forking boomers go on and on about the various Kennedys!
The point being, Pelosi and Hoyer are not being bad people with their position though they may well be wrong.
posted by Justinian at 9:08 AM on April 21, 2019 [9 favorites]
Charles Pierce
It should occur to people that, without inflicting the most serious constitutional sanction on the president*, the 2020 election is under extreme peril.
Rudy's "collusion is good" today is an outright admission they're planning on colluding again. That's how they plan on winning reelection, voter suppression, and having Russia hack the Democratic nominee again. When they tell you who they are, believe them. They do not intend on ever facing another free and fair election.
posted by T.D. Strange at 9:11 AM on April 21, 2019 [54 favorites]
It should occur to people that, without inflicting the most serious constitutional sanction on the president*, the 2020 election is under extreme peril.
Rudy's "collusion is good" today is an outright admission they're planning on colluding again. That's how they plan on winning reelection, voter suppression, and having Russia hack the Democratic nominee again. When they tell you who they are, believe them. They do not intend on ever facing another free and fair election.
posted by T.D. Strange at 9:11 AM on April 21, 2019 [54 favorites]
Hey, remember how all those voting systems were hacked but supposedly no votes were changed. In 2020 they could be changed so he wins and it will be Trump’s DOJ investigating after the fact. Sounds safe to me.
posted by chris24 at 9:11 AM on April 21, 2019 [14 favorites]
posted by chris24 at 9:11 AM on April 21, 2019 [14 favorites]
and is still not settled because both approaches sometimes lead to terrible outcomes.
Deontologists: ಠ_ಠ
posted by Barack Spinoza at 9:14 AM on April 21, 2019 [5 favorites]
Deontologists: ಠ_ಠ
posted by Barack Spinoza at 9:14 AM on April 21, 2019 [5 favorites]
They already merged the RNC into the Trump campaign. It’s out in the open that they plan on keeping Trump in power for as long as possible.
posted by gucci mane at 9:25 AM on April 21, 2019 [7 favorites]
posted by gucci mane at 9:25 AM on April 21, 2019 [7 favorites]
NYMag: If Impeaching Trump Is Pointless, Then Bipartisanship Is Worthless
All of this said, if House Democrats are taking the position that the Republican Party is so corrupt — and our system of checks and balances so obsolete — it isn’t even worth trying to uphold their constitutional responsibility to impeach a lawless president, then they need to acknowledge the radical implications of that stance.posted by chris24 at 9:44 AM on April 21, 2019 [56 favorites]
If there is no bipartisan consensus on upholding the rule of law, then bipartisan consensus is not an end worth pursuing. If the Republican Party can’t be trusted to even consider putting its allegiance to lawfulness above its fealty to Donald Trump, then the GOP is a cancer on the body politic. And if our Constitution has brought us to the point where a non-democratically elected president can promise “Get Out of Jail Free” cards to anyone who violates laws he does not like — without facing any serious threat of removal from office — then our Constitution is obsolete and there is no cause for treating that document, or the established norms of our institutions, with reflexive reverence.
[...]
In other words, congressional Democrats’ fatalism about impeachment — and their reverence for institutional norms and the ideal of bipartisanship — are irreconcilable. And that has implications for much more than the debate over filibuster reform. It implies that commitment to small-r republican values requires prioritizing the GOP’s disempowerment over the preservation of institutional norms. If Democrats have the power to reduce the Republicans’ structural advantage in the Senate by granting statehood to D.C. and Puerto Rico on a party-line vote, they must do this. If the conservative judges continue to abet the GOP’s efforts to insulate itself from popular rebuke through voter suppression and gerrymandering, then Democrats must be prepared to reform the judiciary.
Democrats can insist that impeachment is a hopeless cause. And they can sing paeans to congressional norms and bipartisan comity. But if they do both, they will confirm that their party is just another one of our republic’s failing institutions.
If you've ever played the game of Risk, then you know the most important factor is timing -- when to go for it. Too soon or too late and you will lose. Until it's the time is right, it's best to focus on positioning.
I think the strategizing about impeachment should (and probably is) considering just that. That's why I am not in favor of impeachment articles coming out too soon. I would prefer it to be more like 6 to 9 months from now, with the time until then spent positioning via hearings and investigations.
I suspect that's the best timing. But I am certainly open to hearing other points of view regarding the best timing.
I would not worry too much about losing position by having the timing seem political. Everything about this is already political to the nth degree.
posted by M-x shell at 10:01 AM on April 21, 2019 [9 favorites]
I think the strategizing about impeachment should (and probably is) considering just that. That's why I am not in favor of impeachment articles coming out too soon. I would prefer it to be more like 6 to 9 months from now, with the time until then spent positioning via hearings and investigations.
I suspect that's the best timing. But I am certainly open to hearing other points of view regarding the best timing.
I would not worry too much about losing position by having the timing seem political. Everything about this is already political to the nth degree.
posted by M-x shell at 10:01 AM on April 21, 2019 [9 favorites]
If you've ever played the game of Risk, then you know the most important factor is timing -- when to go for it. Too soon or too late and you will lose. Until it's the time is right, it's best to focus on positioning.
The best time to start trying to save the country was any time in the last 30 years. The second best time is now.
posted by Rust Moranis at 10:04 AM on April 21, 2019 [57 favorites]
The best time to start trying to save the country was any time in the last 30 years. The second best time is now.
posted by Rust Moranis at 10:04 AM on April 21, 2019 [57 favorites]
Either Trump committed impeachable offenses, or he didn't. Every elected federal legislator should be on the record with an up/down, yes/no vote that identifies them in 2020 and future elections by where they stand on that question.
If Pelosi and Hoyer are thinking strategy, ignoring their responsibilities for a moment, getting Republicans on the record about open support for a crime boss would help other Democratic Party candidates, who are running in 2020 against Republican incumbents.
There's more here at stake than just a Presidency, maybe an opportunity to gain a majority in the Senate.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 10:24 AM on April 21, 2019 [7 favorites]
If Pelosi and Hoyer are thinking strategy, ignoring their responsibilities for a moment, getting Republicans on the record about open support for a crime boss would help other Democratic Party candidates, who are running in 2020 against Republican incumbents.
There's more here at stake than just a Presidency, maybe an opportunity to gain a majority in the Senate.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 10:24 AM on April 21, 2019 [7 favorites]
The best time to start trying to save the country was any time in the last 30 years. The second best time is now.
yes. but the issue in this thread right now seems to be what exactly to do now. And given that we're in the midst of a long weekend, it seems a good time to discuss options.
My angle would be along the lines of whatever-best-doesn't-allow-Trump-and-co-to-frame-the-narrative-ever-again. Which (I suppose counterintuitively) has me leaning toward a NOT declaring anything definitive immediately, but rather getting busy with groundwork in two particular directions:
1. actually reading the f***ing report in detail and taking a moment or two to actually digest it before committing to any particular strategy
2. not losing focus on 2020 itself, the elections that must be won, getting the f***ing vote out
posted by philip-random at 10:34 AM on April 21, 2019 [5 favorites]
yes. but the issue in this thread right now seems to be what exactly to do now. And given that we're in the midst of a long weekend, it seems a good time to discuss options.
My angle would be along the lines of whatever-best-doesn't-allow-Trump-and-co-to-frame-the-narrative-ever-again. Which (I suppose counterintuitively) has me leaning toward a NOT declaring anything definitive immediately, but rather getting busy with groundwork in two particular directions:
1. actually reading the f***ing report in detail and taking a moment or two to actually digest it before committing to any particular strategy
2. not losing focus on 2020 itself, the elections that must be won, getting the f***ing vote out
posted by philip-random at 10:34 AM on April 21, 2019 [5 favorites]
It just occurred to me that if you applied the thinking of the current Democratic leadership to the justice system, you would literally never have a trial.
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 10:48 AM on April 21, 2019 [9 favorites]
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 10:48 AM on April 21, 2019 [9 favorites]
I'm not sure I understand? Probability of conviction is possibly the single most important metric in judging whether someone is taken to trial.
posted by Justinian at 10:53 AM on April 21, 2019 [6 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 10:53 AM on April 21, 2019 [6 favorites]
The probability of conviction here on evidence is very high. If you want a similar situation in the justice system it would be a rogue juror threatening jury nullification. I doubt many prosecutors would cave to that.
posted by chris24 at 11:27 AM on April 21, 2019
posted by chris24 at 11:27 AM on April 21, 2019
You say he "must be removed immediately" but there's, like, zero chance that happens. So what does it actually mean when you say that? What does it mean to say something must happen when you have to know that it isn't going to happen?
I guess I lean towards the House impeaching Trump... but I'm only something like 60/40 on it because Pelosi has great political instincts and while I think, as I said, she may simply be overfitting the data based on what happened to Clinton it's also possible she is better at politics than we are and there really is a danger of causing Trump to be re-elected. So it's scary either way.
What I don't understand is people who think this is an easy question and that the answer is definitely to impeach Trump immediately and that this is obvious. It's not. It's a very difficult question.
posted by Justinian at 11:44 AM on April 21, 2019 [14 favorites]
I guess I lean towards the House impeaching Trump... but I'm only something like 60/40 on it because Pelosi has great political instincts and while I think, as I said, she may simply be overfitting the data based on what happened to Clinton it's also possible she is better at politics than we are and there really is a danger of causing Trump to be re-elected. So it's scary either way.
What I don't understand is people who think this is an easy question and that the answer is definitely to impeach Trump immediately and that this is obvious. It's not. It's a very difficult question.
posted by Justinian at 11:44 AM on April 21, 2019 [14 favorites]
another thing i think that gets missed in the whole impeachment argument is that if the democrats aren't willing to do this, they run the real risk of being seen as collaborators
we need an opposition in this country - if the democrats won't be that, who else will?
posted by pyramid termite at 11:50 AM on April 21, 2019 [16 favorites]
we need an opposition in this country - if the democrats won't be that, who else will?
posted by pyramid termite at 11:50 AM on April 21, 2019 [16 favorites]
> another thing i think that gets missed in the whole impeachment argument is that if the democrats aren't willing to do this, they run the real risk of being seen as collaborators
More important than running the risk of being seen as collaborators, they run the risk of actually being accomplices, if maybe unwitting ones.
posted by Reclusive Novelist Thomas Pynchon at 11:52 AM on April 21, 2019 [22 favorites]
More important than running the risk of being seen as collaborators, they run the risk of actually being accomplices, if maybe unwitting ones.
posted by Reclusive Novelist Thomas Pynchon at 11:52 AM on April 21, 2019 [22 favorites]
I'm not sure I understand? Probability of conviction is possibly the single most important metric in judging whether someone is taken to trial.
I'm saying the probability of conviction held by Steny Hoyer et al is so high, they'd never try a case
If you only went to trial if you knew beforehand the jury agreed with you, you'd never go to trial
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 11:56 AM on April 21, 2019 [9 favorites]
I'm saying the probability of conviction held by Steny Hoyer et al is so high, they'd never try a case
If you only went to trial if you knew beforehand the jury agreed with you, you'd never go to trial
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 11:56 AM on April 21, 2019 [9 favorites]
It's also possible she is better at politics than we are and there really is a danger of causing Trump to be re-elected.
I think the conclusion a lot of people are coming to is that it doesn't really matter whether or not impeachment will be popular. We now know for certain that the President tried to obstruct an investigation into an attack on the United States. Congress is obligated to impeach Trump. It's a constitutional duty. One of the ones they swore to protect.
posted by xammerboy at 12:36 PM on April 21, 2019 [37 favorites]
I think the conclusion a lot of people are coming to is that it doesn't really matter whether or not impeachment will be popular. We now know for certain that the President tried to obstruct an investigation into an attack on the United States. Congress is obligated to impeach Trump. It's a constitutional duty. One of the ones they swore to protect.
posted by xammerboy at 12:36 PM on April 21, 2019 [37 favorites]
I think the process of demanding the unredacted report and then not getting it is to force Barr to commit and crime and impeach/charge him.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 12:36 PM on April 21, 2019 [5 favorites]
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 12:36 PM on April 21, 2019 [5 favorites]
"He needs to be forced to resign"
How, though?
posted by Selena777 at 12:48 PM on April 21, 2019 [4 favorites]
How, though?
posted by Selena777 at 12:48 PM on April 21, 2019 [4 favorites]
You know, I'm newly angry at Bill Clinton. It's going to be hard to swallow the idea that we're looking comparing that sordid piece of bullshit with, say, the subversion of democracy. Can you imagine being HRC and hearing these comparisons? It's like, we could have had Nixon's disgrace as our historical template but you and your penis had issues.
posted by angrycat at 12:51 PM on April 21, 2019 [17 favorites]
posted by angrycat at 12:51 PM on April 21, 2019 [17 favorites]
Also Mayor Pete said on CNN that Bernie voters as well as Trump voters are to blame for the omnishambles, so I guess that's his play.
posted by angrycat at 1:03 PM on April 21, 2019 [7 favorites]
posted by angrycat at 1:03 PM on April 21, 2019 [7 favorites]
if only the mods had some way of keeping the candidates themselves from relitigating 2016.
posted by Reclusive Novelist Thomas Pynchon at 1:07 PM on April 21, 2019 [42 favorites]
posted by Reclusive Novelist Thomas Pynchon at 1:07 PM on April 21, 2019 [42 favorites]
Victoria Nourse, law professor, Georgetown University via Vox:
“Putin has won.” Election Day 2016, an intercepted message to Kirill Dmitriev, a Russian national “closely connected to Putin.” (On page 149 of the Mueller report.) This line says everything that the American public should remember about the Mueller investigation. Russian interference in the election has been established beyond doubt. Worse, Mueller found that the Trump campaign “expected to benefit” from criminal actions by Russians who successfully targeted the American election. It is not a crime for any citizen to associate with criminals and spies, nor to enjoy their favors, but that is surely too low a standard for a president of the United States.
Viewing this case through the lens of criminal law is a mistake. The president takes an oath “to take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” Few constitutionalists believe that the special counsel would indict a sitting president for an ordinary crime. The constitutional power to judge a president is left to Congress. Congress must determine whether there has been a constitutional offense.
Swedish trivia: The Swedish newspaper Dagens Nyheter (Daily News) does not call the Mueller Report the Mueller Report. While reading the paper yesterday I discovered DN calls it the Russian Report.
posted by Bella Donna at 1:14 PM on April 21, 2019 [24 favorites]
“Putin has won.” Election Day 2016, an intercepted message to Kirill Dmitriev, a Russian national “closely connected to Putin.” (On page 149 of the Mueller report.) This line says everything that the American public should remember about the Mueller investigation. Russian interference in the election has been established beyond doubt. Worse, Mueller found that the Trump campaign “expected to benefit” from criminal actions by Russians who successfully targeted the American election. It is not a crime for any citizen to associate with criminals and spies, nor to enjoy their favors, but that is surely too low a standard for a president of the United States.
Viewing this case through the lens of criminal law is a mistake. The president takes an oath “to take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” Few constitutionalists believe that the special counsel would indict a sitting president for an ordinary crime. The constitutional power to judge a president is left to Congress. Congress must determine whether there has been a constitutional offense.
Swedish trivia: The Swedish newspaper Dagens Nyheter (Daily News) does not call the Mueller Report the Mueller Report. While reading the paper yesterday I discovered DN calls it the Russian Report.
posted by Bella Donna at 1:14 PM on April 21, 2019 [24 favorites]
I mean, of course Republicans are gonna wanna frame this as the comparison to Clinton, because comparing it to Nixon invites the discussion about the idea that this is an in-party problem. This is not a conversation they want to have.
posted by Archelaus at 1:14 PM on April 21, 2019 [6 favorites]
posted by Archelaus at 1:14 PM on April 21, 2019 [6 favorites]
He needs to be forced to resign, and then he needs to be criminally prosecuted. Those are not in the category of fantasy.
Trump is not going to resign except in the eminent certitude of conviction by impeachment. To get there you need 67 votes in the senate.
So start off with 45 Democrats and two Independents. Now look at the conservative ranking for all the remaining Republicans, from least conservative to most conservative.
Just to get to 50 votes you need Murkowski and Collins and who else? Rand Paul? None of those three have shown any inclination to impeach even after the Mueller Report.
Then to get to 60 votes you need a bunch more Republicans down the conservative ranking including Lindsey Graham. How likely is Graham to flip?
Then to get to 67 votes you need to flip a bunch of Republicans even more conservative than Graham which includes Roy Blunt, John Thune and Richard Burr. And beyond Burr the list gets even worse. This is indeed fantasy land.
posted by JackFlash at 1:30 PM on April 21, 2019 [8 favorites]
Trump is not going to resign except in the eminent certitude of conviction by impeachment. To get there you need 67 votes in the senate.
So start off with 45 Democrats and two Independents. Now look at the conservative ranking for all the remaining Republicans, from least conservative to most conservative.
Just to get to 50 votes you need Murkowski and Collins and who else? Rand Paul? None of those three have shown any inclination to impeach even after the Mueller Report.
Then to get to 60 votes you need a bunch more Republicans down the conservative ranking including Lindsey Graham. How likely is Graham to flip?
Then to get to 67 votes you need to flip a bunch of Republicans even more conservative than Graham which includes Roy Blunt, John Thune and Richard Burr. And beyond Burr the list gets even worse. This is indeed fantasy land.
posted by JackFlash at 1:30 PM on April 21, 2019 [8 favorites]
The release of the report has captured the interest of apolitical folks I know more than anything has done since the 2016 elections. What I don’t understand is why hearings in the House aren’t starting first thing Monday morning, before this has all been normalized. The House subpoena for the unredacted report - a document that already exists - should have been issued with a due date of last Friday, not a month from now in mid-May.
Primarily so that they have the greatest chance of that third branch of government, the judiciary, behind them in any arguments over enforcement of their subpoenas or possible future contempt charges.
I do agree that they should have witnesses willing to be cooperative testifying by the end of the week, if possible. There is plenty of material to be further elaborated upon in the unredacted report, so testimony on those issues need not wait. The more corroboration of all Trump's malfeasance, the better, even if the Russian cooperation is the most broadly disqualifying.
posted by wierdo at 1:38 PM on April 21, 2019 [1 favorite]
Primarily so that they have the greatest chance of that third branch of government, the judiciary, behind them in any arguments over enforcement of their subpoenas or possible future contempt charges.
I do agree that they should have witnesses willing to be cooperative testifying by the end of the week, if possible. There is plenty of material to be further elaborated upon in the unredacted report, so testimony on those issues need not wait. The more corroboration of all Trump's malfeasance, the better, even if the Russian cooperation is the most broadly disqualifying.
posted by wierdo at 1:38 PM on April 21, 2019 [1 favorite]
Then to get to 67 votes you need to flip a bunch of Republicans even more conservative than Graham which includes Roy Blunt, John Thune and Richard Burr. And beyond Burr the list gets even worse. This is indeed fantasy land.
And all of that political calculus was no doubt in Pelosi’s mind when she said a month ago that she wasn’t planning to drive for impeachment. There’s no way for Dems to make it happen, short of Republicans resigning in the Senate before their term is up and being replaced by Democrats.
To get Trump out, we need to take the Senate in 2020 and maintain the majority in the House. If we do that, then the idea of Trump winning in 2020 is less of an obstacle to pursuing a Democratic agenda. Even if he wins, if we take the Senate, we can impeach him immediately. Even if he gets acquitted for some Godonlyknowswhat reason, we can render him ultimately powerless, the same way McConnell obstructed Obama. We can block judges, especially Supreme Court nominations, we can pass legislation and override Trump’s vetos, we can do what we need to do. I think it’s even more vital that Democrats win a Senate majority than it is to win the White House. Yeah, it’d be even better if we had both, but if we only get one...pick the Senate.
posted by Autumnheart at 1:47 PM on April 21, 2019 [9 favorites]
And all of that political calculus was no doubt in Pelosi’s mind when she said a month ago that she wasn’t planning to drive for impeachment. There’s no way for Dems to make it happen, short of Republicans resigning in the Senate before their term is up and being replaced by Democrats.
To get Trump out, we need to take the Senate in 2020 and maintain the majority in the House. If we do that, then the idea of Trump winning in 2020 is less of an obstacle to pursuing a Democratic agenda. Even if he wins, if we take the Senate, we can impeach him immediately. Even if he gets acquitted for some Godonlyknowswhat reason, we can render him ultimately powerless, the same way McConnell obstructed Obama. We can block judges, especially Supreme Court nominations, we can pass legislation and override Trump’s vetos, we can do what we need to do. I think it’s even more vital that Democrats win a Senate majority than it is to win the White House. Yeah, it’d be even better if we had both, but if we only get one...pick the Senate.
posted by Autumnheart at 1:47 PM on April 21, 2019 [9 favorites]
The "realm of fantasy" part is imagining that GOP Senators possess shame or remorse or rational argument capabilities in this matter.
All of those have been painstakingly whittled out of Republican DNA over the last several decades, by means of neutering the mainstream media, building a separate-and-louder conservative one, and replacing Republicans having traces of those characteristics with hardliner fruit loops.
Trump could choke an orphan _on the Senate floor_ and still get fifty votes in his favor there. Arguments challenging that should be prepared to provide evidence that Republican Senators value truth in any way over reelection.
posted by delfin at 1:54 PM on April 21, 2019 [3 favorites]
All of those have been painstakingly whittled out of Republican DNA over the last several decades, by means of neutering the mainstream media, building a separate-and-louder conservative one, and replacing Republicans having traces of those characteristics with hardliner fruit loops.
Trump could choke an orphan _on the Senate floor_ and still get fifty votes in his favor there. Arguments challenging that should be prepared to provide evidence that Republican Senators value truth in any way over reelection.
posted by delfin at 1:54 PM on April 21, 2019 [3 favorites]
I realize that I exist in a Twitter bubble, but over the past few days, I have seen numerous people who either previously weren't regularly discussing Democratic 2020 candidates, or were vocally supporting someone else, specifically mention Elizabeth Warren in praise for her moral clarity in calling for impeachment, and her fearlessness in not wasting any time about it.
This comment isn't about Liz Warren (although I definitely encourage anyone else who's impressed by her reaction to donate in a show of support.) What I'm saying is, even within my bubble, this feels like a significant shift in opinion that seems to suggest many people really agree with what she (and others) are saying about the seriousness of this situation and that regardless of the ultimate outcome, impeachment is necessary because anything less is worse from a morale and precedent-setting standpoint.
Why now? Again, this shift in opinion seems substantial to me and I feel like if any moment was the one, it's this. A fissure seems to have formed in public opinion, even if it's small, it's bigger than past ones and I think we have to use that momentum and push hard to keep it propagating instead of letting it heal back up by delaying or ignoring the situation at hand.
And I am frustrated by the foregone conclusion of "the Senate won't convict". Of course I see that is the likely outcome but it's not 100%. Who knows what might come to light during impeachment proceedings? I believe that everyone should have the chance to hear as much detail as possible, for themselves, televised. Maybe enough Senators WILL turn. Maybe the public WILL turn, enough, and start pressuring their Senators enough. I've posted this before but it's been a while and seems relevant again: it takes a relatively small change in public opinion for a tipping point to occur, and you won't know when you're close. I still believe that once that point gets reached, everything could change quickly.
Impeachment because it's the right thing to do. Not because of any political calculus. I feel these times are too unlike any other to be able to reasonably predict what the outcome will be, so might as well do the right thing. I mean let's not forget how wrong we were in predicting Trump couldn't win the election. We suck at predicting things. So do the right thing.
(Also, I really think Sarah Kendzior is pretty much always right about things, and she is very much in favor of impeachment for a lot of compelling reasons which she discusses on her podcast Gaslit Nation, which I recommend.)
posted by robotdevil at 1:58 PM on April 21, 2019 [45 favorites]
This comment isn't about Liz Warren (although I definitely encourage anyone else who's impressed by her reaction to donate in a show of support.) What I'm saying is, even within my bubble, this feels like a significant shift in opinion that seems to suggest many people really agree with what she (and others) are saying about the seriousness of this situation and that regardless of the ultimate outcome, impeachment is necessary because anything less is worse from a morale and precedent-setting standpoint.
Why now? Again, this shift in opinion seems substantial to me and I feel like if any moment was the one, it's this. A fissure seems to have formed in public opinion, even if it's small, it's bigger than past ones and I think we have to use that momentum and push hard to keep it propagating instead of letting it heal back up by delaying or ignoring the situation at hand.
And I am frustrated by the foregone conclusion of "the Senate won't convict". Of course I see that is the likely outcome but it's not 100%. Who knows what might come to light during impeachment proceedings? I believe that everyone should have the chance to hear as much detail as possible, for themselves, televised. Maybe enough Senators WILL turn. Maybe the public WILL turn, enough, and start pressuring their Senators enough. I've posted this before but it's been a while and seems relevant again: it takes a relatively small change in public opinion for a tipping point to occur, and you won't know when you're close. I still believe that once that point gets reached, everything could change quickly.
Impeachment because it's the right thing to do. Not because of any political calculus. I feel these times are too unlike any other to be able to reasonably predict what the outcome will be, so might as well do the right thing. I mean let's not forget how wrong we were in predicting Trump couldn't win the election. We suck at predicting things. So do the right thing.
(Also, I really think Sarah Kendzior is pretty much always right about things, and she is very much in favor of impeachment for a lot of compelling reasons which she discusses on her podcast Gaslit Nation, which I recommend.)
posted by robotdevil at 1:58 PM on April 21, 2019 [45 favorites]
Impeachment is a means of bearing witness. Those who do not argue in good faith (R) will not appreciate the purpose, but for many of us it feels necessary to bear witness. The political calculus is real, but downstream.
posted by stonepharisee at 2:01 PM on April 21, 2019 [21 favorites]
posted by stonepharisee at 2:01 PM on April 21, 2019 [21 favorites]
Avoid civil war, avoid/rollback rightwing dictatorship. How? Right now the best plan from our democratic leaders and many thread commenters is: Win uphill and possibly rigged elections in 2020. I'm willing to hear a better plan, is there one?
Impeachment in the House and Exhoneration in the senate... that ratifies that Putin and Trump won, they got away with it, we already know this in one sense but we resist openly acknowledging that the democratic republic died, and now democrats have to somehow ressurect it. 2018 gives us hope that whatever else is broken elextions can still empower the opposition to dictatorship.
Democrats are and have been stalling (under the cover of Mueller) on impeachment since winning in 2018 despite abundant public evidenve, to avoid the moment where Republicans (in the senate and in the base) formalize the fait-accompli. we all have to admit that Putin and Trump got away with it and to hope that elections can save us from acknowleging the system is broken and can not fix itself. Unified democratic control of the formal federal aparatus and a actual willingness of those democrats to reform the system to bring democracy to the US and expunge the appointees and decisions of the illegitimate prior regime is needed.
I think impeachment is necessary, but i think winning the senate is more necessary. I'm unpersuaded that impeachment makes us less likely to win in 2020 and am persuaded that not even trying to impeach and kicking the can past the elections will do more electoral harm than good.
We are hostages trying to keep up appearances so that our captor doesn't drop the facade of being our uncle...
Avoid civil war. Escape this rightwing dictatorship. Fight back before its too late.
posted by Anchorite_of_Palgrave at 2:04 PM on April 21, 2019 [11 favorites]
Impeachment in the House and Exhoneration in the senate... that ratifies that Putin and Trump won, they got away with it, we already know this in one sense but we resist openly acknowledging that the democratic republic died, and now democrats have to somehow ressurect it. 2018 gives us hope that whatever else is broken elextions can still empower the opposition to dictatorship.
Democrats are and have been stalling (under the cover of Mueller) on impeachment since winning in 2018 despite abundant public evidenve, to avoid the moment where Republicans (in the senate and in the base) formalize the fait-accompli. we all have to admit that Putin and Trump got away with it and to hope that elections can save us from acknowleging the system is broken and can not fix itself. Unified democratic control of the formal federal aparatus and a actual willingness of those democrats to reform the system to bring democracy to the US and expunge the appointees and decisions of the illegitimate prior regime is needed.
I think impeachment is necessary, but i think winning the senate is more necessary. I'm unpersuaded that impeachment makes us less likely to win in 2020 and am persuaded that not even trying to impeach and kicking the can past the elections will do more electoral harm than good.
We are hostages trying to keep up appearances so that our captor doesn't drop the facade of being our uncle...
Avoid civil war. Escape this rightwing dictatorship. Fight back before its too late.
posted by Anchorite_of_Palgrave at 2:04 PM on April 21, 2019 [11 favorites]
And by not impeaching you’re telling the electorate the crimes weren’t crimes and not a big deal and that helps him.
If Rs refuse to convict, you hang them with it in the election. They just lost 40 seats in the biggest midterm percentage loss in the modern era by Ds running against Trump and people are afraid finding more crimes and highlighting them will help him? He doesn’t have magical political power. He lost the popular vote by 3 million. He only barely won with the help of the FBI, Russia, misogyny after 8 years of D power which it’s always hard to get a third term and with the fundamentals against Clinton. I know some people have PTSD from the election but we need to stop cowering and start using the power we have or else we won’t have it long.
We are in a war and the only people acting like it right now are Republicans. There’s not one America, there’s two and only one is going to win. And right now the Nazis are because they’re fighting to win while we’re hedging not to lose.
posted by chris24 at 2:07 PM on April 21, 2019 [64 favorites]
If Rs refuse to convict, you hang them with it in the election. They just lost 40 seats in the biggest midterm percentage loss in the modern era by Ds running against Trump and people are afraid finding more crimes and highlighting them will help him? He doesn’t have magical political power. He lost the popular vote by 3 million. He only barely won with the help of the FBI, Russia, misogyny after 8 years of D power which it’s always hard to get a third term and with the fundamentals against Clinton. I know some people have PTSD from the election but we need to stop cowering and start using the power we have or else we won’t have it long.
We are in a war and the only people acting like it right now are Republicans. There’s not one America, there’s two and only one is going to win. And right now the Nazis are because they’re fighting to win while we’re hedging not to lose.
posted by chris24 at 2:07 PM on April 21, 2019 [64 favorites]
I am grudgingly in favor of impeachment _if and only if_ Dems treat it as the earth-shatteringly-important step that it should be. If it will fail in the Senate, and it will, be prepared to call those Senators cowards and stooges and stand by that defiantly. Say, straight up, that crimes were committed and name those crimes and name the harm done to the American people. Fight like the nation is at stake. Fight like lives are at stake. Attack and refuse to compromise and refuse to apologize. Go all-in or don't bother.
Which will not happen.
You cannot win a PR war against shameless liars and cheats and criminals by taking the safe road. So if you're waffling, you're going to lose.
posted by delfin at 2:10 PM on April 21, 2019 [14 favorites]
Which will not happen.
You cannot win a PR war against shameless liars and cheats and criminals by taking the safe road. So if you're waffling, you're going to lose.
posted by delfin at 2:10 PM on April 21, 2019 [14 favorites]
They just lost 40 seats in the biggest midterm percentage loss in the modern era by Ds running against Trump
That's not what happened. Democrats ran on issues, most importantly healthcare. They for the most part did not "run against Trump." For one thing, Trump wasn't on the ballot, neither literally or figuratively.
posted by JackFlash at 2:19 PM on April 21, 2019 [6 favorites]
That's not what happened. Democrats ran on issues, most importantly healthcare. They for the most part did not "run against Trump." For one thing, Trump wasn't on the ballot, neither literally or figuratively.
posted by JackFlash at 2:19 PM on April 21, 2019 [6 favorites]
Candidates ran locally on issues, pretty much the entire resistance, media and public sphere was about a check on Trump. Which is exactly what should happen now. Candidates can run their campaigns, congresspeople can do their fucking jobs. People can walk and chew gum at the same time.
posted by chris24 at 2:25 PM on April 21, 2019 [15 favorites]
posted by chris24 at 2:25 PM on April 21, 2019 [15 favorites]
WaPo, Josh Rogin, No more waivers: The United States will try to force Iranian oil exports to zero
About one year after the United States decided to leave the Iran nuclear deal, the State Department is set to announce that all countries will have to completely end their imports of Iranian oil or be subject to U.S. sanctions. This is an escalation of the Trump administration’s “maximum pressure” campaign, which seeks to force Tehran to end its illicit behavior around the world.posted by zachlipton at 2:33 PM on April 21, 2019 [5 favorites]
On Monday morning, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo will announce to the media that, as of May 2, the State Department will no longer grant sanctions waivers to any country that is currently importing Iranian crude or condensate, two State Department officials told me. Last November, the State Department issued 180-day waivers to eight countries to give them more time to find alternative sources of oil. Now, their time is running out.
...
Three of the eight countries that received U.S. waivers last November have already reduced their Iranian oil imports to zero: Greece, Italy and Taiwan. The other countries that will now have to cut off Iranian oil imports or be subject to U.S. sanctions are China, India, Turkey, Japan and South Korea.
China and India are currently the largest importers of Iranian oil. If they don’t go along with Trump’s demands, that could cause tensions in both bilateral relationships and spill over into other issues, like trade. South Korea and Japan are relatively less dependent on Iranian oil and have already been treading lightly. A Turkish official has said the country is “expecting” another waiver, but it isn’t getting one.
And right now the Nazis are because they’re fighting to win while we’re hedging not to lose.
We're so far gone down the road to autocracy that it seems like winning or losing an impeachment vote is besides the point.
Knowing where elected officials stand on the rule of law, their place in it, and their responsibility to defend the Constitution seems to be the salient matters at hand.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 2:40 PM on April 21, 2019 [29 favorites]
We're so far gone down the road to autocracy that it seems like winning or losing an impeachment vote is besides the point.
Knowing where elected officials stand on the rule of law, their place in it, and their responsibility to defend the Constitution seems to be the salient matters at hand.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 2:40 PM on April 21, 2019 [29 favorites]
2018 was basically let the candidates talk about issues, and let rage against Trump juice donations and turnout. We can repeat that winning combo, but letting Trump off the hook and demoralizing our base threatens the second half of that equation.
posted by chris24 at 2:40 PM on April 21, 2019 [10 favorites]
posted by chris24 at 2:40 PM on April 21, 2019 [10 favorites]
It's not just the base. If Congress, through impeachment proceedings, can convince enough of the public that the President is in fact a damned crook and a national security hazard, there will be great outrage against the Senators who refuse to convict him.
Not being in hock to a foreign power is one of the basic qualifications to be president. Show the people who care about such things that Trump is so indebted and you might see more of the silent majority speak up. Remind them that Putin could win the Cold War tomorrow because Trump wouldn't believe the missiles were on the way because "Putin is such a good guy" and they'll make their displeasure known.
It's dangerous, but populism always is.
posted by wierdo at 2:51 PM on April 21, 2019 [13 favorites]
Not being in hock to a foreign power is one of the basic qualifications to be president. Show the people who care about such things that Trump is so indebted and you might see more of the silent majority speak up. Remind them that Putin could win the Cold War tomorrow because Trump wouldn't believe the missiles were on the way because "Putin is such a good guy" and they'll make their displeasure known.
It's dangerous, but populism always is.
posted by wierdo at 2:51 PM on April 21, 2019 [13 favorites]
Knowing where elected officials stand on the rule of law, their place in it, and their responsibility to defend the Constitution seems to be the salient matters at hand
I agree. Impeachment is what the information available indicates, so Congress should step to it. If the nation's representatives can't impeach Trump, then that's the kind of country we are. We're already the country that let Trump become president, and we may just be the country that lets him above the law. But, not impeaching is just letting that happen by default.
What I want to see is a real Republican response to the report. They can't all be gung-ho Rudys, but we gotta start getting people in Congress on record about this, because it'll eventually be an election issue...as it should be. Every incumbent up for re-election in 2020 should be asked this question in that framing: are you willing to give up your seat and seniority to support Trump?
posted by rhizome at 3:16 PM on April 21, 2019 [3 favorites]
I agree. Impeachment is what the information available indicates, so Congress should step to it. If the nation's representatives can't impeach Trump, then that's the kind of country we are. We're already the country that let Trump become president, and we may just be the country that lets him above the law. But, not impeaching is just letting that happen by default.
What I want to see is a real Republican response to the report. They can't all be gung-ho Rudys, but we gotta start getting people in Congress on record about this, because it'll eventually be an election issue...as it should be. Every incumbent up for re-election in 2020 should be asked this question in that framing: are you willing to give up your seat and seniority to support Trump?
posted by rhizome at 3:16 PM on April 21, 2019 [3 favorites]
Don’t just call your reps, call your newspaper. They should be calling for resignation. Within a week of the release of the Starr report, over 100 newspapers had called for Clinton’s resignation. Of course Trump won’t listen, but they need to be on record and the public needs to hear them say that. The media just accepting and normalizing Republican malfeasance and bad behavior, that them shredding norms or ignoring the rule of law is just Republicans being Republicans is probably the worst thing the press does. ‘They’re bad so we expect them to be bad and don’t make a big deal of it’ is bullshit. They seemingly only like to hold Ds responsible for their actions, because they know only Ds actually care about doing the right thing and will actually listen.
From an earlier tweet thread on newpapers and Clinton.
Eric Boehlert
It’s not even debatable that if this were Dem POTUS, resignation would be virtually the only media topic
Jamison Foser
This is true. USA Today, among many others, called for Bill Clinton to resign when his transgressions were far smaller than Trump’s — and his approval rating was 20 points higher than Trump’s.
• No, I don’t think Trump would resign if newspapers said he should. But this is a case in which silence = acquiescence, and media elites are sending a signal to the public that none of this is really that bad.
• This was USA Today’s rationale in calling for Bill Clinton’s resignation. Does anyone want to argue it isn’t ten times more applicable to Trump?
• Here’s the Hartford Courant 20 years ago. Who wants to argue it doesn’t apply far more today?
posted by chris24 at 3:24 PM on April 21, 2019 [58 favorites]
From an earlier tweet thread on newpapers and Clinton.
Eric Boehlert
It’s not even debatable that if this were Dem POTUS, resignation would be virtually the only media topic
Jamison Foser
This is true. USA Today, among many others, called for Bill Clinton to resign when his transgressions were far smaller than Trump’s — and his approval rating was 20 points higher than Trump’s.
• No, I don’t think Trump would resign if newspapers said he should. But this is a case in which silence = acquiescence, and media elites are sending a signal to the public that none of this is really that bad.
• This was USA Today’s rationale in calling for Bill Clinton’s resignation. Does anyone want to argue it isn’t ten times more applicable to Trump?
• Here’s the Hartford Courant 20 years ago. Who wants to argue it doesn’t apply far more today?
posted by chris24 at 3:24 PM on April 21, 2019 [58 favorites]
Also, framing is important. It wouldn’t be Ds putting the country through an impeachment. It would be Trump and his betrayal of the country and defiance of laws doing so.
It wouldn’t be R Senators exonerating Trump. It would be partisan hacks ignoring the rule of law to keep a traitorous lawless president in office.
posted by chris24 at 3:31 PM on April 21, 2019 [10 favorites]
It wouldn’t be R Senators exonerating Trump. It would be partisan hacks ignoring the rule of law to keep a traitorous lawless president in office.
posted by chris24 at 3:31 PM on April 21, 2019 [10 favorites]
What is our response to our allies if they defy the Iranian oil embargo? The article didn't say exactly. Is this intended to be another wedge between the US and its allies?
posted by M-x shell at 3:32 PM on April 21, 2019 [2 favorites]
posted by M-x shell at 3:32 PM on April 21, 2019 [2 favorites]
As Seth Moulton (remember him?) continues to gear up for a presidential run, somebody is gearing up for a primary run against him.
posted by adamg at 3:50 PM on April 21, 2019 [3 favorites]
posted by adamg at 3:50 PM on April 21, 2019 [3 favorites]
Autumnheart and Anchorite-of_Palgrave are right - we need the Senate back no matter what happens with the Presidency. If a Democrat wins the White House, a blue Senate means that progressive (or at least "less harmful") policies are more likely to be enacted. The Republican Senate blocking just about all of what Barack Obama tried to do from 2014 on (see: Garland, Merrick) ought to have been a wakeup call for us Democrats.
And, if worst comes to worst, a Democratic Senate could impeach Trump and turn him over to the tender mercies of New York AG Letitia James, who has Trump, his Traitor Tots, his "empire" and all in her crosshairs. And state charges cannot be pardoned or wiggled out of.
We are lucky that the only Democratic Senate seat we really need to worry about is Doug Jones in Alabama (and now that Actual Pedo Roy Moore is running again, Jones might be safer than we think...) unless one of the incumbent Dems runs a terrible campaign. What we need to do is flip more seats like we did in NV and AZ in the midterms.
The Senate is so important that maybe it's worth it to put energy into that rather than the Presidency. Time to go postcard shopping and prepare for door knocking!
posted by Rosie M. Banks at 4:04 PM on April 21, 2019 [5 favorites]
And, if worst comes to worst, a Democratic Senate could impeach Trump and turn him over to the tender mercies of New York AG Letitia James, who has Trump, his Traitor Tots, his "empire" and all in her crosshairs. And state charges cannot be pardoned or wiggled out of.
We are lucky that the only Democratic Senate seat we really need to worry about is Doug Jones in Alabama (and now that Actual Pedo Roy Moore is running again, Jones might be safer than we think...) unless one of the incumbent Dems runs a terrible campaign. What we need to do is flip more seats like we did in NV and AZ in the midterms.
The Senate is so important that maybe it's worth it to put energy into that rather than the Presidency. Time to go postcard shopping and prepare for door knocking!
posted by Rosie M. Banks at 4:04 PM on April 21, 2019 [5 favorites]
The political calculus is real, but downstream.
I just want to call this out. What is a decision not to impeach Trump going to look like 10 years from now? When a new generation is in high school learning about kids in cages and, hopefully, asking what was wrong with the country? Or learning that Russia influenced the election with Trump as cheerleader and no one did anything?
This calculus won't be lost on Republican Senators either. This is the kind of vote that can stain the rest of your career down the line if public opinion shifts. There's not a lot of gray area for spin either. You pretty much have to say you know the president worked with Russia, know that he obstructed the investigation, but don't think that's important.
Don't think you get to walk away from it either. No one gets to say I voted for the Patriot Act but that was because I politically had no choice.
posted by xammerboy at 4:20 PM on April 21, 2019 [18 favorites]
I just want to call this out. What is a decision not to impeach Trump going to look like 10 years from now? When a new generation is in high school learning about kids in cages and, hopefully, asking what was wrong with the country? Or learning that Russia influenced the election with Trump as cheerleader and no one did anything?
This calculus won't be lost on Republican Senators either. This is the kind of vote that can stain the rest of your career down the line if public opinion shifts. There's not a lot of gray area for spin either. You pretty much have to say you know the president worked with Russia, know that he obstructed the investigation, but don't think that's important.
Don't think you get to walk away from it either. No one gets to say I voted for the Patriot Act but that was because I politically had no choice.
posted by xammerboy at 4:20 PM on April 21, 2019 [18 favorites]
Brian Beutler (Crooked Media)
Dems need to recognize that if they ignore the report's implicit call to begin an impeachment hearing, the agenda won't magically turn to health care. It will turn to revenge for the Russia investigation. Crooked: DEMOCRATS’ IMPEACHMENT PANIC IS ENDANGERING THE COUNTRY
Adam Mazmanian
retweeted Brian Beutler
From a purely tactical point of view, the Democrats lose the whip hand if they don’t start impeachment.
• From 2011-2017, the GOP House kept Obama on defense with a combination of investigations and partisan legislation. It worked really well.
• If the Dems in Congress don’t attack it frees up bandwidth that will be used against them in the ways @brianbeutler describes.
• I’m assuming the reluctance to impeach comes from polling data on persuadable voters and on swing districts. My belief is that the middle (if it exists) will move once the process is underway.
• This is hardly district-by-district analytics but check out Ronald Reagan’s approval numbers during Iran-Contra.
• The hearings ran from May to August 1987. Hired gun litigators took a big role and backbenchers were sidelined.
• Of course there are variables and imponderables. Of course Dems could botch the hearings. But in their current posture, the Democrats look like a team sitting on a fourth quarter lead with no plan. That’s a bad place to be.
posted by chris24 at 4:21 PM on April 21, 2019 [30 favorites]
Dems need to recognize that if they ignore the report's implicit call to begin an impeachment hearing, the agenda won't magically turn to health care. It will turn to revenge for the Russia investigation. Crooked: DEMOCRATS’ IMPEACHMENT PANIC IS ENDANGERING THE COUNTRY
Rep. Jim Jordan
“Rep. Jim Jordan on plans to investigate the origins of the Russia collusion investigation” VIDEO
Adam Mazmanian
retweeted Brian Beutler
From a purely tactical point of view, the Democrats lose the whip hand if they don’t start impeachment.
• From 2011-2017, the GOP House kept Obama on defense with a combination of investigations and partisan legislation. It worked really well.
• If the Dems in Congress don’t attack it frees up bandwidth that will be used against them in the ways @brianbeutler describes.
• I’m assuming the reluctance to impeach comes from polling data on persuadable voters and on swing districts. My belief is that the middle (if it exists) will move once the process is underway.
• This is hardly district-by-district analytics but check out Ronald Reagan’s approval numbers during Iran-Contra.
• The hearings ran from May to August 1987. Hired gun litigators took a big role and backbenchers were sidelined.
• Of course there are variables and imponderables. Of course Dems could botch the hearings. But in their current posture, the Democrats look like a team sitting on a fourth quarter lead with no plan. That’s a bad place to be.
posted by chris24 at 4:21 PM on April 21, 2019 [30 favorites]
Is this intended to be another wedge between the US and its allies?
From our allies standpoint this will be considered outrageous. Iran was complying with the agreement we pushed for, then tore up, and the result is more expensive oil? But the big beneficiary, I think, is Russia. Unless I'm mistaken, they already operate under sanctions and already get most of their oil from Iran. So this probably results in Russia paying less for more oil I would guess.
posted by xammerboy at 4:24 PM on April 21, 2019 [2 favorites]
From our allies standpoint this will be considered outrageous. Iran was complying with the agreement we pushed for, then tore up, and the result is more expensive oil? But the big beneficiary, I think, is Russia. Unless I'm mistaken, they already operate under sanctions and already get most of their oil from Iran. So this probably results in Russia paying less for more oil I would guess.
posted by xammerboy at 4:24 PM on April 21, 2019 [2 favorites]
He doesn’t have magical political power. He lost the popular vote by 3 million. He only barely won with the help of the FBI, Russia, misogyny after 8 years of D power which it’s always hard to get a third term and with the fundamentals against Clinton.
This is key. But I think there's more to the story. I don't want to be too hard on gunshy Democrats because ultimately reasoning about this kind of thing involves some kind of model of people a lot of us on metafilter have a limited understanding of: voters who think differently than we do. Like the kind of voter that could actually be undecided or independent in recent years.
So, yeah, there's Trumpists and Republican enthusiasts who, yes, are authoritarians and have walked with him to intentionally separating families and will walk with him through shooting someone on 5th ave and all the way down to gasing some population, some wringing their hands in impotent dismay while going along anyway, some smiling all the way. But as chris24 points out, that's a minority, one that only barely won the presidency even with countermajoritarian institutions boosting it. And more importantly, this is not a segment that's going to be moved much from where they are by impeachment.
There's the segment of the population that will never vote for Trump and probably not a lot of Republicans because they're not progressive and/or good at governance enough. Even inside this, not all of us really understand each other well enough -- and there's always the danger of defection into inaction -- but we have some common values and that probably won't change too much come 2020, and this is not a segment that's likely to be moved much by impeachment, only energized.
But I really don't think I know how to model the independent / undecided voter, and how impeachment will effect them. And it's possible that longtime operators like Pelosi may know a thing or two that I don't.
My *guess* is that successfully navigating the impeachment waters requires some *substantial* pre-impeachment policy messaging that actually takes (a healthcare system that works better and works for everyone, safety nets and a hand up for those struggling). And then keeping it up during impeachment proceedings.
And that means getting even theoretically principled media institutions that were all-in on butter emails back in 2016 on board.
I think impeachment is the right thing to do, I think it's strategically plausible, but if ask yourself how likely it is that, say, the NYT is to really actually be helpful here, I think you get an idea of the magnitude of the challenge. It's an uphill battle, some reticence may be a sign of insight as much or more as a failure of nerve.
posted by wildblueyonder at 4:24 PM on April 21, 2019 [4 favorites]
This is key. But I think there's more to the story. I don't want to be too hard on gunshy Democrats because ultimately reasoning about this kind of thing involves some kind of model of people a lot of us on metafilter have a limited understanding of: voters who think differently than we do. Like the kind of voter that could actually be undecided or independent in recent years.
So, yeah, there's Trumpists and Republican enthusiasts who, yes, are authoritarians and have walked with him to intentionally separating families and will walk with him through shooting someone on 5th ave and all the way down to gasing some population, some wringing their hands in impotent dismay while going along anyway, some smiling all the way. But as chris24 points out, that's a minority, one that only barely won the presidency even with countermajoritarian institutions boosting it. And more importantly, this is not a segment that's going to be moved much from where they are by impeachment.
There's the segment of the population that will never vote for Trump and probably not a lot of Republicans because they're not progressive and/or good at governance enough. Even inside this, not all of us really understand each other well enough -- and there's always the danger of defection into inaction -- but we have some common values and that probably won't change too much come 2020, and this is not a segment that's likely to be moved much by impeachment, only energized.
But I really don't think I know how to model the independent / undecided voter, and how impeachment will effect them. And it's possible that longtime operators like Pelosi may know a thing or two that I don't.
My *guess* is that successfully navigating the impeachment waters requires some *substantial* pre-impeachment policy messaging that actually takes (a healthcare system that works better and works for everyone, safety nets and a hand up for those struggling). And then keeping it up during impeachment proceedings.
And that means getting even theoretically principled media institutions that were all-in on butter emails back in 2016 on board.
I think impeachment is the right thing to do, I think it's strategically plausible, but if ask yourself how likely it is that, say, the NYT is to really actually be helpful here, I think you get an idea of the magnitude of the challenge. It's an uphill battle, some reticence may be a sign of insight as much or more as a failure of nerve.
posted by wildblueyonder at 4:24 PM on April 21, 2019 [4 favorites]
Cheri Jacobus:
Polls show that people who have read the Mueller report are more likely to support impeaching Trump than those who have not. Impeachment hearings will take the place of reading the Mueller report. This ain't hard, folks.
posted by chris24 at 4:45 PM on April 21, 2019 [37 favorites]
Polls show that people who have read the Mueller report are more likely to support impeaching Trump than those who have not. Impeachment hearings will take the place of reading the Mueller report. This ain't hard, folks.
posted by chris24 at 4:45 PM on April 21, 2019 [37 favorites]
Mod note: A few comments removed, please let's not fill time on a Sunday afternoon parsing fuckin' leavened bread just to have something to argue about.
posted by cortex (staff) at 4:55 PM on April 21, 2019 [14 favorites]
posted by cortex (staff) at 4:55 PM on April 21, 2019 [14 favorites]
I can't believe I'm saying this since I mock in my head people who knee-jerk it... but correlation isn't causation. It seems likely to me that the people most likely to read the Mueller report are the people who already hate Trump with the passion of a million burning suns, and are thus already more inclined to support impeaching Trump.
posted by Justinian at 4:57 PM on April 21, 2019 [10 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 4:57 PM on April 21, 2019 [10 favorites]
@LOLGOP:
Democrats didn't raise hell about Merrick Garland because they figured the election would solve it.
Democrats didn't raise hell about Russian interference because they figured the election will solve it.
Democrats won't impeach because they figure the election will solve it.
posted by chris24 at 4:58 PM on April 21, 2019 [78 favorites]
Democrats didn't raise hell about Merrick Garland because they figured the election would solve it.
Democrats didn't raise hell about Russian interference because they figured the election will solve it.
Democrats won't impeach because they figure the election will solve it.
posted by chris24 at 4:58 PM on April 21, 2019 [78 favorites]
@realDonaldTrump: How do you impeach a Republican President for a crime that was committed by the Democrats? MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!
Trump's central campaign message is going to be that he was set up by Democrats. What forum provides the best opportunity to prove to the people this isn't true?
posted by xammerboy at 5:33 PM on April 21, 2019 [9 favorites]
Trump's central campaign message is going to be that he was set up by Democrats. What forum provides the best opportunity to prove to the people this isn't true?
posted by xammerboy at 5:33 PM on April 21, 2019 [9 favorites]
I think it’s important to note that while, yes, impeachment must be pursued by the House Democrats, if they were to bring it up tomorrow, based on what is in the Mueller report, they will lose. There simply aren’t the votes in the Senate. Right now, Mitt Romney is the template for a “convinceable” Republican and he has already said he doesn’t see the crime. Crucially, he has indicated his disgust and this is a signal that he is open to new evidence.
Figure out what other Senators are of his mindset and find the evidence. The House needs to kick their investigations (on all fronts) into high gear. Take about six months and turn over all the rocks and expose Trump’s dirty deeds.
Unfortunately, the Mueller report isn’t the end, it’s the beginning.
posted by Big Al 8000 at 5:50 PM on April 21, 2019 [3 favorites]
Figure out what other Senators are of his mindset and find the evidence. The House needs to kick their investigations (on all fronts) into high gear. Take about six months and turn over all the rocks and expose Trump’s dirty deeds.
Unfortunately, the Mueller report isn’t the end, it’s the beginning.
posted by Big Al 8000 at 5:50 PM on April 21, 2019 [3 favorites]
It's true that the Senate as configured will never convict Trump, but impeachment hearings could take a long time. They could take even longer since Trump's minions will be trying to foil any document or witness requests. The public hearing necessary for the house to make the determination of whether to impeach can keep this story front and center with new terrible revelations every week. Maybe it takes so long that there isn't even time to refer it to the Senate before the election, but it needs to start.
posted by willnot at 5:54 PM on April 21, 2019 [13 favorites]
posted by willnot at 5:54 PM on April 21, 2019 [13 favorites]
Exactly. Calling for an impeachment inquiry doesn’t mean we vote Monday. It will mean months of investigations and hearings before a possible vote in the House.
posted by chris24 at 5:55 PM on April 21, 2019 [16 favorites]
posted by chris24 at 5:55 PM on April 21, 2019 [16 favorites]
So the twitters are going all in on apologies to Mitt Romney.
Here's Maggie, for example: "Romney described Russia as the greatest US geopolitical foe in his 2012 presidential campaign, and was broadly mocked. I was among reporters who should have given it more weight."
No, Maggie, you ignorant twit. Russia is not a great geopolitical power. It is a relatively poor country, not even in the top 10 for GDP, way down below Italy, Canada and Brazil.
And the Romney prescription at the time. More battleships. That's right, more battleships and rightly mocked by Obama in the debates.
No, the real geopolitical risk was a compromised president, with the collaboration of a corrupt Republican Party, selling out the country to a weak international player. Just like Clinton warned in the debates.
Where's your apology to Clinton, Maggie?
posted by JackFlash at 5:58 PM on April 21, 2019 [50 favorites]
Here's Maggie, for example: "Romney described Russia as the greatest US geopolitical foe in his 2012 presidential campaign, and was broadly mocked. I was among reporters who should have given it more weight."
No, Maggie, you ignorant twit. Russia is not a great geopolitical power. It is a relatively poor country, not even in the top 10 for GDP, way down below Italy, Canada and Brazil.
And the Romney prescription at the time. More battleships. That's right, more battleships and rightly mocked by Obama in the debates.
No, the real geopolitical risk was a compromised president, with the collaboration of a corrupt Republican Party, selling out the country to a weak international player. Just like Clinton warned in the debates.
Where's your apology to Clinton, Maggie?
posted by JackFlash at 5:58 PM on April 21, 2019 [50 favorites]
Tactical suggestion:
1. Start impeachment proceedings now or soon.
2. Call sitting Senators to testify about what they have witnessed and why/how they will vote. When calling Republican Senators, focus on:
a. those who are in battleground states with large groups of Trump-hating voters
b. those who are presently up for election
c. those that will have to miss campaigning obligations while testifying about why they are spineless.
3. Order who testifies when based upon having the most damning material being testified about before the election
4. After the election,
a. If we gain the Senate and Trump wins, wait to vote until they are seated.
b. If we do not win the senate and Trump wins, vote immediately after the election.
c. Whether or not we gain the Senate, if Trump loses, impeach him immediately.
d. If we gain the Senate and he loses, have the Senate retroactively censure him to whatever extent is possible once they are seated.
There are tactical issues with giving the Senate time to vote against impeachment. There are no tactical issues with begging the question by having hearings before the election.
posted by bootlegpop at 6:13 PM on April 21, 2019 [9 favorites]
1. Start impeachment proceedings now or soon.
2. Call sitting Senators to testify about what they have witnessed and why/how they will vote. When calling Republican Senators, focus on:
a. those who are in battleground states with large groups of Trump-hating voters
b. those who are presently up for election
c. those that will have to miss campaigning obligations while testifying about why they are spineless.
3. Order who testifies when based upon having the most damning material being testified about before the election
4. After the election,
a. If we gain the Senate and Trump wins, wait to vote until they are seated.
b. If we do not win the senate and Trump wins, vote immediately after the election.
c. Whether or not we gain the Senate, if Trump loses, impeach him immediately.
d. If we gain the Senate and he loses, have the Senate retroactively censure him to whatever extent is possible once they are seated.
There are tactical issues with giving the Senate time to vote against impeachment. There are no tactical issues with begging the question by having hearings before the election.
posted by bootlegpop at 6:13 PM on April 21, 2019 [9 favorites]
I can’t find the tweet, but to summarize someone else, Romney wasn’t right in 2012. Russia wasn’t the biggest threat then. And he wasn’t prescient about 2016 unless he wants to own his and Republicans’ responsibility in allowing and helping Russia’s attack to work. Without Republican enabling and embracing, the attack isn’t successful and they’re the third rate power with nukes they’ve always been since the collapse of the Soviet Union and not a threat now.
And hell yeah, when does Clinton get her kudos for calling it right and saying it right to Trump’s face.
posted by chris24 at 6:14 PM on April 21, 2019 [26 favorites]
And hell yeah, when does Clinton get her kudos for calling it right and saying it right to Trump’s face.
posted by chris24 at 6:14 PM on April 21, 2019 [26 favorites]
Ah, Maggie. She still hasn't apologized publicly to Michelle Wolf for lying about her act and trying to mobilize the internet against her. That was back when Maggie was still in Trump's media inner circle.
Romney also went begging to get a high-level job in Trump's crew at the tail end of 2016: the same people he says are corrupted by Russian influence. That should have put to bed any chances at reviving his political career — never mind all of the other stuff about how half the country is dependent on government, binders, what he did at Bain, etc. — but the Maggies of the mainstream media will keep giving him a leg up, nonetheless.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 6:17 PM on April 21, 2019 [12 favorites]
Romney also went begging to get a high-level job in Trump's crew at the tail end of 2016: the same people he says are corrupted by Russian influence. That should have put to bed any chances at reviving his political career — never mind all of the other stuff about how half the country is dependent on government, binders, what he did at Bain, etc. — but the Maggies of the mainstream media will keep giving him a leg up, nonetheless.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 6:17 PM on April 21, 2019 [12 favorites]
Put me down as a moderate pro-impeachmentist.
I think the Dems are potentially in a corner here. If they don't move to impeach in the House, Trump *will* take that as complete vindication and tweet-crow all the way to Election Day 2020.
On the other hand, there is the danger of people who aren't politics-obsessives seeing acquittal in the Senate as also vindication. So Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer and *all* of the 2020 hopefuls need to come out on message:
"Robert Muller was very clear that he wasn't going to draw conclusions from his report. He saw his job as finding as many facts as he could about Russian interference in our elections, links between the Trump campaign and the Russian interference efforts, and the ways that Donald Trump tried to shut down the investigation.
"It is now our constitutional duty to take up this investigation and to conduct public hearings about these matters so that the American people can make up their own mind. We hope that the Senate will then try this case with the seriousness that this attack on our democracy demands.
posted by tivalasvegas at 6:25 PM on April 21, 2019 [14 favorites]
I think the Dems are potentially in a corner here. If they don't move to impeach in the House, Trump *will* take that as complete vindication and tweet-crow all the way to Election Day 2020.
On the other hand, there is the danger of people who aren't politics-obsessives seeing acquittal in the Senate as also vindication. So Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer and *all* of the 2020 hopefuls need to come out on message:
"Robert Muller was very clear that he wasn't going to draw conclusions from his report. He saw his job as finding as many facts as he could about Russian interference in our elections, links between the Trump campaign and the Russian interference efforts, and the ways that Donald Trump tried to shut down the investigation.
"It is now our constitutional duty to take up this investigation and to conduct public hearings about these matters so that the American people can make up their own mind. We hope that the Senate will then try this case with the seriousness that this attack on our democracy demands.
posted by tivalasvegas at 6:25 PM on April 21, 2019 [14 favorites]
There will be many other avenues of investigation into Trump's corruption over the next year or more. It's hard to imagine the impact of all of these - along with impeachment proceedings - playing out in public for so long. One can only hope that public opinion will shift and those who are persuadable will stop seeing Trump as a victim and a hero, and instead see him as a grifter and a loser.
If that happens - and it's big if - Republicans in Congress might start peeling away as well, repudiating Trump in an effort to save their skins.
Meanwhile Trump jokes about being President for Life.
posted by 6thsense at 6:30 PM on April 21, 2019 [6 favorites]
If that happens - and it's big if - Republicans in Congress might start peeling away as well, repudiating Trump in an effort to save their skins.
Meanwhile Trump jokes about being President for Life.
posted by 6thsense at 6:30 PM on April 21, 2019 [6 favorites]
As a side note, I'm mediumishly heartened by the fact that per the executive summary, McGahn and others did at times refuse orders, so to speak, because even those craven fascist bootlickers retained some semblance of patriotic respect. Maybe they'll actually be sorta honest if dragged before the House to testify under oath before the public?
posted by tivalasvegas at 6:31 PM on April 21, 2019 [11 favorites]
posted by tivalasvegas at 6:31 PM on April 21, 2019 [11 favorites]
They could take even longer since Trump's minions will be trying to foil any document or witness requests. The public hearing necessary for the house to make the determination of whether to impeach can keep this story front and center with new terrible revelations every week.The House investigations which are already in progress will do this, which is why the Democrats launched them shortly after they got the legal authority. Starting the impeachment process before anything has come out just increases the odds of Trump & his fellow grifters eking out a “COMPLETE EXONERATION” on insufficient evidence. Remember, impeachment would be nice but most of the electoral wins will happen if it becomes widely recognized both how corrupt & incompetent they are and the degree to which the entire GOP has being shielding them. Making it hard for Senators to pretend they had no idea what was going on is almost as important.
posted by adamsc at 6:31 PM on April 21, 2019 [6 favorites]
even those craven fascist bootlickers retained some semblance of patriotic respect.
Nah, they just didn’t want to go to prison for Trump. He might be immune to indictment but they’re not.
posted by chris24 at 6:33 PM on April 21, 2019 [7 favorites]
Nah, they just didn’t want to go to prison for Trump. He might be immune to indictment but they’re not.
posted by chris24 at 6:33 PM on April 21, 2019 [7 favorites]
Well, you've out-cynical'ed me and... ok, I'm not taking that bet.
posted by tivalasvegas at 6:36 PM on April 21, 2019 [3 favorites]
posted by tivalasvegas at 6:36 PM on April 21, 2019 [3 favorites]
One way or another, this election will be about impeachment hearings or lack of impeachment hearings. Any hope of it being about climate change, health care, education, income inequality, or anything else is long gone. Either you are in control of the impeachment narrative or you let Trump set the agenda. I don’t see there is any other path here. The Dem party leaders could literally draw out hearings as long as they want and set up the best sound bites to take place in September and October. Who the candidate is and what message they push matters, but how this is handled matters more.
posted by Manic Pixie Hollow at 7:01 PM on April 21, 2019 [10 favorites]
posted by Manic Pixie Hollow at 7:01 PM on April 21, 2019 [10 favorites]
NYT, Trump’s Washing Machine Tariffs Stung Consumers While Lifting Corporate Profits
posted by zachlipton at 7:31 PM on April 21, 2019 [26 favorites]
Research to be released on Monday by the economists Aaron Flaaen, of the Fed, and Ali Hortacsu and Felix Tintelnot, of Chicago, estimates that consumers bore between 125 percent and 225 percent of the costs of the washing machine tariffs. The authors calculate that the tariffs brought in $82 million to the United States Treasury, while raising consumer prices by $1.5 billion.Say it with me now: the art of the deal.
And while the tariffs did encourage foreign companies to shift more of their manufacturing to the United States and created about 1,800 new jobs, the researchers conclude that those came at a steep cost: about $817,000 per job.
...
But domestic manufacturers, like Whirlpool, increased prices, too, largely because they could.
posted by zachlipton at 7:31 PM on April 21, 2019 [26 favorites]
@LOLGOP:
By the way, when you say "Let the election rule on Trump's crimes," you actually mean "Let the Electoral College, voter suppression, and an Attorney General who is cool with foreign governments doing anything they can to elect Trump rule on Trump's crimes."
posted by chris24 at 8:07 PM on April 21, 2019 [72 favorites]
By the way, when you say "Let the election rule on Trump's crimes," you actually mean "Let the Electoral College, voter suppression, and an Attorney General who is cool with foreign governments doing anything they can to elect Trump rule on Trump's crimes."
posted by chris24 at 8:07 PM on April 21, 2019 [72 favorites]
I have a follow-up for Giuliani, or any of the rest of them saying, “There’s nothing wrong with taking information from Russians.”
Ok, so you're obviously open to accepting their help again in 2020. What are they offering, and what has the administration promised in return?
posted by dirge at 9:30 PM on April 21, 2019 [16 favorites]
Ok, so you're obviously open to accepting their help again in 2020. What are they offering, and what has the administration promised in return?
posted by dirge at 9:30 PM on April 21, 2019 [16 favorites]
I'm pro-impeachment, make the Republican senators cast their votes.
When we let republican senators pocket filibuster anonymously, they got to disrupt the obama administration but not face the specific consequences on the campaign trail. Its better to say "so and so filibustered and wouldn't even,let us vote to increase your veterans benefits" but those anonymous fucks did all that and more, because we didn't force them to do it in public.
posted by Anchorite_of_Palgrave at 9:48 PM on April 21, 2019 [11 favorites]
When we let republican senators pocket filibuster anonymously, they got to disrupt the obama administration but not face the specific consequences on the campaign trail. Its better to say "so and so filibustered and wouldn't even,let us vote to increase your veterans benefits" but those anonymous fucks did all that and more, because we didn't force them to do it in public.
posted by Anchorite_of_Palgrave at 9:48 PM on April 21, 2019 [11 favorites]
Meanwhile, in Libya, drones seem to have been used by Haftar in bombing Tripoli. The UAE seems to be considered a possible source of the escalation, but there is also this (From the Guardian):
> The airstrikes on Tripoli, first launched last week, appear to reflect the approval given to Haftar by Donald Trump in a phone call on Monday. The White House did not reveal that this call took place until Friday, four days later.
posted by stonepharisee at 12:53 AM on April 22, 2019 [11 favorites]
> The airstrikes on Tripoli, first launched last week, appear to reflect the approval given to Haftar by Donald Trump in a phone call on Monday. The White House did not reveal that this call took place until Friday, four days later.
posted by stonepharisee at 12:53 AM on April 22, 2019 [11 favorites]
Also Mayor Pete said on CNN that Bernie voters as well as Trump voters are to blame for the omnishambles, so I guess that's his play.
Not sure if you’re referring to this, but if so it seems a kinda unfair characterization.
Nate Silver
And if I'm playing Early Morning Bad Narrative Cop, this is an extremely weird Narrative coming from some Sanders surrogates. Buttigieg's comments were extremely boilerplate, basically that Trump and Sanders voters both suffer economic anxiety and are disaffected with the system.
• In fact, Sanders supporters sometimes make arguments like these themselves to claim Bernie will appeal to Trump voters. It's an extremely weird thing to get upset about unless they're deliberately looking to pick a fight with Buttigieg.
posted by chris24 at 3:58 AM on April 22, 2019 [17 favorites]
Not sure if you’re referring to this, but if so it seems a kinda unfair characterization.
"I think the sense of anger and disaffection that comes from seeing that the numbers are fine, like unemployment's low, like all that, like you said GDP is growing and yet a lot of neighborhoods and families are living like this recovery never even happened. They're stuck," Buttigieg told high school Democrats in Nashua, N.H., on Friday. "It just kind of turns you against the system in general and then you're more likely to want to vote to blow up the system, which could lead you to somebody like Bernie and it could lead you to somebody like Trump. That's how we got where we are."He’s pretty clearly imo contrasting the two opposing populist choices and blaming the unequal system which led a lot of people to Trump’s version. He’s being understanding of their concerns. I’m not Team Pete or Team Bernie so I don’t think I’m being biased. And I’m not the only person who thinks this an inaccurate take.
Nate Silver
And if I'm playing Early Morning Bad Narrative Cop, this is an extremely weird Narrative coming from some Sanders surrogates. Buttigieg's comments were extremely boilerplate, basically that Trump and Sanders voters both suffer economic anxiety and are disaffected with the system.
• In fact, Sanders supporters sometimes make arguments like these themselves to claim Bernie will appeal to Trump voters. It's an extremely weird thing to get upset about unless they're deliberately looking to pick a fight with Buttigieg.
posted by chris24 at 3:58 AM on April 22, 2019 [17 favorites]
Josh Lederman (NBC)
Also just to put this in context: This came in remarks to high school Democrats in which Buttigieg was effusively praising Sanders’ authenticity and telling kids why as a high schooler he wrote an essay about Sanders and courage
posted by chris24 at 4:36 AM on April 22, 2019 [14 favorites]
Also just to put this in context: This came in remarks to high school Democrats in which Buttigieg was effusively praising Sanders’ authenticity and telling kids why as a high schooler he wrote an essay about Sanders and courage
posted by chris24 at 4:36 AM on April 22, 2019 [14 favorites]
CA + FB, stolen data, and the micro-targeting loop, a disturbing thread from Sara Danner Dukic (via Rick Wilson): Thread/Threadreader.
posted by MonkeyToes at 4:44 AM on April 22, 2019 [11 favorites]
posted by MonkeyToes at 4:44 AM on April 22, 2019 [11 favorites]
Elizabeth Warren’s Higher Education Plan: Eliminate Tuition and Cancel Student Debt (NYT)
posted by Barack Spinoza at 6:03 AM on April 22, 2019 [35 favorites]
posted by Barack Spinoza at 6:03 AM on April 22, 2019 [35 favorites]
Elizabeth Warren just released her higher ed plan: free public college, substantial debt relief for people with current student loans, a $50 billion fund to support HBCUs and other minority-serving institutions, and phasing out of federal money going to for-profit colleges.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 6:04 AM on April 22, 2019 [65 favorites]
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 6:04 AM on April 22, 2019 [65 favorites]
Best policies, best leadership thus far. By far.
She was high on my list from the beginning but not number one. That has changed.
posted by chris24 at 6:06 AM on April 22, 2019 [27 favorites]
She was high on my list from the beginning but not number one. That has changed.
posted by chris24 at 6:06 AM on April 22, 2019 [27 favorites]
I actually have some concerns about how free public college would work in practice. (Specifically, I'm worried that it would require rules that would force students to finish in a timely fashion, and those rules could hurt students who have unusual or challenging circumstances. I see this pretty often with military funding for higher ed.) But I have a fair amount of faith in Warren's ability to deal with complex issues, so I'm moderately optimistic that the final policy would accomplish what we want it to accomplish.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 6:10 AM on April 22, 2019 [11 favorites]
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 6:10 AM on April 22, 2019 [11 favorites]
Buzzfeed: Trump Is Suing House Democrats To Stop A Subpoena To His Accountant
posted by Doktor Zed at 7:10 AM on April 22, 2019 [22 favorites]
President Donald Trump filed a lawsuit against House Democrats on Monday seeking to block a subpoena to his longtime accountant, marking the president's first foray into court to stop Democrats from investigating his finances.[…]Trump’s demanding a temporary restraining order against his accountants releasing his tax returns, a permanent injunction against Cummings, and, naturally, costs and expenses, including attorneys’ fees.
Trump brought the lawsuit as a private citizen, not as president, which means he's hired outside lawyers to fight the subpoena; the Justice Department isn't involved. He's arguing that the House Oversight Committee, which issued the subpoena to Mazars USA LLP, and committee Chair Elijah Cummings, had "ignored the constitutional limits on Congress' power to investigate."
posted by Doktor Zed at 7:10 AM on April 22, 2019 [22 favorites]
Are there any constitutional limits on the House's subpoena power? I thought it was pretty well-established by the courts that that power was extremely broad, save claims of executive privilege. But if Trump is suing as an individual, is that a card he can play? Probably just planning to tie it up in the courts until after the 2020 election.
posted by lefty lucky cat at 7:20 AM on April 22, 2019 [8 favorites]
posted by lefty lucky cat at 7:20 AM on April 22, 2019 [8 favorites]
Doktor Zed: Buzzfeed: Trump Is Suing House Democrats To Stop A Subpoena To His Accountant
That... can't be smart of him, can it? How does such a lawsuit avoid a discovery process? Can he even claim executive privilege in any of it? Is this the result of finally being unshackled from the grip of sensible attorneys?
posted by InTheYear2017 at 7:25 AM on April 22, 2019 [13 favorites]
That... can't be smart of him, can it? How does such a lawsuit avoid a discovery process? Can he even claim executive privilege in any of it? Is this the result of finally being unshackled from the grip of sensible attorneys?
posted by InTheYear2017 at 7:25 AM on April 22, 2019 [13 favorites]
President Donald Trump filed a lawsuit against House Democrats on Monday seeking to block a subpoena to his longtime accountant, marking the president's first foray into court to stop Democrats from investigating his finances.[…]
I'm sure House Democrats are taking note that Trump is absolutely terrified of having his personal finances brought to light.
Which is why I am not favor of impeaching him right now, but rather using the Mueller report as a springboard for the impeachment process, which involves dragging all of Trump's dirty laundry out into plain view, while loudly predicting that Senate Republicans are too corrupt to convict him for it.
posted by Gelatin at 7:32 AM on April 22, 2019 [43 favorites]
I'm sure House Democrats are taking note that Trump is absolutely terrified of having his personal finances brought to light.
Which is why I am not favor of impeaching him right now, but rather using the Mueller report as a springboard for the impeachment process, which involves dragging all of Trump's dirty laundry out into plain view, while loudly predicting that Senate Republicans are too corrupt to convict him for it.
posted by Gelatin at 7:32 AM on April 22, 2019 [43 favorites]
How does such a lawsuit avoid a discovery process?
Discovery is not the first phase in a lawsuit, and not all lawsuits involve substantial discovery, not even all successful lawsuits. Trump could theoretically win on an early motion for summary judgment if there are no factual disputes to resolve.
But even if the case included discovery, discovery probably would not involve the tax records themselves. It's a case about legal power and doesn't (as far as I understand it) depend on the content of the records. But even if the records were subject to discovery, they would almost certainly be subject to a protective order and thus not available to the public.
posted by jedicus at 7:42 AM on April 22, 2019 [7 favorites]
Discovery is not the first phase in a lawsuit, and not all lawsuits involve substantial discovery, not even all successful lawsuits. Trump could theoretically win on an early motion for summary judgment if there are no factual disputes to resolve.
But even if the case included discovery, discovery probably would not involve the tax records themselves. It's a case about legal power and doesn't (as far as I understand it) depend on the content of the records. But even if the records were subject to discovery, they would almost certainly be subject to a protective order and thus not available to the public.
posted by jedicus at 7:42 AM on April 22, 2019 [7 favorites]
It's certainly not smart of him from a PR perspective. From his experience as a celebrity, he has to have at least an instinctual awareness of the Streisand effect. His savage desperation about concealment is only stoking a morbid curiosity among the public - even in people who don't really pay attention to politics - about what is in there, which is going to make it even worse when it comes out.
posted by Selena777 at 8:02 AM on April 22, 2019 [2 favorites]
posted by Selena777 at 8:02 AM on April 22, 2019 [2 favorites]
Court fights over subpoenas can take a very long time. Mueller was trying to subpoena records from the mystery foreign government company since last summer. It wound its way through federal court, appeals court and the Supreme Court and is yet to be resolved. And now Mueller is gone.
Trump can just run out the clock until the next election.
posted by JackFlash at 8:07 AM on April 22, 2019 [6 favorites]
Trump can just run out the clock until the next election.
posted by JackFlash at 8:07 AM on April 22, 2019 [6 favorites]
I was super excited about Elizabeth Warren's education debt plan as posted above. As I read it I did get a little nervous that she didn't mention Public Service Loan Forgiveness at all, which happens to be the specific program I'm counting on to save my broke ass, and which has been abysmal so far for people applying for forgiveness through it. Then I remembered that it's Elizabeth Warren, who is smart and thorough and can walk and chew gum and the same time and so she's probably already thought of that so I googled "Elizabeth Warren PSLF"
Warren Joins Gillibrand, Kaine, Colleagues to Introduce New Legislation to Overhaul Flawed Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program
99 percent of Applicants Have Been Rejected Under Current Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program Due to Failed Department of Education Implementation and Eligibility Loopholes; New Bill Would Ensure All Federal Loans and Repayment Plans Qualify and Simplify the Application and Approval Process
Shout out to Gillibrand and the other Senators on board too of course
posted by robotdevil at 8:12 AM on April 22, 2019 [53 favorites]
Warren Joins Gillibrand, Kaine, Colleagues to Introduce New Legislation to Overhaul Flawed Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program
99 percent of Applicants Have Been Rejected Under Current Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program Due to Failed Department of Education Implementation and Eligibility Loopholes; New Bill Would Ensure All Federal Loans and Repayment Plans Qualify and Simplify the Application and Approval Process
Shout out to Gillibrand and the other Senators on board too of course
posted by robotdevil at 8:12 AM on April 22, 2019 [53 favorites]
It isn’t a very complicated argument in my mind. The constitution says the only emoluments allowed to the president come from his federal salary. Congress has the right approve or deny emoluments from foreign entities. Since Trump refuses to divest his business holdings, Congress therefore has the right to examine his finances to determine what - if any - emoluments he has accepted from foreign states or entities and if they are acceptable to Congress.
posted by Big Al 8000 at 8:26 AM on April 22, 2019 [45 favorites]
posted by Big Al 8000 at 8:26 AM on April 22, 2019 [45 favorites]
Which is why I am not favor of impeaching him right now, but rather using the Mueller report as a springboard for the impeachment process, which involves dragging all of Trump's dirty laundry out into plain view, while loudly predicting that Senate Republicans are too corrupt to convict him for it.
My understanding is that that's how the impeachment process generally does work -- that the House acts as a sort of grand jury, hearing testimony that they then refer (or not) to the Senate for the formal trial. It's not an immediate up-or-down vote.
I don't think any one is calling for like, a "vote to impeach" Monday after next?
If I'm wrong, please someone correct me before I say a dumb thing on facebook
posted by tivalasvegas at 8:39 AM on April 22, 2019 [8 favorites]
The Trump-POTUS vaccine: Pray it inoculates America against another billionaire big business genius (Bob Hennelly, Salon).
"If Americans learn the lesson of the Trump presidency, that the rich won't save us, we can grab this economy back." […]posted by ZeusHumms at 8:41 AM on April 22, 2019 [9 favorites]
While neoliberals may want to put all the blame on Trump and the Russians for their subversion of the election in 2016, it was only possible because of the systemic and bi-partisan corruption riddled throughout America’s local, county, state and national governments that made us vulnerable in the first place.
Also:
The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be encreased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.
Does anyone else read this passage as disallowing the president to pay himself by charging the Secret Secret to stay at his resorts?
posted by Big Al 8000 at 8:43 AM on April 22, 2019 [22 favorites]
The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be encreased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.
Does anyone else read this passage as disallowing the president to pay himself by charging the Secret Secret to stay at his resorts?
posted by Big Al 8000 at 8:43 AM on April 22, 2019 [22 favorites]
MetaFilter: If I'm wrong, please someone correct me before I say a dumb thing on facebook.
posted by notyou at 8:47 AM on April 22, 2019 [19 favorites]
posted by notyou at 8:47 AM on April 22, 2019 [19 favorites]
My understanding is that that's how the impeachment process generally does work -- that the House acts as a sort of grand jury, hearing testimony that they then refer (or not) to the Senate for the formal trial. It's not an immediate up-or-down vote.
In 1998, the lame duck Republican Congress impeached Bill Clinton on the basis of the Starr Report (which did not redact grand jury testimony), without holding hearings of its own. The vote wasn't immediate, in part due to the 1998 election and in part due to airstrikes on Iraq, and in that case it was an obviously politicized move that was seen and rejected as such by the majority of the American public, but it goes to show that impeachment is a land of contrasts.
posted by Gelatin at 8:47 AM on April 22, 2019
In 1998, the lame duck Republican Congress impeached Bill Clinton on the basis of the Starr Report (which did not redact grand jury testimony), without holding hearings of its own. The vote wasn't immediate, in part due to the 1998 election and in part due to airstrikes on Iraq, and in that case it was an obviously politicized move that was seen and rejected as such by the majority of the American public, but it goes to show that impeachment is a land of contrasts.
posted by Gelatin at 8:47 AM on April 22, 2019
1. I'm very in favor of the Democrats who come right out and say yes to impeachment.
2. For the ones who worry it will hurt them if their being pro-impeachment now will be spun as having improperly pre-judged, they can simply use the structure of impeachment to their advantage: If (as we are often told) impeachment is akin to an indictment or a criminal information/complaint, they can say something like "like an indictment, impeachment comes at the end of an investigation. Do I think we need to pursue that investigation? Absolutely."
3. If they want go go even further than #2, they could replace the second sentence with "If I had to decide on impeachment based solely on what is in the Mueller report, I'd probably vote yes on impeachment, but the House is entitled to a complete investigation of all potential high crimes and misdemeanors, and the targets of our investigation won't be able to stonewall us they way they often stonewalled the Special Counsel."
posted by mabelstreet at 8:47 AM on April 22, 2019 [9 favorites]
2. For the ones who worry it will hurt them if their being pro-impeachment now will be spun as having improperly pre-judged, they can simply use the structure of impeachment to their advantage: If (as we are often told) impeachment is akin to an indictment or a criminal information/complaint, they can say something like "like an indictment, impeachment comes at the end of an investigation. Do I think we need to pursue that investigation? Absolutely."
3. If they want go go even further than #2, they could replace the second sentence with "If I had to decide on impeachment based solely on what is in the Mueller report, I'd probably vote yes on impeachment, but the House is entitled to a complete investigation of all potential high crimes and misdemeanors, and the targets of our investigation won't be able to stonewall us they way they often stonewalled the Special Counsel."
posted by mabelstreet at 8:47 AM on April 22, 2019 [9 favorites]
I'd like to see Trump impeached, too, but I just don't see it happening.
As others have pointed out, there just don't appear to be enough votes in the Senate for it to happen. There would need to be a sea change among Republicans to shake loose enough votes; so far this hasn't happened. For whatever morally bankrupt reasons of political calculus, they have apparently decided that the Muller Report isn't going to be clearly fatal to Trump and he's still their guy. Or they're still his.
TBH, I think they're morons, because the Most Dangerous Course of Action that the Republicans could take would be to suddenly see the light, claim they were just waiting all this time for Mueller to finish his investigation, and speedily impeach Trump. Result: Trump is out of the way, Pence moves up, and they get a solid 18 months of really concerted wrecking in, led by someone who doesn't have any of Trump's glaring mental or emotional impairments. Everything that's wrong with the country they could blame on Trump, while the economy and any other positives he could take credit for. And after and by comparison with Trump, Pence probably would look like a Great Statesman.
That's a much rougher 2020 election than if a politically wounded Trump sticks around, lashing out more or less at random, and quite possibly losing whatever's left of mind in the process.
Personally I am very conflicted which is worse for the country. Every month Trump stays in office is objectively bad and damaging to American interests and the future of the American people, full stop. But would 18 more months of Trump be a worthy trade for keeping Pence—who I think is honestly more dangerous—out of 1600 Penn. Ave., and off the 2020 slate, where he could potentially win (and serve until 2028, by which point A Handmaid's Tale looks like a fun bedtime story)? I'm not sure there is an obvious better/worse choice. Though in the spirit of teaching the horse to talk, probably the better option is to impeach, take our chances with Pence, and hope he drops dead—which would, perversely, go a great distance towards convincing me that there is, in fact, a no-shit intercessionary God.
But anyway, if Congressional Republicans were actually the brilliant strategists that they seem to like to see themselves as, and not blundering malcompetent opportunists simply fighting for short-term gains, they'd take the opportunity the Report provides to put a bullet in Trump and move an establishment player in. But they won't, because they're not. C'est la politique.
And if the whole party as a whole won't turn on Trump and get rid of him, I doubt that any Republican Senators will suddenly grow a spine and be willing to have an I Am Spartacus moment all on their lonesome, where they know they'll be facing Trump's Crazy Brigades alone if the impeachment attempt fails. Maybe a handful, but not enough. We know from the Kavanaugh confirmations that when the chips are down, even moderates like Collins toe the line.
So: no impeachment. I don't even think the Democrats will push for it, because they have to know as well as anyone that the votes on the other side of the aisle aren't there, and a failed impeachment attempt might legitimize the president going into 2020. Better for him to be under constant investigation, with a steady dribble of revelations about just how insane he truly is, than to do something that would look like an acquittal tomorons low-information voters.
posted by Kadin2048 at 9:10 AM on April 22, 2019 [7 favorites]
As others have pointed out, there just don't appear to be enough votes in the Senate for it to happen. There would need to be a sea change among Republicans to shake loose enough votes; so far this hasn't happened. For whatever morally bankrupt reasons of political calculus, they have apparently decided that the Muller Report isn't going to be clearly fatal to Trump and he's still their guy. Or they're still his.
TBH, I think they're morons, because the Most Dangerous Course of Action that the Republicans could take would be to suddenly see the light, claim they were just waiting all this time for Mueller to finish his investigation, and speedily impeach Trump. Result: Trump is out of the way, Pence moves up, and they get a solid 18 months of really concerted wrecking in, led by someone who doesn't have any of Trump's glaring mental or emotional impairments. Everything that's wrong with the country they could blame on Trump, while the economy and any other positives he could take credit for. And after and by comparison with Trump, Pence probably would look like a Great Statesman.
That's a much rougher 2020 election than if a politically wounded Trump sticks around, lashing out more or less at random, and quite possibly losing whatever's left of mind in the process.
Personally I am very conflicted which is worse for the country. Every month Trump stays in office is objectively bad and damaging to American interests and the future of the American people, full stop. But would 18 more months of Trump be a worthy trade for keeping Pence—who I think is honestly more dangerous—out of 1600 Penn. Ave., and off the 2020 slate, where he could potentially win (and serve until 2028, by which point A Handmaid's Tale looks like a fun bedtime story)? I'm not sure there is an obvious better/worse choice. Though in the spirit of teaching the horse to talk, probably the better option is to impeach, take our chances with Pence, and hope he drops dead—which would, perversely, go a great distance towards convincing me that there is, in fact, a no-shit intercessionary God.
But anyway, if Congressional Republicans were actually the brilliant strategists that they seem to like to see themselves as, and not blundering malcompetent opportunists simply fighting for short-term gains, they'd take the opportunity the Report provides to put a bullet in Trump and move an establishment player in. But they won't, because they're not. C'est la politique.
And if the whole party as a whole won't turn on Trump and get rid of him, I doubt that any Republican Senators will suddenly grow a spine and be willing to have an I Am Spartacus moment all on their lonesome, where they know they'll be facing Trump's Crazy Brigades alone if the impeachment attempt fails. Maybe a handful, but not enough. We know from the Kavanaugh confirmations that when the chips are down, even moderates like Collins toe the line.
So: no impeachment. I don't even think the Democrats will push for it, because they have to know as well as anyone that the votes on the other side of the aisle aren't there, and a failed impeachment attempt might legitimize the president going into 2020. Better for him to be under constant investigation, with a steady dribble of revelations about just how insane he truly is, than to do something that would look like an acquittal to
posted by Kadin2048 at 9:10 AM on April 22, 2019 [7 favorites]
So: no impeachment. I don't even think the Democrats will push for it, because they have to know as well as anyone that the votes on the other side of the aisle aren't there, and a failed impeachment attempt might legitimize the president going into 2020. Better for him to be under constant investigation
Impeachment proceedings in the House would be constant investigation, when the Judiciary Committee in the House holds hearings to determine whether to put impeachment to a House vote. If that vote passed, the Senate would hold a trial as well but I'm guessing that would be useless since McConnell would either procedurally delay/kill it or make a farce out of it. Of course the Senate would fail to convict, that's a given (I suppose there's an infinitesimal chance the House hearings could reveal criminal behavior even the Republicans couldn't ignore). But it's important, for the 2020 election AND for the health of our political system, that impeachment occurs and Senators are forced to go on record as voting for or against conviction. There's simply no question that Trump's actions as president merit impeachment (not necessarily conviction I will grant)... if they don't, then the process is reduced to nothing but a party weapon.
posted by lefty lucky cat at 9:25 AM on April 22, 2019 [20 favorites]
Impeachment proceedings in the House would be constant investigation, when the Judiciary Committee in the House holds hearings to determine whether to put impeachment to a House vote. If that vote passed, the Senate would hold a trial as well but I'm guessing that would be useless since McConnell would either procedurally delay/kill it or make a farce out of it. Of course the Senate would fail to convict, that's a given (I suppose there's an infinitesimal chance the House hearings could reveal criminal behavior even the Republicans couldn't ignore). But it's important, for the 2020 election AND for the health of our political system, that impeachment occurs and Senators are forced to go on record as voting for or against conviction. There's simply no question that Trump's actions as president merit impeachment (not necessarily conviction I will grant)... if they don't, then the process is reduced to nothing but a party weapon.
posted by lefty lucky cat at 9:25 AM on April 22, 2019 [20 favorites]
tivalasvegas: I don't think any one is calling for like, a "vote to impeach" Monday after next?
I think a fairly nontrivial group does feel more or less that way. If a Democratic politician were quoted in a headline saying they hope Trump is impeached before autumn, the various webbernet comments would be filled with people characterizing that as a perfect example of Democratic fecklessness and foot-dragging.
Kadin2048: Everything that's wrong with the country they could blame on Trump, while the economy and any other positives he could take credit for. And after and by comparison with Trump, Pence probably would look like a Great Statesman.
No party can shed its core that fast. For the Republican Party to become, almost literally, a Never-Trump party would be complete suicide, truly ending the Sixth Party System.
This is also why I don't fear a (never-ever-gonna-happen-anyway) President Pence to the degree others might. The country already has Pence-style policy in numerous eras, like the now-in-effect military trans ban and the moves against abortion rights. By all accounts he himself is mediocre as a politician, so as much as he wants a (more) Handmaid-esque world, he can't just manifest it by force of will. Instead, he would be spending the few months of his term digging through the massive fallout of whatever it was that removed Trump. The bitterness against him would be enormous, and could easily feed right-wing conspiracy theories that he had orchestrated the whole thing for his own benefit. It's true that he'd get a bit of a Finally A Statesman boost among some beltway talking heads, but their influence shrinks daily.
(It would be another story if Pence took a time machine to 2015, ran for and somehow won the Republican nomination and presidency. Then he might experience something like the popularity and success of Dubya at his middlest, and with even more horrible theocracy. But a post-Trump Pence is seriously defanged.)
posted by InTheYear2017 at 9:38 AM on April 22, 2019 [5 favorites]
I think a fairly nontrivial group does feel more or less that way. If a Democratic politician were quoted in a headline saying they hope Trump is impeached before autumn, the various webbernet comments would be filled with people characterizing that as a perfect example of Democratic fecklessness and foot-dragging.
Kadin2048: Everything that's wrong with the country they could blame on Trump, while the economy and any other positives he could take credit for. And after and by comparison with Trump, Pence probably would look like a Great Statesman.
No party can shed its core that fast. For the Republican Party to become, almost literally, a Never-Trump party would be complete suicide, truly ending the Sixth Party System.
This is also why I don't fear a (never-ever-gonna-happen-anyway) President Pence to the degree others might. The country already has Pence-style policy in numerous eras, like the now-in-effect military trans ban and the moves against abortion rights. By all accounts he himself is mediocre as a politician, so as much as he wants a (more) Handmaid-esque world, he can't just manifest it by force of will. Instead, he would be spending the few months of his term digging through the massive fallout of whatever it was that removed Trump. The bitterness against him would be enormous, and could easily feed right-wing conspiracy theories that he had orchestrated the whole thing for his own benefit. It's true that he'd get a bit of a Finally A Statesman boost among some beltway talking heads, but their influence shrinks daily.
(It would be another story if Pence took a time machine to 2015, ran for and somehow won the Republican nomination and presidency. Then he might experience something like the popularity and success of Dubya at his middlest, and with even more horrible theocracy. But a post-Trump Pence is seriously defanged.)
posted by InTheYear2017 at 9:38 AM on April 22, 2019 [5 favorites]
Nobody is seriously arguing that the Senate will vote to impeach. The question remaining is whether properly drawn out impeachment investigations/proceedings will help or hurt.
Pence has the charisma of Anthony Perkins, Trump at least taps into a middle class fantasy of avarice and bad taste.
posted by benzenedream at 9:45 AM on April 22, 2019 [5 favorites]
Pence has the charisma of Anthony Perkins, Trump at least taps into a middle class fantasy of avarice and bad taste.
posted by benzenedream at 9:45 AM on April 22, 2019 [5 favorites]
President Pence in late 2019/very early 2020 means an immediate wide-open primary on the GOP side.
posted by Huffy Puffy at 9:50 AM on April 22, 2019 [10 favorites]
posted by Huffy Puffy at 9:50 AM on April 22, 2019 [10 favorites]
I just want to announce that I have updated my site to reflect the release of the redacted Mueller report. There are little fixes throughout, but the most thoroughly overhauled section is the "Plausible Explanations" page. While there is a lot that I wish were covered in the report that isn't (or isn't in the public version), I do think Mueller gave us enough to cross off a lot of the possible "theories of the case" that people have been speculating about for a couple of years.
My slightly longer than two sentence summary goes like this, if I may quote myself...
I just want to give a shout out to all the journalists, thanks to whom Mueller's conclusions were not a surprise.
And I want to give a shout out to Metafilter and the participants in the megathread, without whom I personally would never have known about the most of the efforts of those journalists.
posted by OnceUponATime at 9:56 AM on April 22, 2019 [96 favorites]
My slightly longer than two sentence summary goes like this, if I may quote myself...
The Mueller report concluded that the contacts between the Trump campaign and the various Russian individuals they met or communicated with did not violate election laws or constitute conspiracy to violate those laws. The report did not comment at all on the activities of Cambridge Analytica or the NRA, on activities by countries other than Russia, or on the subject of money laundering.I support that conclusion with quotes from Mueller's own summaries, and with links the comments by Clint Watts, John Brennan, Michael Morell, et al that I already linked here in a comment upthread.
The explanation most consistent with the findings of the Mueller report is that Russians were working hard to cultivate members of the Trump campaign (including Trump himself) as unwitting agents, and were at least partially successful in that they were able to establish contact, convey their desires, and make it clear that the campaign could “expect to benefit” from their efforts. While the report determined that this did not rise to the legal standard for “conspiracy” in a way that could be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, it is behavior that is inconsistent with most Americans’ expectations that their elected officials will act in the public interest rather than their own. Afraid that this embarrassing information would become public, President Trump took actions that Congress could legitimately find to be obstruction of justice.
I just want to give a shout out to all the journalists, thanks to whom Mueller's conclusions were not a surprise.
And I want to give a shout out to Metafilter and the participants in the megathread, without whom I personally would never have known about the most of the efforts of those journalists.
posted by OnceUponATime at 9:56 AM on April 22, 2019 [96 favorites]
As far as impeachment, timing, the deep concern about the mythic independent voter, etc go I feel like I'm caught in a time loop and we're back to the early 2000's when the Democrats were "keeping their powder dry" and couldn't stop whatever the latest horror Junior was inflicting on the nation because they believed they'd only get one chance to do anything and they had to wait until they had something **REALLY** important to spend that chance on.
I remember the outcome back then: they never actually did anything. It turns out that the time to do something about Junior, per the Democratic leadership, was never.
And it's beginning to look like the current Democratic leadership has also decided that the time to do something about Trump is never.
posted by sotonohito at 10:01 AM on April 22, 2019 [16 favorites]
I remember the outcome back then: they never actually did anything. It turns out that the time to do something about Junior, per the Democratic leadership, was never.
And it's beginning to look like the current Democratic leadership has also decided that the time to do something about Trump is never.
posted by sotonohito at 10:01 AM on April 22, 2019 [16 favorites]
Keep in mind that almost all of the anti-impeachment democrats are long-term entrenched politicians who got elected despite the meddling, interference and corruption. Some of them were even there standing by not doing anything during time the crimes were being committed. Trump didn't really alter their personal political trajectory or station very much and probably in many ways has enhanced their fortune and fortunes via increased fundraising appeal.
It's pretty understandable for them to say "Don't rock the boat" when they are comfortably inside the boat.
posted by srboisvert at 10:02 AM on April 22, 2019 [9 favorites]
It's pretty understandable for them to say "Don't rock the boat" when they are comfortably inside the boat.
posted by srboisvert at 10:02 AM on April 22, 2019 [9 favorites]
Buzzfeed: Trump Is Suing House Democrats To Stop A Subpoena To His Accountant
Cummings responds, “The president has a long history of trying to use baseless lawsuits to attack his adversaries, but there is simply no valid legal basis to interfere with this duly authorized subpoena from Congress. This complaint reads more like political talking points than a reasoned legal brief, and it contains a litany of inaccurate information. The White House is engaged in unprecedented stonewalling on all fronts, and they have refused to produce a single document or witness to the Oversight Committee during this entire year.” (Via ABC)
And Fox News legal analyst Andrew Napolitano breaks the bad news to the MAGAudience, “The complaint actually asks the court to second guess Congress’s motivation and courts are reluctant to do that because the courts and the Congress are equal branches of government and don’t get in the business of second guessing the motivation of either. […] Congress will have to state for what purpose they want this. It is a low threshold. […] Once they state something even related to a congressional purpose the court, I think, will allow this to go through.” (Via Rawstory)
posted by Doktor Zed at 10:06 AM on April 22, 2019 [19 favorites]
Cummings responds, “The president has a long history of trying to use baseless lawsuits to attack his adversaries, but there is simply no valid legal basis to interfere with this duly authorized subpoena from Congress. This complaint reads more like political talking points than a reasoned legal brief, and it contains a litany of inaccurate information. The White House is engaged in unprecedented stonewalling on all fronts, and they have refused to produce a single document or witness to the Oversight Committee during this entire year.” (Via ABC)
And Fox News legal analyst Andrew Napolitano breaks the bad news to the MAGAudience, “The complaint actually asks the court to second guess Congress’s motivation and courts are reluctant to do that because the courts and the Congress are equal branches of government and don’t get in the business of second guessing the motivation of either. […] Congress will have to state for what purpose they want this. It is a low threshold. […] Once they state something even related to a congressional purpose the court, I think, will allow this to go through.” (Via Rawstory)
posted by Doktor Zed at 10:06 AM on April 22, 2019 [19 favorites]
The Democrat’s policy of “wait until you see the whites of their eyes” is so unnecessary; the Muller report plus current and announced investigations are bloody cannons. You can fire on the enemy in their bunker and do massive damage.
Come on Democrats, do MASSIVE damage.
posted by Gadgetenvy at 10:12 AM on April 22, 2019 [5 favorites]
Come on Democrats, do MASSIVE damage.
posted by Gadgetenvy at 10:12 AM on April 22, 2019 [5 favorites]
Impeachment proceedings in the House would be constant investigation ...
There seems to be some confusion about this. Impeachment proceedings do not lead to investigations. Investigations lead to impeachment proceedings. Impeachment proceedings are simply a debate on the floor about whether there is sufficient evidence from the previous investigations to proceed with an impeachment vote.
This idea that there need to be impeachment proceedings to have investigations is wrong, putting the cart before the horse. Congress is proceeding exactly as required, opening multiple investigations before deciding to impeach.
If they do decide to vote on impeachment in the House, it is not the opening of investigations. It is the conclusion, involving days of impassioned speeches on both sides. You better have your ducks in a row before you start that, as seen by the results of the Kavanaugh proceedings.
posted by JackFlash at 10:19 AM on April 22, 2019 [23 favorites]
There seems to be some confusion about this. Impeachment proceedings do not lead to investigations. Investigations lead to impeachment proceedings. Impeachment proceedings are simply a debate on the floor about whether there is sufficient evidence from the previous investigations to proceed with an impeachment vote.
This idea that there need to be impeachment proceedings to have investigations is wrong, putting the cart before the horse. Congress is proceeding exactly as required, opening multiple investigations before deciding to impeach.
If they do decide to vote on impeachment in the House, it is not the opening of investigations. It is the conclusion, involving days of impassioned speeches on both sides. You better have your ducks in a row before you start that, as seen by the results of the Kavanaugh proceedings.
posted by JackFlash at 10:19 AM on April 22, 2019 [23 favorites]
tivalasvegas: I don't think any one is calling for like, a "vote to impeach" Monday after next?
OnceUponATime: I think a fairly nontrivial group does feel more or less that way. If a Democratic politician were quoted in a headline saying they hope Trump is impeached before autumn, the various webbernet comments would be filled with people characterizing that as a perfect example of Democratic fecklessness and foot-dragging.
OnceUponATime, I assume tiva was talking about people in this particular webbernet. I don't think it's helpful to drag in theoretical people from other places to make your argument against.
posted by diogenes at 10:25 AM on April 22, 2019
OnceUponATime: I think a fairly nontrivial group does feel more or less that way. If a Democratic politician were quoted in a headline saying they hope Trump is impeached before autumn, the various webbernet comments would be filled with people characterizing that as a perfect example of Democratic fecklessness and foot-dragging.
OnceUponATime, I assume tiva was talking about people in this particular webbernet. I don't think it's helpful to drag in theoretical people from other places to make your argument against.
posted by diogenes at 10:25 AM on April 22, 2019
Sasha Abramsky, Truthout: What Happens if Trump Breaks All The Laws?
So far, the bureaucracies and the courts have held him back just enough to preserve at least the tattered remnants of a constitutional system. So far, Trump has been more of a wannabe-dictator than a true tyrant. That could now be changing.
If Trump believes he, as president, is above the law —if he orders his bureaucrats to violate the law, fires those who refuse to go along, and pardons those yes-men and yes-women who so shamefully carry out his orders — then nothing is left of that system of checks and balances. At that point, we will have fully slid into dictatorship, and Trump’s Führerprinzip — the replacing of loyalty to constitution with loyalty to the person of the leader — will have become the de facto law of the land.
posted by 6thsense at 10:31 AM on April 22, 2019 [17 favorites]
So far, the bureaucracies and the courts have held him back just enough to preserve at least the tattered remnants of a constitutional system. So far, Trump has been more of a wannabe-dictator than a true tyrant. That could now be changing.
If Trump believes he, as president, is above the law —if he orders his bureaucrats to violate the law, fires those who refuse to go along, and pardons those yes-men and yes-women who so shamefully carry out his orders — then nothing is left of that system of checks and balances. At that point, we will have fully slid into dictatorship, and Trump’s Führerprinzip — the replacing of loyalty to constitution with loyalty to the person of the leader — will have become the de facto law of the land.
posted by 6thsense at 10:31 AM on April 22, 2019 [17 favorites]
OnceUponATime: I think a fairly nontrivial group [...]
The quoted comment was by InTheYear2017, not me.
posted by OnceUponATime at 10:32 AM on April 22, 2019
The quoted comment was by InTheYear2017, not me.
posted by OnceUponATime at 10:32 AM on April 22, 2019
Herman Cain withdraws from consideration for the Fed.
posted by Melismata at 10:32 AM on April 22, 2019 [22 favorites]
posted by Melismata at 10:32 AM on April 22, 2019 [22 favorites]
To diogenes, tivalasvegas, OnceUponATime: I don't know my exact reasoning but I may have misunderstood the bit about Facebook as a desire to avoid controversy of any sort, so yeah, my mistake there.
posted by InTheYear2017 at 10:35 AM on April 22, 2019 [2 favorites]
posted by InTheYear2017 at 10:35 AM on April 22, 2019 [2 favorites]
If Trump believes he, as president, is above the law —if he orders his bureaucrats to violate the law, fires those who refuse to go along, and pardons those yes-men and yes-women who so shamefully carry out his orders — then nothing is left of that system of checks and balances.
I'm confused by the "if" here. He did all of those things weeks ago. (He didn't pardon anybody, but he promised he would.)
posted by diogenes at 10:37 AM on April 22, 2019 [10 favorites]
I'm confused by the "if" here. He did all of those things weeks ago. (He didn't pardon anybody, but he promised he would.)
posted by diogenes at 10:37 AM on April 22, 2019 [10 favorites]
angrycat: I decided to read some books about climate change to cheer myself up, and so I'm seeing everything through that lens, and one of my thoughts is how are we going to take on the corporate powers that be and reduce carbon emissions if we can't move to impeach when we have an ineluctable mountain of evidence of impeachable offenses before us?
As a coalition of progressive states: The United States Climate Alliance is a bipartisan coalition of states and unincorporated self-governing territories in the United States that are committed to upholding the objectives of the 2015 Paris Agreement on climate change within their borders, by achieving the U.S. goal of reducing greenhouse gas (carbon dioxide equivalent) economy-wide emissions 26–28% from 2005 levels by 2025 and meeting or exceeding the targets of the federal Clean Power Plan. (Wikipedia) It's currently up to 22 states.
Plans are in development right now at the state level. It won't be easy work, and while it would be AMAZING if it were a national push, this allows each state to develop a unique plan.
There's also the Mayors National Climate Action Agenda (Wikipedia), consisting of 407 cities and nearly 20% of the U.S. population.
posted by filthy light thief at 10:45 AM on April 22, 2019 [25 favorites]
As a coalition of progressive states: The United States Climate Alliance is a bipartisan coalition of states and unincorporated self-governing territories in the United States that are committed to upholding the objectives of the 2015 Paris Agreement on climate change within their borders, by achieving the U.S. goal of reducing greenhouse gas (carbon dioxide equivalent) economy-wide emissions 26–28% from 2005 levels by 2025 and meeting or exceeding the targets of the federal Clean Power Plan. (Wikipedia) It's currently up to 22 states.
Plans are in development right now at the state level. It won't be easy work, and while it would be AMAZING if it were a national push, this allows each state to develop a unique plan.
There's also the Mayors National Climate Action Agenda (Wikipedia), consisting of 407 cities and nearly 20% of the U.S. population.
posted by filthy light thief at 10:45 AM on April 22, 2019 [25 favorites]
More polls out of the early states! Buttigieg may be starting to cannibalize Biden's support. He's clearly in third place now, sometimes a very strong third place.
posted by Justinian at 10:45 AM on April 22, 2019 [4 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 10:45 AM on April 22, 2019 [4 favorites]
Mark Joseph Stern: The Supreme Court’s New LGBTQ Cases Could Demolish Sex Discrimination Law As We Know It
Today’s near-universal acceptance that Title VII bars workplace sexual harassment would probably be shocking to Rep. Howard Smith—just as shocking as the developing consensus that the law bars LGBTQ discrimination. And therein lies the profound danger of the coming Supreme Court cases. If the conservative majority interprets Title VII by speculating how the law was originally understood, it will clear away decades of precedent protecting not just LGBTQ people, but also women, and anyone who does not conform to an employer’s expectations of gender norms. Price Waterhouse will be gone. So will Meritor Savings Bank. So too will thousands of lower courts decisions rooted in the doctrines that courts have developed to interpret the law’s sweeping yet hazy command.posted by zombieflanders at 10:46 AM on April 22, 2019 [14 favorites]
There is another way. In the absence of any evidence of what Congress meant to do in 1964, judges should look at the text of the law. The statute’s text forbids employers from taking sex into account when penalizing a worker. And no employer can punish an employee on the basis of their LGBTQ status without taking their sex into account.
Perhaps Chief Justice John Roberts will join the liberals in embracing this definition. During arguments in Obergefell v. Hodges, Roberts appeared to embrace the reasoning that anti-gay discrimination is sex discrimination, stating: “If Sue loves Joe and Tom loves Joe, Sue can marry him and Tom can’t. And the difference is based upon their different sex. Why isn’t that a straightforward question of sexual discrimination?” Yet Roberts’ eventual dissent in Obergefell evinced a profound hostility to the rights of sexual minorities and made no mention of the sex discrimination analogy.
Which way will Roberts lean now? It is a safe bet that his four arch-conservative colleagues are prepared to vote against LGBTQ rights under the pretense of judicial modesty. There is an outside chance that Roberts will resist the urge to cast a political vote and prioritize the text of Title VII instead. But that outcome seems unlikely. Roberts’ Obergefell dissent indicated that the chief justice is unwilling to interpret the laws and the Constitution to safeguard LGBTQ people, even when, as he seemed to admit during oral arguments, there is a strong case for doing so. If he and the conservative justices sever LGBTQ people from Title VII, they will have favored partisan biases over the text of federal law—and launched on assault on federal civil rights law as we know it, one that puts millions of Americans in jeopardy.
> Herman Cain withdraws from consideration for the Fed.
CNN: Herman Cain withdraws from Fed consideration, Trump says
posted by RedOrGreen at 10:51 AM on April 22, 2019 [3 favorites]
CNN: Herman Cain withdraws from Fed consideration, Trump says
In a tweet, Trump announced that the former Republican presidential candidate, a "truly wonderful man," has asked not to be nominated for a seat on the board of the world's most influential central bank. ... [Cain] faced an uphill battle largely due to the revival of sexual harassment allegations that effectively ended his 2012 campaign. Cain has continued to deny the claims, most recently on Thursday. But four Republican senators have already said they would not vote to confirm Cain, leaving him no clear path.The laws of arithmetic win again.
posted by RedOrGreen at 10:51 AM on April 22, 2019 [3 favorites]
I've got one more link I want to share. Even though I am going with the formulation "unwitting agent" (because it captures the fact that even though there was never a formal agreement, Trump was acting to advance Russian interests) I am NOT on board with the "no collusion" spin. Because "collusion" is a broader term than "conspiracy to violate election laws."
Via the Moscow Project...
MUELLER FOUND EVIDENCE OF COLLUSION
posted by OnceUponATime at 10:59 AM on April 22, 2019 [38 favorites]
Via the Moscow Project...
MUELLER FOUND EVIDENCE OF COLLUSION
-Trump knew about Russia’s interference and asked Manafort to keep him “updated” on WikiLeaks.I am still working on incorporating these points into the "collusion" sections of my own site.
-Trump’s campaign chairman discussed the campaign’s strategy for winning Democratic votes in midwestern states and continuously shared polling data with a Russian intelligence agent.
-The Trump Campaign developed a whole campaign plan based on their knowledge that more WikiLeaks releases were coming.
-The Trump campaign knew it was coordinating with a Russian “spy.”
-Russian intelligence gave Roger Stone the Democrats’ turnout model for the “entire presidential campaign.”
-Trump directed his campaign to get Clinton emails in an effort that included outreach to Russia.
posted by OnceUponATime at 10:59 AM on April 22, 2019 [38 favorites]
WaPo OpEd by Jennifer Rubin, A brutal Sunday for Trump, has a few choice passages of Kellyanne Conway and Rudy Giuliani lying through their teeth on the Sunday TV shows...
RADDATZ: Please answer that question, Kellyanne. It’s the only question …
CHUCK TODD: Why did the president think it was ethical to essentially trumpet what WikiLeaks was doing?
Which - weak sauce, but I guess some fraction of the country still attaches a lot of importance to what is discussed on these shows?
posted by RedOrGreen at 11:03 AM on April 22, 2019 [5 favorites]
RADDATZ: Please answer that question, Kellyanne. It’s the only question …
CHUCK TODD: Why did the president think it was ethical to essentially trumpet what WikiLeaks was doing?
Which - weak sauce, but I guess some fraction of the country still attaches a lot of importance to what is discussed on these shows?
posted by RedOrGreen at 11:03 AM on April 22, 2019 [5 favorites]
About one year after the United States decided to leave the Iran nuclear deal, the State Department is set to announce that all countries will have to completely end their imports of Iranian oil or be subject to U.S. sanctions.
Starting a military war with Iran, while also fighting trade wars against China and Europe, is a pretty bold move. Trump must be terrified of what the subpoenas will uncover, if he's wagging the dog this hard. If Dems don't see the big red flashing alarm over this situation, they should — it really does seem like it is now or never for impeachment.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 11:05 AM on April 22, 2019 [7 favorites]
Starting a military war with Iran, while also fighting trade wars against China and Europe, is a pretty bold move. Trump must be terrified of what the subpoenas will uncover, if he's wagging the dog this hard. If Dems don't see the big red flashing alarm over this situation, they should — it really does seem like it is now or never for impeachment.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 11:05 AM on April 22, 2019 [7 favorites]
News You May Have Missed for 22 April: a few less visible points on the Mueller report, the killing of journalist Lyra McKee, catastrophe in Sri Lanka, Extinction Rebellion, and the order to decolonize the Chagos Islands.
posted by joannemerriam at 11:06 AM on April 22, 2019 [5 favorites]
posted by joannemerriam at 11:06 AM on April 22, 2019 [5 favorites]
electoral-vote.com, re the case for not pursuing impeachment:
What the Democrats are thinking about is the Bill Clinton impeachment of 1998, which not only failed to secure a conviction, but also ginned up the Democratic base, and so backfired against the Republicans. And that was with a president who did not have Twitter or a penchant for publicly blasting his enemies in coarse language. There is every reason to think that, in the hands of Donald Trump, an impeachment would give him exactly what he needs to drive his base into a frenzy. It might also serve to persuade Independents that the blue team is "just as bad" as the red team, and that both major parties are basically the same. So, the political risks here are significant.posted by springo at 11:10 AM on April 22, 2019 [4 favorites]
At the same time, the benefits of impeachment would not appear to be all that great. There is little chance of a conviction, given the GOP-controlled Senate, and even if Trump somehow was removed, it would be with less than a year left in his presidency. You suggest that an impeachment proceeding would allow the Democrats to lay out the evidence against him, but the fact is that everyone who hates Trump already knows what they need to know. An impeachment proceeding would not have much impact in terms of opening voters' eyes, or giving them information they didn't already have.
The Democratic strategy, as we have pointed out, is effectively to use the 2020 elections to impeach Trump, but with the voters, rather than the Senate, serving as jury. The behavior in the Mueller report is not going to drop off the radar, and while the Democrats don't want to lay the anti-Trump stuff on too thick, there will be a theme of "If you want a corrupt President, vote for Trump, if you want one with integrity, vote for us."
The blue team also expects that, as in 2018, Trump will drag the overall ticket down. They are looking forward to that. In fact, it might be more correct to say they are drooling. If Mitt Romney or some more normal Republican is atop the ticket, a second blue wave probably becomes less likely.
Even though I am going with the formulation "unwitting agent" (because it captures the fact that even though there was never a formal agreement, Trump was acting to advance Russian interests)
I don't understand this reasoning. Unwitting means without being aware, or unintentionally. He knew what Russia was doing for him (and had over him), and he advanced their interests accordingly. How does a formal agreement factor into whether or not he was aware of what was happening? (I get how it factors into provable conspiracy vs collusion.)
posted by diogenes at 11:15 AM on April 22, 2019 [8 favorites]
I don't understand this reasoning. Unwitting means without being aware, or unintentionally. He knew what Russia was doing for him (and had over him), and he advanced their interests accordingly. How does a formal agreement factor into whether or not he was aware of what was happening? (I get how it factors into provable conspiracy vs collusion.)
posted by diogenes at 11:15 AM on April 22, 2019 [8 favorites]
> electoral-vote.com, re the case for not pursuing impeachment
Counterpoint - here's a former Republican writing in to Josh Marshall (TPM Prime, paywall):
Counterpoint - here's a former Republican writing in to Josh Marshall (TPM Prime, paywall):
If the Republicans had even 10% of the facts of national betrayal and personal gain that Mueller has provided to the country and the Democrats, the GOP would be wall to wall impeachment/investigation for a simple reason, you don’t have to actually attain your stated goal to politically justify an investigation or impeachment. The prosecuting party simply has to satisfy itself that the process will sufficiently damage the target to justify the risk that you will turn off some voters. ... Sen. Warren is right. Move for impeachment. Energize, persuade and deflate. Those are all different groups but impeachment should be pursued to communicate with all of them.posted by RedOrGreen at 11:17 AM on April 22, 2019 [25 favorites]
Here's David Atkins at The American Prospect on The Bad History Informing the Impeachment Debate: tl;dr - both the circumstances of Clinton's impeachment, and the tenor of the (peaceful, prosperous, not nearly as divided politically) times are so different in 1998 than they are now in 2019 that we can't even compare them. Impeaching Trump is nothing like impeaching Clinton and will not have the same blowback. (And, as others in this here thread have pointed out, you don't just say "You're impeached! Bye now!" Just as criminal trials are not Perry Mason. It's a long, patient process. Getting evidence in front of the public is important.)
Adkins also notes the folly of being afraid of a progressive candidate for 2020. The much-maligned Walter Mondale wasn't even that much of a liberal:
posted by Rosie M. Banks at 11:39 AM on April 22, 2019 [12 favorites]
Adkins also notes the folly of being afraid of a progressive candidate for 2020. The much-maligned Walter Mondale wasn't even that much of a liberal:
In 1972 and 1984, conservatives were on the upswing, aided by a Southern strategy that gradually realigned racist Dixiecrats into the GOP fold. Democrats wouldn’t win a majority of the popular vote in a presidential election until 1996—and even when they did, anti-government, anti-regulatory orthodoxy held bipartisan sway. Mondale was a deficit hawk who promised to cut spending; the idea that he turned off centrist voters with his ultra-liberal schemes is ahistorical as well.If nothing else, this is a good argument for putting younger (born after 1960, Obama's contemporaries or later) Congresspeople and Senators in office. They won't be imprinted by, and afraid of, memories of the past. I bet you anything that is why Steny Hoyer said "no impeachment" - he's in his late 70's and is probably thinking of the disaster that was the Clinton impeachment, misty water colored memories of Tip-n-Ronnie, etc. Times have changed.
posted by Rosie M. Banks at 11:39 AM on April 22, 2019 [12 favorites]
Another point to remember is that constant investigation kept Hillary out of the White House, because it fed the narrative consistently that she was corrupt.
Democrats don't have the advantage of a complicit media willing to tell the truth about Republicans, but House Democrats can certainly drown members of the GOP in investigations and comments, and drive a similar narrative all the way to Election Day. If Trump remains the candidate, he remains a target. Let's make headlines.
posted by Autumnheart at 11:44 AM on April 22, 2019 [31 favorites]
Democrats don't have the advantage of a complicit media willing to tell the truth about Republicans, but House Democrats can certainly drown members of the GOP in investigations and comments, and drive a similar narrative all the way to Election Day. If Trump remains the candidate, he remains a target. Let's make headlines.
posted by Autumnheart at 11:44 AM on April 22, 2019 [31 favorites]
(After all, Twitter is just as effective a news source as the traditional media these days, so...)
posted by Autumnheart at 11:45 AM on April 22, 2019
posted by Autumnheart at 11:45 AM on April 22, 2019
How does a formal agreement factor into whether or not he was aware of what was happening?
If I say someone is a "Russian agent" you would normally think that person is loyal to Russia. Trump is not loyal to anyone except himself. He was not consciously working to further Russia's ends. He was working to further his own ends. He was aware of what Russia was doing, but he was only dimly aware, if at all, that he was just another one of Russia's tools.
Timothy Snyder, in The Road to Unfreedom, calls Trump "the payload of a cyberweapon, meant to create chaos and weakness."
I think that's right. The payload of weapon does a lot of damage. But it does not choose where to do that damage. It does not consciously seek to do damage. It goes where it is pointed and blows itself up in the process of blowing up its target. Russia doesn't care what happens to Trump, as long as he damages America in the process of self destructing.
He's a tool. And "unwitting agent" is the best way I have found to express that besides actually saying "tool."
posted by OnceUponATime at 11:48 AM on April 22, 2019 [18 favorites]
If I say someone is a "Russian agent" you would normally think that person is loyal to Russia. Trump is not loyal to anyone except himself. He was not consciously working to further Russia's ends. He was working to further his own ends. He was aware of what Russia was doing, but he was only dimly aware, if at all, that he was just another one of Russia's tools.
Timothy Snyder, in The Road to Unfreedom, calls Trump "the payload of a cyberweapon, meant to create chaos and weakness."
I think that's right. The payload of weapon does a lot of damage. But it does not choose where to do that damage. It does not consciously seek to do damage. It goes where it is pointed and blows itself up in the process of blowing up its target. Russia doesn't care what happens to Trump, as long as he damages America in the process of self destructing.
He's a tool. And "unwitting agent" is the best way I have found to express that besides actually saying "tool."
posted by OnceUponATime at 11:48 AM on April 22, 2019 [18 favorites]
Actually everywhere I say "Russia" I should say "Putin." Regular Russian people are people and want all kinds of different things, generally having nothing to do with Trump. The motives I am discussing are Putin's motives.
posted by OnceUponATime at 12:01 PM on April 22, 2019 [21 favorites]
posted by OnceUponATime at 12:01 PM on April 22, 2019 [21 favorites]
If I say someone is a "Russian agent" you would normally think that person is loyal to Russia. Trump is not loyal to anyone except himself. He was not consciously working to further Russia's ends.
Isn't his behavior in Helsinki evidence that he is loyal to Russia and consciously working to further Russia's ends?
posted by diogenes at 12:03 PM on April 22, 2019 [4 favorites]
Isn't his behavior in Helsinki evidence that he is loyal to Russia and consciously working to further Russia's ends?
posted by diogenes at 12:03 PM on April 22, 2019 [4 favorites]
Isn't his behavior in Helsinki evidence that he is loyal to Russia and consciously working to further Russia's ends?
I'd say his behavior there (and repeatedly elsewhere) shows that he's terrified of what Putin has on him and craves what Putin offers him. Evidence that he's capable of loyalty to anything is pretty much zero.
posted by bcd at 12:13 PM on April 22, 2019 [12 favorites]
I'd say his behavior there (and repeatedly elsewhere) shows that he's terrified of what Putin has on him and craves what Putin offers him. Evidence that he's capable of loyalty to anything is pretty much zero.
posted by bcd at 12:13 PM on April 22, 2019 [12 favorites]
Isn't his behavior in Helsinki evidence that he is loyal to Russia and consciously working to further Russia's ends?
Sort of. I mean, it shows how much under Putin's control Trump is.
That behavior made him look foolish and weak, and heightened the urgency of the investigations he assumed would be the end of his presidency. Republican senators went on the record criticizing him for that!
So Putin got Trump to do something which was very much NOT in Trump's own political interests. We don't actually know what they said to each other (because they did not allow witnesses to their meeting) but I think it's likely Putin used some bullshit line as well as maybe some implied threats and bribes to convince Trump that sucking up like that would somehow benefit Trump politically. Yes, you'd have to be an idiot to believe that, but I think Trump is an idiot.
It's easier for me to believe that Trump bought a line of crap from Putin about how that press conference would benefit them both, than to believe that Trump was actually sacrificing his own political capital to help Putin. Trump does not sacrifice anything for anyone, you know?
And I think, just like Trump was surprised that Democrats weren't happy about his firing of Comey, he was surprised by the backlash to that summit.
posted by OnceUponATime at 12:19 PM on April 22, 2019 [7 favorites]
Sort of. I mean, it shows how much under Putin's control Trump is.
That behavior made him look foolish and weak, and heightened the urgency of the investigations he assumed would be the end of his presidency. Republican senators went on the record criticizing him for that!
So Putin got Trump to do something which was very much NOT in Trump's own political interests. We don't actually know what they said to each other (because they did not allow witnesses to their meeting) but I think it's likely Putin used some bullshit line as well as maybe some implied threats and bribes to convince Trump that sucking up like that would somehow benefit Trump politically. Yes, you'd have to be an idiot to believe that, but I think Trump is an idiot.
It's easier for me to believe that Trump bought a line of crap from Putin about how that press conference would benefit them both, than to believe that Trump was actually sacrificing his own political capital to help Putin. Trump does not sacrifice anything for anyone, you know?
And I think, just like Trump was surprised that Democrats weren't happy about his firing of Comey, he was surprised by the backlash to that summit.
posted by OnceUponATime at 12:19 PM on April 22, 2019 [7 favorites]
I keep saying the only plausible defense of Trump is the "too stupid to collude" defense.
I think Trump was too stupid NOT to collude. Some strangers offered him candy, and he willingly got in the van.
posted by OnceUponATime at 12:21 PM on April 22, 2019 [15 favorites]
I think Trump was too stupid NOT to collude. Some strangers offered him candy, and he willingly got in the van.
posted by OnceUponATime at 12:21 PM on April 22, 2019 [15 favorites]
If Dems don't see the big red flashing alarm over [the Iran sanctions], they should — it really does seem like it is now or never for impeachment.
Eh, I don't think the Iranians are interested in a hot war. I mean consider how that plays out for a minute: the US probably doesn't have the motivation for a sustained ground campaign, but fucking other people's shit up from afar—preferably not followed by a ground campaign where we inherit the mess—is basically our specialty. Giving the US an excuse to play Tomahawk target practice with their oil refineries, airfields, power plants, etc. while in the meantime they... what, exactly? Threaten Iraq, which the current administration doesn't give a shit about? Threaten Israel, so they join in the fun? Same with the Saudis. No, my guess is that the Iranians would like the remaining US forces to leave their backyard and mooning the Eye of Sauron that is the US DoD doesn't seem to further that.
Plus, purely domestically, reducing the supply of petroleum by basically turning off the Iranian taps helps the US petroleum industry, which has recently become big enough to be a net exporter. And while it's largely concentrated in red states, there's quite a bit of drilling and other activity in swing and blue states. So while an oil price runup would probably be bad for American consumers who have no choice but to put gas in their cars, it might actually help key industries and could cause currently-marginal shale areas that have been idled (e.g. 'enhanced recovery' Marcellus formation stuff) to come back online. The calculus there isn't clear-cut, at least.
Not coincidentally, I think it's this latter reasoning that is the whole point of not renewing the exemptions. It's bad for the Iranians, good for the US oil industry, and creates a media distraction. From the Trump administration's perspective there's no reason not to do it, but on the list of totally geopolitically nonsensical things they've done it's not even top 5.
However, causing gas prices to shoot up suddenly, right before an election, doesn't seem too bright; one would think that would hurt the incumbent party. But it's possible, given what we've seen elsewhere from Team Trump, that their planning horizon isn't that long.
posted by Kadin2048 at 12:28 PM on April 22, 2019 [4 favorites]
Eh, I don't think the Iranians are interested in a hot war. I mean consider how that plays out for a minute: the US probably doesn't have the motivation for a sustained ground campaign, but fucking other people's shit up from afar—preferably not followed by a ground campaign where we inherit the mess—is basically our specialty. Giving the US an excuse to play Tomahawk target practice with their oil refineries, airfields, power plants, etc. while in the meantime they... what, exactly? Threaten Iraq, which the current administration doesn't give a shit about? Threaten Israel, so they join in the fun? Same with the Saudis. No, my guess is that the Iranians would like the remaining US forces to leave their backyard and mooning the Eye of Sauron that is the US DoD doesn't seem to further that.
Plus, purely domestically, reducing the supply of petroleum by basically turning off the Iranian taps helps the US petroleum industry, which has recently become big enough to be a net exporter. And while it's largely concentrated in red states, there's quite a bit of drilling and other activity in swing and blue states. So while an oil price runup would probably be bad for American consumers who have no choice but to put gas in their cars, it might actually help key industries and could cause currently-marginal shale areas that have been idled (e.g. 'enhanced recovery' Marcellus formation stuff) to come back online. The calculus there isn't clear-cut, at least.
Not coincidentally, I think it's this latter reasoning that is the whole point of not renewing the exemptions. It's bad for the Iranians, good for the US oil industry, and creates a media distraction. From the Trump administration's perspective there's no reason not to do it, but on the list of totally geopolitically nonsensical things they've done it's not even top 5.
However, causing gas prices to shoot up suddenly, right before an election, doesn't seem too bright; one would think that would hurt the incumbent party. But it's possible, given what we've seen elsewhere from Team Trump, that their planning horizon isn't that long.
posted by Kadin2048 at 12:28 PM on April 22, 2019 [4 favorites]
I'd say his behavior there (and repeatedly elsewhere) shows that he's terrified of what Putin has on him
Not enough is being made of the fact that every single one of the contacts between the Trump campaign and the Russians involves kompromat. The mere fact that the Trump people were willing to talk to the Russians was dirt the Russians had on them, and therefore Trump began his presidency compromised by a hostile foreign power.
The so-called "liberal media" is dancing around the subject, but I'll go ahead and say it: Trump's victory was barely legitimate if at all, and his governing style has made his regime even less so. The Mueller report is the final nail in the coffin; Trump's presidency is not legitimate.
posted by Gelatin at 12:33 PM on April 22, 2019 [30 favorites]
Not enough is being made of the fact that every single one of the contacts between the Trump campaign and the Russians involves kompromat. The mere fact that the Trump people were willing to talk to the Russians was dirt the Russians had on them, and therefore Trump began his presidency compromised by a hostile foreign power.
The so-called "liberal media" is dancing around the subject, but I'll go ahead and say it: Trump's victory was barely legitimate if at all, and his governing style has made his regime even less so. The Mueller report is the final nail in the coffin; Trump's presidency is not legitimate.
posted by Gelatin at 12:33 PM on April 22, 2019 [30 favorites]
he's terrified of what Putin has on him
Is anyone speculating that any of this made it into the Mueller Report? This is the most compelling part of the whole scandal.
posted by chaz at 12:37 PM on April 22, 2019 [1 favorite]
Is anyone speculating that any of this made it into the Mueller Report? This is the most compelling part of the whole scandal.
posted by chaz at 12:37 PM on April 22, 2019 [1 favorite]
Nancy Pelosi sent out a letter to Democratic colleagues this afternoon in regard to the redacted Mueller Report. The bottom line is that she's still trying to argue for the House to proceed gradually and methodically, even as #ImpeachTrump trends on Twitter:
posted by Doktor Zed at 12:42 PM on April 22, 2019 [6 favorites]
While our views range from proceeding to investigate the findings of the Mueller report or proceeding directly to impeachment, we all firmly agree that we should proceed down a path of finding the truth. It is also important to know that the facts regarding holding the President accountable can be gained outside of impeachment hearings. As we proceed to uncover the truth and present additional needed reforms to protect our democracy, we must show the American people we are proceeding free from passion or prejudice, strictly on the presentation of fact.[…]This messaging to the media leaves a lot to be desired, e.g. "Pelosi Cautions on Impeachment as She Decries Trump's Ethics" (NYT), "Pelosi tamps down impeachment expectations" (Politico), "Pelosi says Democrats can hold Trump accountable without impeachment hearings" (WaPo), and "Pelosi faces mounting Trump impeachment pressure from Dem ranks after Mueller report" (Fox).
Whether currently indictable or not, it is clear that the President has, at a minimum, engaged in highly unethical and unscrupulous behavior which does not bring honor to the office he holds. It is also clear that the Congressional Republicans have an unlimited appetite for such low standards. The GOP should be ashamed of what the Mueller report has revealed, instead of giving the President their blessings.
posted by Doktor Zed at 12:42 PM on April 22, 2019 [6 favorites]
"Congressional Republicans have an unlimited appetite for such low standards" is pretty slick, in my opinion, though others in the party will have to translate it to something bumper-sticker-sized.
posted by InTheYear2017 at 12:49 PM on April 22, 2019 [10 favorites]
posted by InTheYear2017 at 12:49 PM on April 22, 2019 [10 favorites]
Real Law Review
Mueller Report: A Lawyer's Analysis
Mueller Report: The 9 Things That Don't Make Sense About the Barr Letter
Lawsplainer: Can the President Be Indicted?
posted by kirkaracha at 12:59 PM on April 22, 2019 [6 favorites]
Mueller Report: A Lawyer's Analysis
Mueller Report: The 9 Things That Don't Make Sense About the Barr Letter
Lawsplainer: Can the President Be Indicted?
posted by kirkaracha at 12:59 PM on April 22, 2019 [6 favorites]
Dems are making the "impeachment question" complicated, when it's simple:
"We will hold hearings on what Trump did wrong--including things Mueller didn't even consider (like corruption).
At the end of the hearings, we will decide what punishment we support."
posted by growabrain at 1:25 PM on April 22, 2019 [17 favorites]
"We will hold hearings on what Trump did wrong--including things Mueller didn't even consider (like corruption).
At the end of the hearings, we will decide what punishment we support."
posted by growabrain at 1:25 PM on April 22, 2019 [17 favorites]
and so backfired against the Republicans.
Backfired so terribly that they won the Presidency, House and Senate 20 months later.
posted by chris24 at 1:56 PM on April 22, 2019 [12 favorites]
Backfired so terribly that they won the Presidency, House and Senate 20 months later.
posted by chris24 at 1:56 PM on April 22, 2019 [12 favorites]
@scottwongDC [statement attached]: Judiciary Chair @RepJerryNadler issues subpoena for former Trump WH counsel Don McGahn
Wants documents from him by May 7th and public testimony May 21.
posted by zachlipton at 2:09 PM on April 22, 2019 [25 favorites]
Wants documents from him by May 7th and public testimony May 21.
posted by zachlipton at 2:09 PM on April 22, 2019 [25 favorites]
Wants documents from him by May 7th and public testimony May 21.
Link to the Subpoena. See page 3, it reads like a laundry list of Obstruction of Justice questions.
posted by Xyanthilous P. Harrierstick at 2:13 PM on April 22, 2019 [7 favorites]
Link to the Subpoena. See page 3, it reads like a laundry list of Obstruction of Justice questions.
posted by Xyanthilous P. Harrierstick at 2:13 PM on April 22, 2019 [7 favorites]
WaPo, Trump sues in bid to block congressional subpoena of financial records, in which Trump's legal argument runs into a small problem:
posted by zachlipton at 2:15 PM on April 22, 2019 [56 favorites]
In Trump’s lawsuit, his attorneys cited a Supreme Court decision called Kilbourn v. Thompson, which found “no express power” in the Constitution for Congress to investigate individuals without pending legislation.We can all thank the Teapot Dome scandal for that.
The problem with that argument, said University of Baltimore Law Professor Charles Tiefer, is that Kilbourn v. Thompson is a case from 1880.
And it was overruled by a decision in 1927, Tiefer said.
“It has not been followed for the last 90 years,” Tiefer said of the 1880 decision. Instead, the 1927 ruling found Congress has much wider powers to investigate — and courts since then have let that interpretation stand and even reinforced it.
posted by zachlipton at 2:15 PM on April 22, 2019 [56 favorites]
Speaking of tax returns, this is curious.
Folks have looked back at Bernie Sanders' FEC filings for his 2016 campaign. There are a couple of interesting entries. There are two campaign payments totaling almost $450,000 paid to Verso Books. Verso Books is the publisher of Bernie Sanders' book Outsider in the White House.
Then there is Sanders' recently released tax return for 2016 which shows $840,000 in royalties received for his books.
Presumably his campaign purchased a lot of his books and gave them out as rewards to certain donors. This wouldn't be too unusual. The unknown question is if any royalties for those books purchased by his campaign flowed to him. That would be converting donor dollars to his own pocket.
Unfortunately Sanders' Schedule C doesn't break down exactly which books are totaled in his royalties. The royalties on his 2016 tax return could have been for other books he had in the works. And that doesn't indicate what happened to the royalties for his Verso books purchased with campaign funds.
He reported $10,600 in charity donations, so that is one possibility for the royalties. Or he might have waived his royalties to the publisher in exchange for a lower price on the books his campaign purchased. This might all be perfectly innocent, but an explanation is owed.
posted by JackFlash at 2:19 PM on April 22, 2019 [14 favorites]
Folks have looked back at Bernie Sanders' FEC filings for his 2016 campaign. There are a couple of interesting entries. There are two campaign payments totaling almost $450,000 paid to Verso Books. Verso Books is the publisher of Bernie Sanders' book Outsider in the White House.
Then there is Sanders' recently released tax return for 2016 which shows $840,000 in royalties received for his books.
Presumably his campaign purchased a lot of his books and gave them out as rewards to certain donors. This wouldn't be too unusual. The unknown question is if any royalties for those books purchased by his campaign flowed to him. That would be converting donor dollars to his own pocket.
Unfortunately Sanders' Schedule C doesn't break down exactly which books are totaled in his royalties. The royalties on his 2016 tax return could have been for other books he had in the works. And that doesn't indicate what happened to the royalties for his Verso books purchased with campaign funds.
He reported $10,600 in charity donations, so that is one possibility for the royalties. Or he might have waived his royalties to the publisher in exchange for a lower price on the books his campaign purchased. This might all be perfectly innocent, but an explanation is owed.
posted by JackFlash at 2:19 PM on April 22, 2019 [14 favorites]
There are multiple lessons from 1998. You could take the lesson that “impeachment talk backfires and costs you seats”, and that is a thing that happened.
But it’s worth pointing out that at the time, the conventional wisdom was that Clinton was in big big trouble and his presidency might not survive. Remember, the last time anyone had seriously mentioned impeachment before was 1974, and Nixon resigned and the Republicans got wiped out. It was touch and go there for Clinton for a little bit.
The Starr report hit in midterm election season, and the GOP ran their campaign on the assumption that their impeachment push would get them up to 30 more seats; it wound up costing them 5, and Newt Gingrich resigned as speaker. (Then they decided to do it anyway as lame ducks, the sour-grapesiest of sessions.) They proved to be misguided, but they weren’t stupid. Their lesson from history was that this would benefit them. If they had thought it would backfire, they wouldn’t have done it.
The other lesson of 1998 is not to trust the conventional wisdom: you really don’t know what’s going to happen, especially if you make a real effort to find facts instead of half-assedly relying on the independent counsel report. These things could go either way, and things can change in a hurry—one way or the other.
posted by Huffy Puffy at 2:19 PM on April 22, 2019 [12 favorites]
But it’s worth pointing out that at the time, the conventional wisdom was that Clinton was in big big trouble and his presidency might not survive. Remember, the last time anyone had seriously mentioned impeachment before was 1974, and Nixon resigned and the Republicans got wiped out. It was touch and go there for Clinton for a little bit.
The Starr report hit in midterm election season, and the GOP ran their campaign on the assumption that their impeachment push would get them up to 30 more seats; it wound up costing them 5, and Newt Gingrich resigned as speaker. (Then they decided to do it anyway as lame ducks, the sour-grapesiest of sessions.) They proved to be misguided, but they weren’t stupid. Their lesson from history was that this would benefit them. If they had thought it would backfire, they wouldn’t have done it.
The other lesson of 1998 is not to trust the conventional wisdom: you really don’t know what’s going to happen, especially if you make a real effort to find facts instead of half-assedly relying on the independent counsel report. These things could go either way, and things can change in a hurry—one way or the other.
posted by Huffy Puffy at 2:19 PM on April 22, 2019 [12 favorites]
Backfired so terribly that they won the Presidency, House and Senate 20 months later.
I dunno about Congress but Gore barely lost (or "lost") the 2000 election and I believe part of the reason is that he backed off too far from Clinton and the administration's accomplishments and choose nominal Democrat and Clinton scold Joe Lieberman as his running mate. If Gore had run on the administration's record and picked one of his other VP finalists like Evan Bayh or Jeanne Shaheen he would've had a more compelling campaign and probably would've won.
posted by kirkaracha at 2:25 PM on April 22, 2019 [13 favorites]
I dunno about Congress but Gore barely lost (or "lost") the 2000 election and I believe part of the reason is that he backed off too far from Clinton and the administration's accomplishments and choose nominal Democrat and Clinton scold Joe Lieberman as his running mate. If Gore had run on the administration's record and picked one of his other VP finalists like Evan Bayh or Jeanne Shaheen he would've had a more compelling campaign and probably would've won.
posted by kirkaracha at 2:25 PM on April 22, 2019 [13 favorites]
tl:dr; Impeachment didn't result in a GOP presidential win, Gore's lackluster campaign and VP choice plus the Supreme Court did.
posted by kirkaracha at 2:27 PM on April 22, 2019 [6 favorites]
posted by kirkaracha at 2:27 PM on April 22, 2019 [6 favorites]
tl:dr; Impeachment didn't result in a GOP presidential win, Gore's lackluster campaign and VP choice plus the Supreme Court did.
Except that those decisions were driven in part by the impeachment - Gore felt he had to make those adjustments because of it.
posted by NoxAeternum at 2:36 PM on April 22, 2019 [7 favorites]
Except that those decisions were driven in part by the impeachment - Gore felt he had to make those adjustments because of it.
posted by NoxAeternum at 2:36 PM on April 22, 2019 [7 favorites]
The lessons that should be taken away from the ‘98 impeachment are as follows:
1. Circling the wagons and stalling can save your ass.
2. Bad arguments won’t win in an impeachment proceeding.
The GOP is following rule #1 and they will highlight anything they think meets the criteria for #2.
Pelosi is wise to tamp down the talk of impeachment right now — when the GOP accuses the Democrats of fishing for impeachment, she can point to her on-the-record statements and counter with the facts that show impeachable offenses.
posted by Big Al 8000 at 2:41 PM on April 22, 2019 [7 favorites]
1. Circling the wagons and stalling can save your ass.
2. Bad arguments won’t win in an impeachment proceeding.
The GOP is following rule #1 and they will highlight anything they think meets the criteria for #2.
Pelosi is wise to tamp down the talk of impeachment right now — when the GOP accuses the Democrats of fishing for impeachment, she can point to her on-the-record statements and counter with the facts that show impeachable offenses.
posted by Big Al 8000 at 2:41 PM on April 22, 2019 [7 favorites]
The Democrats would have been much better off forcing Clinton out of office in 1998 and giving Gore two years to show how he could lead.
I think there is a direct line between Clinton beating the impeachment and DJT winning in 2016.
posted by Big Al 8000 at 2:44 PM on April 22, 2019 [11 favorites]
I think there is a direct line between Clinton beating the impeachment and DJT winning in 2016.
posted by Big Al 8000 at 2:44 PM on April 22, 2019 [11 favorites]
The Democratic strategy, as we have pointed out, is effectively to use the 2020 elections to impeach Trump, but with the voters, rather than the Senate, serving as jury.
This is a great idea except for one thing:
Most of the crimes Trump is accused of INVOLVE COMPROMISING THE RESULTS OF AN ELECTION.
We can't defeat him with an even-more compromised election. Don't they see this?
posted by mmoncur at 2:47 PM on April 22, 2019 [64 favorites]
This is a great idea except for one thing:
Most of the crimes Trump is accused of INVOLVE COMPROMISING THE RESULTS OF AN ELECTION.
We can't defeat him with an even-more compromised election. Don't they see this?
posted by mmoncur at 2:47 PM on April 22, 2019 [64 favorites]
If you want a historical impeachment parallel, the best may be not Clinton or Nixon, but Andrew Johnson. That's the comparison at the heart of this short January video It's Time to Impeach Trump (from Yoni Appelbaum of the Atlantic Monthly) for anyone interested in a refresher on that story and how it maps onto the present day.
posted by InTheYear2017 at 2:48 PM on April 22, 2019 [6 favorites]
posted by InTheYear2017 at 2:48 PM on April 22, 2019 [6 favorites]
Speaking of tax returns, this is curious.
Folks have looked back at Bernie Sanders' FEC filings for his 2016 campaign. There are a couple of interesting entries. There are two campaign payments totaling almost $450,000 paid to Verso Books. Verso Books is the publisher of Bernie Sanders' book Outsider in the White House.
Then there is Sanders' recently released tax return for 2016 which shows $840,000 in royalties received for his books.
I don't have access to any special data, but even a cursory glance at basic public information suggests that $6,735 of the $865,484 income from books came from "Outsider in the White House" (Verso, Penguin) while $795,000 was from the advance on "Our Revolution: A Future to Believe In" (Thomas Dunn, Macmillan).
posted by chortly at 2:52 PM on April 22, 2019 [3 favorites]
Folks have looked back at Bernie Sanders' FEC filings for his 2016 campaign. There are a couple of interesting entries. There are two campaign payments totaling almost $450,000 paid to Verso Books. Verso Books is the publisher of Bernie Sanders' book Outsider in the White House.
Then there is Sanders' recently released tax return for 2016 which shows $840,000 in royalties received for his books.
I don't have access to any special data, but even a cursory glance at basic public information suggests that $6,735 of the $865,484 income from books came from "Outsider in the White House" (Verso, Penguin) while $795,000 was from the advance on "Our Revolution: A Future to Believe In" (Thomas Dunn, Macmillan).
posted by chortly at 2:52 PM on April 22, 2019 [3 favorites]
The Democrats would have been much better off forcing Clinton out of office in 1998 and giving Gore two years to show how he could lead.
Agreed. I was just coming into political awareness at the age of 20 when Clinton was being impeached, and did not like that he beat the rap. He did, in fact, commit perjury. Given that it was his second term and Gore was a worthy fill-in, I’ve always felt the Democrats sacrificed moral authority by not impeaching, and probably undermined Gore’s bid two years later.
Nevertheless, when the rodent fornicating Republicans played their uber-shenanigans in 2000, it completely re-cemented my anti-Republican views. (It also made me lose the very great respect I’d had up to that point for Justice O’Connor.)
posted by darkstar at 2:53 PM on April 22, 2019 [10 favorites]
Agreed. I was just coming into political awareness at the age of 20 when Clinton was being impeached, and did not like that he beat the rap. He did, in fact, commit perjury. Given that it was his second term and Gore was a worthy fill-in, I’ve always felt the Democrats sacrificed moral authority by not impeaching, and probably undermined Gore’s bid two years later.
Nevertheless, when the rodent fornicating Republicans played their uber-shenanigans in 2000, it completely re-cemented my anti-Republican views. (It also made me lose the very great respect I’d had up to that point for Justice O’Connor.)
posted by darkstar at 2:53 PM on April 22, 2019 [10 favorites]
The Democratic strategy, as we have pointed out, is effectively to use the 2020 elections to impeach Trump, but with the voters, rather than the Senate, serving as jury.
1. Communicate to Trump that he is above the law if he wins.
2. Demonstrate that there are no repercussions for cheating during the election.
3. Win?
posted by diogenes at 3:05 PM on April 22, 2019 [25 favorites]
1. Communicate to Trump that he is above the law if he wins.
2. Demonstrate that there are no repercussions for cheating during the election.
3. Win?
posted by diogenes at 3:05 PM on April 22, 2019 [25 favorites]
That's one of the strongest arguments for impeachment; the enormous moral hazard created when you say the only remedy for flagrant, widespread obstruction of investigation into conspiring to manipulate an election is... another election. But surely this time it will be fair?
posted by Justinian at 3:11 PM on April 22, 2019 [45 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 3:11 PM on April 22, 2019 [45 favorites]
Word from this afternoon's call with the Dem leadership is leaking out, via Politico's Andrew Desiderio:
At the end of the hearings, we will decide what punishment we support."
"Up to and including impeachment."
Use the word, Dems, because Trump isn't afraid to.
Just today, he tweeted early this afternoon "How do you impeach a Republican President for a crime that was committed by the Democrats? MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!" and this morning, "Only high crimes and misdemeanors can lead to impeachment. There were no crimes by me (No Collusion, No Obstruction), so you can’t impeach. It was the Democrats that committed the crimes, not your Republican President! Tables are finally turning on the Witch Hunt!" As with the term "collusion", he's trying to set the debate by taking ownership of the language around it.
posted by Doktor Zed at 3:19 PM on April 22, 2019 [7 favorites]
NEWS: Rep. Val Demings (D-Fla.), Judiciary member, said this on the House Dem call just now, sources tell me & @heatherscope >>"We will hold hearings on what Trump did wrong--including things Mueller didn't even consider (like corruption).
“We are struggling to justify why we aren’t beginning impeachment proceedings.”
Demings: “While I understand we need to see the full report and all supporting documents, I BELIEVE we have enough evidence NOW.”
Emphasis from sources.
“Mueller didn’t do us any favors,” Demings added, noting that “he left us bread crumbs to follow.”
At the end of the hearings, we will decide what punishment we support."
"Up to and including impeachment."
Use the word, Dems, because Trump isn't afraid to.
Just today, he tweeted early this afternoon "How do you impeach a Republican President for a crime that was committed by the Democrats? MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!" and this morning, "Only high crimes and misdemeanors can lead to impeachment. There were no crimes by me (No Collusion, No Obstruction), so you can’t impeach. It was the Democrats that committed the crimes, not your Republican President! Tables are finally turning on the Witch Hunt!" As with the term "collusion", he's trying to set the debate by taking ownership of the language around it.
posted by Doktor Zed at 3:19 PM on April 22, 2019 [7 favorites]
Yeah, all this talk of "use the elections to impeach Trump" seems to ignore the question of what is the point of an election. Is it not to elect powerful representatives who can take action on our behalf? Elections are not referendums. It seems like politicians cede much of their power if they think of winning elections as the be-all-and-end-all of their political responsibilities. Politicians are elected to do things, not just to be there as a symbol of what the electorate wants. Did we not elect democrats in 2016 and especially 2018 because we wanted them to do something? What happened to the mandate from the past elections that got every one of today's representatives into office?
posted by Dr. Send at 3:24 PM on April 22, 2019 [40 favorites]
posted by Dr. Send at 3:24 PM on April 22, 2019 [40 favorites]
Re comments by jenfullmoon, odinsdream, Barack Spinoza, and fluttering hellfire above (from 4/20) regarding the identities of the individuals whose names were part of the scope of the special counsel investigation, but were redacted for "personal privacy reasons" (on PDF p. 20, Vol. I p. 12), here's what I've got, after spending way too long looking at the document at 200% and using a ruler:
1. The first blank might not be for a single person. If it is, almost none of the names in the appendix between "Gates" and "Stone" would be long enough to fill the space (~1.75" by my reckoning), with the tantalizing exception of "Attorney General Jeff Sessions," which would at least explain the recusal. But if it's more than one person, there are other possibilities. Looking at the same range in the appendix, and focusing on what seemed to me to be actual possibilities, you could completely fill the first redacted space with: either Jared Kushner or Stephen Miller, followed by 1/32" for a comma and a space on that line, followed by either Carter Page or Erik Prince. Granted, it's fully-justified text, but they're really close.
2. The second blank, trailing over onto the following line, is definitely "Donald J. Trump Jr." Since the document doesn't appear to use hyphenation, the last little bit has to be a suffix. We have a couple people who end in III, but that's too big for the space. "Sr." would work, but that suffix is never used anywhere else in the report. So it's almost certainly a person whose name ends in "Jr." (Michael Flynn Jr., John Podesta Jr., Paul Manafort Jr., or DJT Jr.). Space-wise, none of the names other than DJT would fill the space for the first part of the second redaction. "Donald Trump" doesn't quite fill that space, but "Donald J. Trump" does. Although the Mueller report itself favors "Donald Trump Jr." over "Donald J. Trump Jr.," this is a quotation from Rosenstein.
Other fun stuff (note that, for these, I didn't take my ruler to the list of names before Gates or after Stone; I just used what I had from the analysis above):
Vol. I, p. 179 - The name of a person who committed a "potential section 1030 violation" and details of that investigation are redacted for personal privacy. The length of the name is consistent with the length of "Donald Trump Jr."
Vol. I, p. 183 - The name of the Trump campaign affiliate, other than Manafort, Papadopoulos, or Page, who was investigated for possible violation of FARA or section 951, was redacted for personal privacy. The length is consistent with either Carter Page or Erik Prince, but since Page is already named there, it could be Erik Prince.
Vol. I, p. 194 - This page has details on an obstruction case that was redacted for grand jury reasons, but the name of the target apparently wasn't redacted based on grand jury secrecy, and got redacted for personal privacy. The length of the name would fit either Carter Page or Erik Prince.
Vol. I, p. 199 - This page has the names of 3 people who gave false statements. I don't know who the first one could be. The second one (like the first) has portions of the substantive paragraph redacted for grand jury reasons. The length of the name would fit either Carter Page or Erik Prince. The substantive paragraph for the third person is redacted only for personal privacy, and the length of the name is consistent with "Donald Trump Jr."
posted by mabelstreet at 3:43 PM on April 22, 2019 [37 favorites]
1. The first blank might not be for a single person. If it is, almost none of the names in the appendix between "Gates" and "Stone" would be long enough to fill the space (~1.75" by my reckoning), with the tantalizing exception of "Attorney General Jeff Sessions," which would at least explain the recusal. But if it's more than one person, there are other possibilities. Looking at the same range in the appendix, and focusing on what seemed to me to be actual possibilities, you could completely fill the first redacted space with: either Jared Kushner or Stephen Miller, followed by 1/32" for a comma and a space on that line, followed by either Carter Page or Erik Prince. Granted, it's fully-justified text, but they're really close.
2. The second blank, trailing over onto the following line, is definitely "Donald J. Trump Jr." Since the document doesn't appear to use hyphenation, the last little bit has to be a suffix. We have a couple people who end in III, but that's too big for the space. "Sr." would work, but that suffix is never used anywhere else in the report. So it's almost certainly a person whose name ends in "Jr." (Michael Flynn Jr., John Podesta Jr., Paul Manafort Jr., or DJT Jr.). Space-wise, none of the names other than DJT would fill the space for the first part of the second redaction. "Donald Trump" doesn't quite fill that space, but "Donald J. Trump" does. Although the Mueller report itself favors "Donald Trump Jr." over "Donald J. Trump Jr.," this is a quotation from Rosenstein.
Other fun stuff (note that, for these, I didn't take my ruler to the list of names before Gates or after Stone; I just used what I had from the analysis above):
Vol. I, p. 179 - The name of a person who committed a "potential section 1030 violation" and details of that investigation are redacted for personal privacy. The length of the name is consistent with the length of "Donald Trump Jr."
Vol. I, p. 183 - The name of the Trump campaign affiliate, other than Manafort, Papadopoulos, or Page, who was investigated for possible violation of FARA or section 951, was redacted for personal privacy. The length is consistent with either Carter Page or Erik Prince, but since Page is already named there, it could be Erik Prince.
Vol. I, p. 194 - This page has details on an obstruction case that was redacted for grand jury reasons, but the name of the target apparently wasn't redacted based on grand jury secrecy, and got redacted for personal privacy. The length of the name would fit either Carter Page or Erik Prince.
Vol. I, p. 199 - This page has the names of 3 people who gave false statements. I don't know who the first one could be. The second one (like the first) has portions of the substantive paragraph redacted for grand jury reasons. The length of the name would fit either Carter Page or Erik Prince. The substantive paragraph for the third person is redacted only for personal privacy, and the length of the name is consistent with "Donald Trump Jr."
posted by mabelstreet at 3:43 PM on April 22, 2019 [37 favorites]
Re comments by jenfullmoon, odinsdream, Barack Spinoza, and fluttering hellfire above (from 4/20)
*cough* *cough*
posted by Barack Spinoza at 3:54 PM on April 22, 2019 [4 favorites]
*cough* *cough*
posted by Barack Spinoza at 3:54 PM on April 22, 2019 [4 favorites]
Y'all remember Evan McMullin? He weighs in about the Mueller Report.
posted by Sublimity at 4:31 PM on April 22, 2019 [15 favorites]
posted by Sublimity at 4:31 PM on April 22, 2019 [15 favorites]
I am pleased.
posted by jenfullmoon at 4:47 PM on April 22, 2019 [1 favorite]
posted by jenfullmoon at 4:47 PM on April 22, 2019 [1 favorite]
Eh, I don't think the Iranians are interested in a hot war.
Iran may have no choice: Trump is threatening to bankrupt it. Of course, Trump's threatened sanctions will only be effective if other countries participate, particularly those of the EU. The fear of forcing the Middle East into a war might finally drive the EU out of its geopolitical alliance with the US, which would be bad for almost everybody.
We possibly go on about Putin too much, but you know who would win from a US-Iran war? Putin. I'm not sure the US could count on its traditional allies if it came to war, not after what happened with the US' other adventures in the Middle East; and Trump seems to have done everything he could to demonstrate that the US wouldn't uphold its military commitments on their behalf. Europe might not even be able to afford the effects of war with Iran: it would be massively disruptive to the flow of oil from the Middle East, what with Iran's forces overlooking every significant waterway. The US is practically self-sufficient in that regard but Europe, particularly in winter, is not. So the war would benefit Russia (and Putin personally) as an oil producer; it would drive Iran further into Russia's arms; and it would further damage the Western alliance.
If there were a war, though, I don't think it would go the way you expect. Iran is a very unusual country in that it is a modern theocracy with a highly-mobilised populace. Although Iran is a regional superpower, by definition any conflict with the US would be asymmetrical. In that light it's worth noting that the country endured a huge number of casualties during the Iran-Iraq conflict; also that it is thought to be the simulated adversary that inflicted enormous losses on the (simulated) US forces in the Millennium Challenge 2002 war games. I expect the US armed forces learned a lot from that simulation, but Iran probably has too.
Tl;dr; a war with Iran would be a very bad idea.
posted by Joe in Australia at 4:57 PM on April 22, 2019 [15 favorites]
Iran may have no choice: Trump is threatening to bankrupt it. Of course, Trump's threatened sanctions will only be effective if other countries participate, particularly those of the EU. The fear of forcing the Middle East into a war might finally drive the EU out of its geopolitical alliance with the US, which would be bad for almost everybody.
We possibly go on about Putin too much, but you know who would win from a US-Iran war? Putin. I'm not sure the US could count on its traditional allies if it came to war, not after what happened with the US' other adventures in the Middle East; and Trump seems to have done everything he could to demonstrate that the US wouldn't uphold its military commitments on their behalf. Europe might not even be able to afford the effects of war with Iran: it would be massively disruptive to the flow of oil from the Middle East, what with Iran's forces overlooking every significant waterway. The US is practically self-sufficient in that regard but Europe, particularly in winter, is not. So the war would benefit Russia (and Putin personally) as an oil producer; it would drive Iran further into Russia's arms; and it would further damage the Western alliance.
If there were a war, though, I don't think it would go the way you expect. Iran is a very unusual country in that it is a modern theocracy with a highly-mobilised populace. Although Iran is a regional superpower, by definition any conflict with the US would be asymmetrical. In that light it's worth noting that the country endured a huge number of casualties during the Iran-Iraq conflict; also that it is thought to be the simulated adversary that inflicted enormous losses on the (simulated) US forces in the Millennium Challenge 2002 war games. I expect the US armed forces learned a lot from that simulation, but Iran probably has too.
Tl;dr; a war with Iran would be a very bad idea.
posted by Joe in Australia at 4:57 PM on April 22, 2019 [15 favorites]
The race to the bottom:
US threatens to veto UN resolution on rape as weapon of war, officials say
Exclusive: US warns it will reject measure over language on sexual health in latest example of hardline abortion stance
posted by adamvasco at 5:10 PM on April 22, 2019 [28 favorites]
US threatens to veto UN resolution on rape as weapon of war, officials say
Exclusive: US warns it will reject measure over language on sexual health in latest example of hardline abortion stance
posted by adamvasco at 5:10 PM on April 22, 2019 [28 favorites]
He's a tool. And "unwitting agent" is the best way I have found to express that besides actually saying "tool."
Something tells me it's been that way for his entire life. He's practically a force of nature. He's a beacon that radiates wave after wave of grasping need into the void. He emits a sirens call that cries, "Use me, for I am an empty shell personifying greed. I crave nothing but immediate gratification of my desires. I have all of the means of privilege at my disposal without having had to acquire the first bit of competence required in order to accomplish them, for it has been this way forever." From the first time an old shark laid his eyes on him, and reached a clasping hand out, and whispered into his ear with the conviction of a seasoned confidence man, "You are special," it has been so. And it's become so familiar to him that by now, he anticipates the confidence man, he seeks him out, and he prostrates himself at his feet, begging to be used.
When you reexamine the course of his business career, you get the sense that even his greatest accomplishment, the branding of his own name, was only successful because everyone knew it was a terrific opportunity to ride the gravy train. The people who truly knew him knew that he was, as Rex put it, "a fucking moron", but gladly practiced the sacred art of kayfabe with the knowledge that the rubes, the real marks, wouldn't catch on until it was too late and you'd already jumped off the coattails onto the next great con.
And then there are those who didn't get off the ride. Michael Cohen? He was too stupid; he believed the Kayfabe. Paul Manafort? Too desperate to let go. Roger Stone? He believed he could ride the dragon. And the Republican Party? Well...
posted by Room 101 at 5:20 PM on April 22, 2019 [57 favorites]
Something tells me it's been that way for his entire life. He's practically a force of nature. He's a beacon that radiates wave after wave of grasping need into the void. He emits a sirens call that cries, "Use me, for I am an empty shell personifying greed. I crave nothing but immediate gratification of my desires. I have all of the means of privilege at my disposal without having had to acquire the first bit of competence required in order to accomplish them, for it has been this way forever." From the first time an old shark laid his eyes on him, and reached a clasping hand out, and whispered into his ear with the conviction of a seasoned confidence man, "You are special," it has been so. And it's become so familiar to him that by now, he anticipates the confidence man, he seeks him out, and he prostrates himself at his feet, begging to be used.
When you reexamine the course of his business career, you get the sense that even his greatest accomplishment, the branding of his own name, was only successful because everyone knew it was a terrific opportunity to ride the gravy train. The people who truly knew him knew that he was, as Rex put it, "a fucking moron", but gladly practiced the sacred art of kayfabe with the knowledge that the rubes, the real marks, wouldn't catch on until it was too late and you'd already jumped off the coattails onto the next great con.
And then there are those who didn't get off the ride. Michael Cohen? He was too stupid; he believed the Kayfabe. Paul Manafort? Too desperate to let go. Roger Stone? He believed he could ride the dragon. And the Republican Party? Well...
posted by Room 101 at 5:20 PM on April 22, 2019 [57 favorites]
From CNN town hall, via @onekade:
An audience member who wants to be a cop just asked Liz Warren what she’s gonna do to protect cops. Her answer is that the system is profoundly unfair and racist. “It is a criminal justice system that has race right at the heart of it, and we need to call it out for what it is.”posted by pjenks at 5:29 PM on April 22, 2019 [73 favorites]
She says we also have to look at what is criminalized, and what’s not, and pivots to talking about how rich people can afford justice and poor people can’t. Then she says we need to restore voting rights to ppl w convictions. This is a good answer to “How will you protect cops?”
pjenks quoting tweeter onekade quoting Liz Warren:This is a good answer to “How will you protect cops?”
Yesss -- and she followed it up with what I would have said to bring it back to the question: gun control! Reduce the risk (and heck, reduce the implied need for cops to have guns themselves, though I don't think she quite went there, which is fine).
posted by InTheYear2017 at 5:48 PM on April 22, 2019 [19 favorites]
Yesss -- and she followed it up with what I would have said to bring it back to the question: gun control! Reduce the risk (and heck, reduce the implied need for cops to have guns themselves, though I don't think she quite went there, which is fine).
posted by InTheYear2017 at 5:48 PM on April 22, 2019 [19 favorites]
Meanwhile Klobuchar and her social media team try to get some traction out of her town hall appearance earlier:
@amyklobuchar If a billionaire can refinance his yacht, students should be able to refinance student loans. It’s that simple #KlobucharTownHallposted by pjenks at 5:57 PM on April 22, 2019 [3 favorites]
@amyklobuchar If a billionaire can refinance his yacht, students should be able to refinance student loans. It’s that simple #KlobucharTownHall
Responding to loan forgiveness by offering... a lower interest rate is a sparkling example of the classic Democratic move of starting the negotation by giving them everything they want.
posted by dis_integration at 6:09 PM on April 22, 2019 [51 favorites]
Responding to loan forgiveness by offering... a lower interest rate is a sparkling example of the classic Democratic move of starting the negotation by giving them everything they want.
posted by dis_integration at 6:09 PM on April 22, 2019 [51 favorites]
This is nice:
posted by pjenks at 6:09 PM on April 22, 2019 [36 favorites]
@page88 (Virginia Heffernan, WIRED + more) Now it can be told! @pithywidow & I are thrilled to collaborate w/ @audible on what's turned out to be an amazing feat: The complete audiobook of The Mueller Report—part of an initiative to create a FREE archive of audio-documents in the public interest.Checks out: $0.00
Audible Link
posted by pjenks at 6:09 PM on April 22, 2019 [36 favorites]
The complete audiobook of The Mueller Report
Note to Self, do not get into a fight with Jeff Bezos.
posted by 922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a at 6:37 PM on April 22, 2019 [17 favorites]
Note to Self, do not get into a fight with Jeff Bezos.
posted by 922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a at 6:37 PM on April 22, 2019 [17 favorites]
How much would it roughly cost to print out the report?
posted by gucci mane at 6:38 PM on April 22, 2019
posted by gucci mane at 6:38 PM on April 22, 2019
Now you don’t have to spend $9.37 for the edition with a forward by Alan Dershowitz.
posted by Melismata at 6:42 PM on April 22, 2019 [1 favorite]
posted by Melismata at 6:42 PM on April 22, 2019 [1 favorite]
@renato_mariotti [10:11 AM - 20 Apr 2019]Washington Post edition on Amazon is $10 and doesn't have anything to do with Alan Dershowitz.
I was just told it costs $76 to print (double-sided) and bind the Mueller Report at @FedExOffice. No wonder people are buying copies off of Amazon.
posted by pjenks at 6:45 PM on April 22, 2019 [6 favorites]
Mueller did his job; now we the people and our representatives in Congress must do ours. Because our commander-in-chief betrayed us by failing to reject help from a hostile foreign adversary in 2016 and obstructing resulting investigations, we must now reject it ourselves and uphold the rule of law. Our representatives in Congress must hear Mueller and others’ public testimony and commence impeachment proceedings for these patriotic purposes.-- Evan "Egg" McMullin saying what the Democrats ought to be saying
posted by mmoncur at 7:06 PM on April 22, 2019 [16 favorites]
In two separate papers published over the weekend, some of the world’s leading trade economists declared Trump’s tariffs to be the most consequential trade experiment seen since the 1930 Smoot-Hawley tariffs blamed for worsening the Great Depression. They also found the initial cost of Trump’s duties to the U.S. economy was in the billions and being borne largely by American consumers.
In a study published on Saturday, economists from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, Princeton University and Columbia University found that tariffs imposed last year by Trump on products ranging from washing machines and steel to some $250 billion in Chinese imports were costing U.S. companies and consumers $3 billion a month in additional tax costs and companies a further $1.4 billion in deadweight losses. They also were causing the diversion of $165 billion a year in trade leading to significant costs for companies having to reorganize supply chains.
Significantly, the analysis of import price data by Mary Amiti, Stephen Redding and David Weinstein also found that almost all of the cost of the tariffs was being paid by U.S. consumers and companies. That contradicts Trump’s claim that China is paying the tariffs.
Meanwhile, Whirlpool took (nyt) this opportunity to raise prices to pad profits to the point that their quarterly earnings were 401% higher than before tariffs.
posted by SecretAgentSockpuppet at 7:47 PM on April 22, 2019 [37 favorites]
In a study published on Saturday, economists from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, Princeton University and Columbia University found that tariffs imposed last year by Trump on products ranging from washing machines and steel to some $250 billion in Chinese imports were costing U.S. companies and consumers $3 billion a month in additional tax costs and companies a further $1.4 billion in deadweight losses. They also were causing the diversion of $165 billion a year in trade leading to significant costs for companies having to reorganize supply chains.
Significantly, the analysis of import price data by Mary Amiti, Stephen Redding and David Weinstein also found that almost all of the cost of the tariffs was being paid by U.S. consumers and companies. That contradicts Trump’s claim that China is paying the tariffs.
Meanwhile, Whirlpool took (nyt) this opportunity to raise prices to pad profits to the point that their quarterly earnings were 401% higher than before tariffs.
posted by SecretAgentSockpuppet at 7:47 PM on April 22, 2019 [37 favorites]
And speaking of tariffs, farmers hit hard by tariffs are also being devastated by floods, which isn't getting much air play. Currently, the state of infrastructure for moving grain from the midwest around the country is unknown. The total amount of lost crops is unknown. The amount of grain destroyed in silos is unknown. The ability for farmers to get a new crop in time for this year...unknown. Corn and wheat are staples, there has been a fairly big interruption to the process, and nobody knows what to do next, and we don't seem to have any national agencies that are planning for how to manage disruption like this.
posted by SecretAgentSockpuppet at 7:58 PM on April 22, 2019 [43 favorites]
posted by SecretAgentSockpuppet at 7:58 PM on April 22, 2019 [43 favorites]
CNN: White House tells official not to comply with Democratic subpoena over security clearances
posted by Doktor Zed at 8:49 PM on April 22, 2019 [13 favorites]
After a day of tense negotiations, the White House late Monday told the former official, Carl Kline, who now works at the Defense Department, to not appear at Tuesday's deposition, contending that Democrats were seeking access to confidential information that should be off limits.Judging from this case, we can see how Cipollone’s general stonewalling strategy for the Trump White House will shape up.
The move raises the prospect that the House Oversight Committee could seek to hold Kline in contempt, a step that Chairman Elijah Cummings warned Monday he would take.[…]
The White House had contended that Kline would not answer questions about individuals' security clearances but would talk more generally about the process -- and pushed for an official from the White House counsel's office to attend Tuesday's interview, something rejected by Cummings, a Maryland Democrat.
posted by Doktor Zed at 8:49 PM on April 22, 2019 [13 favorites]
He's a tool. And "unwitting agent" is the best way I have found to express that besides actually saying "tool."
This may be all we can ever prove with certainty, but isn't it very likely that Trump was an agent in all but name? We know that you know that we have compromised you. We know that you know what we expect from you.
I don't ever want to lose sight of the common sense perspective of Trump's actions. This was a guy who probably knew Russia was helping him, probably believed himself compromised, probably was helping in return.
And may still be deeply compromised. We just don't know. His actions have created that doubt, and that doubt is more than enough reason to get rid of him.
posted by xammerboy at 10:51 PM on April 22, 2019 [6 favorites]
This may be all we can ever prove with certainty, but isn't it very likely that Trump was an agent in all but name? We know that you know that we have compromised you. We know that you know what we expect from you.
I don't ever want to lose sight of the common sense perspective of Trump's actions. This was a guy who probably knew Russia was helping him, probably believed himself compromised, probably was helping in return.
And may still be deeply compromised. We just don't know. His actions have created that doubt, and that doubt is more than enough reason to get rid of him.
posted by xammerboy at 10:51 PM on April 22, 2019 [6 favorites]
Evan "Egg" McMullin saying what the Democrats ought to be saying
Care might be warranted around McMullin, whose views on civil rights and liberties align closely with those of Mike Pence, and whose views on public education align very closely with those of Betsy DeVos. His opposition to Trump is largely opportunistic; his record shows that he is effectively aligned lockstep with Trump on most policy issues, and he seems to feel that Trump is simply the wrong messenger for them. Bertram Gross warned of "friendly fascism" and this man embodies that ideology in many terrifying ways, upon closer inspection.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 12:37 AM on April 23, 2019 [26 favorites]
Care might be warranted around McMullin, whose views on civil rights and liberties align closely with those of Mike Pence, and whose views on public education align very closely with those of Betsy DeVos. His opposition to Trump is largely opportunistic; his record shows that he is effectively aligned lockstep with Trump on most policy issues, and he seems to feel that Trump is simply the wrong messenger for them. Bertram Gross warned of "friendly fascism" and this man embodies that ideology in many terrifying ways, upon closer inspection.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 12:37 AM on April 23, 2019 [26 favorites]
Impeachment is not about punishment, impeachment is about cleansing the office ... The point I'm trying to make is that you don't even have to be convicted of a crime to lose your job in this constitutional republic.
Lindsey Graham January 16, 1999, courtesy of TDS moment of zen.
The hypocrisy is no surprise to anyone here, but if we're going to impeach it may be worth curating these 180 soundbites. Make sure all the sunday morning faces have them ready to hand. You just know Lindsey is going to say 'not a crime!' at some point. Be ready.
posted by adept256 at 12:56 AM on April 23, 2019 [16 favorites]
Lindsey Graham January 16, 1999, courtesy of TDS moment of zen.
The hypocrisy is no surprise to anyone here, but if we're going to impeach it may be worth curating these 180 soundbites. Make sure all the sunday morning faces have them ready to hand. You just know Lindsey is going to say 'not a crime!' at some point. Be ready.
posted by adept256 at 12:56 AM on April 23, 2019 [16 favorites]
On Iranian Sanctions:
For a variety of reasons--all of which boil down to the US overplaying its hand as global hegemon--both our allies and our enemies have been setting up alternate financial institutions to deal with our country's aggressive behavior.
The main financial transfer system, SWIFT (Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication), has been used by the US to freeze assets of regimes it doesn't like. The most recent case of that: Venezuela. There, especially, our actions spooked others using SWIFT, enough to do something about it.
As for our rivals: last year, explicitly due to fear of sanctions and tarrifs, China and Russia set up a new international financial payments system and bilateral trade pact.
As for our allies: France, Germany, and the UK already set up a payment system for trade with Iran, INSTEX. The stated reason for INSTEX is to "facilitate legitimate trade between European economic operators and Iran and thereby preserve the Iran Nuclear Deal." That system probably isn't fully ready to take over for the chunk of trade that was going on between those countries and Iran that had previously gone through SWIFT. But the fact that our EU allies saw this coming and began setting up ways to circumvent our sanctions is telling.
As I've said, even our allies are doing shit like this because we've overplayed our hand. These sanctions are just going to accelerate every other country's move towards non-US dominated institutions, even if it means establishing new ones. Concretely, this threatens the benefits we get from having the world's global reserve currency. Or it at least hastens their expiration date.
As for the foreign policy implications...if our allies, who we negotiated the Iran deal with, are all trying to uphold the deal to the extent that they're setting up alternate international financial institutions, there's no chance whatsoever they're joining us on another military adventure. And, if we go at it alone, they'll not only be able to dodge the brunt of our sanctions against them (through INSTEX), but probably erect some against us as well.
The world is not going to stand by as we "play Tomahawk target practice with their oil refineries, airfields, power plants." It's wild that I even have to state this. Or that other posters are so blasé about the prospects of another round of morally-bankrupt, imperialist aggression.
This post is long enough already so I'm not gonna spell out the consequences of a full on war with Iran. But, I assure you, it would be disastrous. Like maybe-reinstating-the-draft and end-of-US-empire levels of bad.
sources:
Trump’s Brilliant Strategy to Dismember U.S. Dollar Hegemony
China and Russia look to ditch dollar with new payments system in move to avoid sanctions
INSTEX and Europe’s “Legitimate Trade” with Iran
good background on US's decline:
Alfred McCoy, Tweeting While Rome Burns
posted by davedave at 1:07 AM on April 23, 2019 [61 favorites]
For a variety of reasons--all of which boil down to the US overplaying its hand as global hegemon--both our allies and our enemies have been setting up alternate financial institutions to deal with our country's aggressive behavior.
The main financial transfer system, SWIFT (Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication), has been used by the US to freeze assets of regimes it doesn't like. The most recent case of that: Venezuela. There, especially, our actions spooked others using SWIFT, enough to do something about it.
As for our rivals: last year, explicitly due to fear of sanctions and tarrifs, China and Russia set up a new international financial payments system and bilateral trade pact.
As for our allies: France, Germany, and the UK already set up a payment system for trade with Iran, INSTEX. The stated reason for INSTEX is to "facilitate legitimate trade between European economic operators and Iran and thereby preserve the Iran Nuclear Deal." That system probably isn't fully ready to take over for the chunk of trade that was going on between those countries and Iran that had previously gone through SWIFT. But the fact that our EU allies saw this coming and began setting up ways to circumvent our sanctions is telling.
As I've said, even our allies are doing shit like this because we've overplayed our hand. These sanctions are just going to accelerate every other country's move towards non-US dominated institutions, even if it means establishing new ones. Concretely, this threatens the benefits we get from having the world's global reserve currency. Or it at least hastens their expiration date.
As for the foreign policy implications...if our allies, who we negotiated the Iran deal with, are all trying to uphold the deal to the extent that they're setting up alternate international financial institutions, there's no chance whatsoever they're joining us on another military adventure. And, if we go at it alone, they'll not only be able to dodge the brunt of our sanctions against them (through INSTEX), but probably erect some against us as well.
The world is not going to stand by as we "play Tomahawk target practice with their oil refineries, airfields, power plants." It's wild that I even have to state this. Or that other posters are so blasé about the prospects of another round of morally-bankrupt, imperialist aggression.
This post is long enough already so I'm not gonna spell out the consequences of a full on war with Iran. But, I assure you, it would be disastrous. Like maybe-reinstating-the-draft and end-of-US-empire levels of bad.
sources:
Trump’s Brilliant Strategy to Dismember U.S. Dollar Hegemony
China and Russia look to ditch dollar with new payments system in move to avoid sanctions
INSTEX and Europe’s “Legitimate Trade” with Iran
good background on US's decline:
Alfred McCoy, Tweeting While Rome Burns
posted by davedave at 1:07 AM on April 23, 2019 [61 favorites]
Now you don’t have to spend $9.37 for the edition with a forward by Alan Dershowitz.
Although it might be a collector's item when Dersh is sharing a cell with Epstein
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 2:12 AM on April 23, 2019 [4 favorites]
Although it might be a collector's item when Dersh is sharing a cell with Epstein
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 2:12 AM on April 23, 2019 [4 favorites]
If the consensus ends up that the House must impeach, even though the Senate almost surely will not convict, then it seems to me that the question becomes: how do the Democrats use the impeachment process to inflict maximum political damage on both Trump and GOP Senators?
Seen in that light, a series of investigations that supplies a steady flow of bad-news-for-Trump for many months, followed by a vote that makes Mitch McConnell and the vulnerable members of his caucus explicitly defend an obvious criminal may be the best achievable outcome.
In any event, I'd like to see the Dems start calling out McConnell and the rest of the GOP Senate as Trump's enablers, because in addition to winning the presidency in 2020, they need to take out at least three sitting Republicans (preferably four) to have even a chance of passing their agenda.
posted by Nat "King" Cole Porter Wagoner at 2:28 AM on April 23, 2019 [19 favorites]
Seen in that light, a series of investigations that supplies a steady flow of bad-news-for-Trump for many months, followed by a vote that makes Mitch McConnell and the vulnerable members of his caucus explicitly defend an obvious criminal may be the best achievable outcome.
In any event, I'd like to see the Dems start calling out McConnell and the rest of the GOP Senate as Trump's enablers, because in addition to winning the presidency in 2020, they need to take out at least three sitting Republicans (preferably four) to have even a chance of passing their agenda.
posted by Nat "King" Cole Porter Wagoner at 2:28 AM on April 23, 2019 [19 favorites]
If you're baffled by what Nancy Pelosi is doing, Joe Lockhart's Op-Ed in the NYT suggests an answer: Keeping Trump in office will destroy the Republican Party.
posted by Sublimity at 3:04 AM on April 23, 2019 [7 favorites]
posted by Sublimity at 3:04 AM on April 23, 2019 [7 favorites]
This post is long enough already so I'm not gonna spell out the consequences of a full on war with Iran. But, I assure you, it would be disastrous. Like maybe-reinstating-the-draft and end-of-US-empire levels of bad.
It is a great post!
But to follow up on it and on Joe In Australia's above, Iran is different from what a lot of Americans imagine in that it is relatively technologically advanced, given it's bad economy, and that while a large segment of its population is critical of the regime, a huge majority of the population are nationalist, and believe the regime is legitimate. Neo-cons and others keep telling us that there is an opposition that will feel liberated by US bombs, and that is just not the case. There is an opposition who want better relations with the West, but they would resent a US-led war as much as the regime.
The Iranian population is more than double that of Iraq, and 81 mill to Saudi Arabia's 31 mill. As far as I can see, Saudi Arabia (with most of the other Gulf States) and Israel are the only possible allies the US can find for a war on Iran.
China and Russia would give aid to Iran, making it a proxy WW3, if not a real one. Europe would scrabble for peace negotiations, to stop the inevitable flow of refugees and to avoid being dragged into a real WW3 because of article 5 in the NATO pact. It could eventually mean the breaking up of NATO and creation of an EU joint force*. All of Europe would have to up their defence spending, just like Trump has demanded, but not in the way he expected.
There is no way a US-Iran war wouldn't spill into Iraq and Afghanistan, where the governments are tacitly supportive of Iran but beholden to the US, and it's hard to guess how Turkey would handle being a friendly neighbor, a NATO member and also a home to US bases, another article 5 issue.
Iran would also seek by all means to further empower Syria, Hamas and Hezbollah so they could create trouble in Israel. And obviously the Houthis in Yemen, to disturb the Saudis. Just like the UK helped resistance movements during WW2.
Which BTW leads to the question of the UK. Would a desperately lonely UK government step in to help the US? No one knows.
All of this is known to Bolton, who either pretends he doesn't know because he is a suicidal fanatic, or he just pretends to be a bully in the hope that Iran will cave in out of fear. Trump and his crime family have no idea, and wouldn't listen if anyone tried to explain it. And in the end, China and Russia win big.
*There could also be a break-up of the EU because of the refugee issue, with a hard right East with growing ties to Russia, and a more liberal West dominated by France and Germany. Another + for Russia there.
posted by mumimor at 3:05 AM on April 23, 2019 [17 favorites]
It is a great post!
But to follow up on it and on Joe In Australia's above, Iran is different from what a lot of Americans imagine in that it is relatively technologically advanced, given it's bad economy, and that while a large segment of its population is critical of the regime, a huge majority of the population are nationalist, and believe the regime is legitimate. Neo-cons and others keep telling us that there is an opposition that will feel liberated by US bombs, and that is just not the case. There is an opposition who want better relations with the West, but they would resent a US-led war as much as the regime.
The Iranian population is more than double that of Iraq, and 81 mill to Saudi Arabia's 31 mill. As far as I can see, Saudi Arabia (with most of the other Gulf States) and Israel are the only possible allies the US can find for a war on Iran.
China and Russia would give aid to Iran, making it a proxy WW3, if not a real one. Europe would scrabble for peace negotiations, to stop the inevitable flow of refugees and to avoid being dragged into a real WW3 because of article 5 in the NATO pact. It could eventually mean the breaking up of NATO and creation of an EU joint force*. All of Europe would have to up their defence spending, just like Trump has demanded, but not in the way he expected.
There is no way a US-Iran war wouldn't spill into Iraq and Afghanistan, where the governments are tacitly supportive of Iran but beholden to the US, and it's hard to guess how Turkey would handle being a friendly neighbor, a NATO member and also a home to US bases, another article 5 issue.
Iran would also seek by all means to further empower Syria, Hamas and Hezbollah so they could create trouble in Israel. And obviously the Houthis in Yemen, to disturb the Saudis. Just like the UK helped resistance movements during WW2.
Which BTW leads to the question of the UK. Would a desperately lonely UK government step in to help the US? No one knows.
All of this is known to Bolton, who either pretends he doesn't know because he is a suicidal fanatic, or he just pretends to be a bully in the hope that Iran will cave in out of fear. Trump and his crime family have no idea, and wouldn't listen if anyone tried to explain it. And in the end, China and Russia win big.
*There could also be a break-up of the EU because of the refugee issue, with a hard right East with growing ties to Russia, and a more liberal West dominated by France and Germany. Another + for Russia there.
posted by mumimor at 3:05 AM on April 23, 2019 [17 favorites]
sources:
Trump’s Brilliant Strategy to Dismember U.S. Dollar Hegemony
China and Russia look to ditch dollar with new payments system in move to avoid sanctions
INSTEX and Europe’s “Legitimate Trade” with Iran
Careful now, you wouldn't want to give the impression that the US President is working against his country's interests. Somebody might realize it's actually true and do something about it.
posted by wierdo at 3:09 AM on April 23, 2019 [8 favorites]
Trump’s Brilliant Strategy to Dismember U.S. Dollar Hegemony
China and Russia look to ditch dollar with new payments system in move to avoid sanctions
INSTEX and Europe’s “Legitimate Trade” with Iran
Careful now, you wouldn't want to give the impression that the US President is working against his country's interests. Somebody might realize it's actually true and do something about it.
posted by wierdo at 3:09 AM on April 23, 2019 [8 favorites]
I forgot a fun detail: Even well-educated Iranians often seem to believe in a weird conspiracy theory that imagines Queen Elizabeth as the head of a global kabal, intent on harming Iran. I haven't had the patience to hear them out, it's really stupid, but to be fair the British did a lot of the practical on the ground stuff back when they and the US decided to coup Iran's legitimate government back in 1953. So a UK involvement in an Iran war would be seen as a confirmation.
posted by mumimor at 3:15 AM on April 23, 2019 [4 favorites]
posted by mumimor at 3:15 AM on April 23, 2019 [4 favorites]
mumimor, to your asterisked note, here's some interesting data showing how much the economies of eastern Europe have benefited from becoming closer to the EU. Would they throw it away for Bannon?
All tweets are via the Head of BOFIT (Bank of Finland Institute for Economies in Transition)
posted by hugbucket at 3:17 AM on April 23, 2019 [1 favorite]
All tweets are via the Head of BOFIT (Bank of Finland Institute for Economies in Transition)
posted by hugbucket at 3:17 AM on April 23, 2019 [1 favorite]
Even well-educated Iranians often seem to believe in a weird conspiracy theory that imagines Queen Elizabeth as the head of a global kabal, intent on harming Iran. I haven't had the patience to hear them out, it's really stupid
posted by hugbucket at 3:19 AM on April 23, 2019
posted by hugbucket at 3:19 AM on April 23, 2019
mumimor, to your asterisked note, here's some interesting data showing how much the economies of eastern Europe have benefited from becoming closer to the EU. Would they throw it away for Bannon?
Fascists are rarely data-driven, just look at Brexit. A happy side effect of Brexit is that the wider population are seeing how the EU countries are interdependent and that might just lead to more liberal politicians being elected in the East. Right now the polls for the EU election are still relatively balanced, with a clear conservative (but not far right) inclination in the East. But a huge surge in immigration from asylum seekers can tip the balance to the far right, and more so in the East than in the West.
posted by mumimor at 3:30 AM on April 23, 2019 [3 favorites]
Fascists are rarely data-driven, just look at Brexit. A happy side effect of Brexit is that the wider population are seeing how the EU countries are interdependent and that might just lead to more liberal politicians being elected in the East. Right now the polls for the EU election are still relatively balanced, with a clear conservative (but not far right) inclination in the East. But a huge surge in immigration from asylum seekers can tip the balance to the far right, and more so in the East than in the West.
posted by mumimor at 3:30 AM on April 23, 2019 [3 favorites]
a weird conspiracy theory
Yes I know about the Great Game, but why QEII?
posted by mumimor at 3:33 AM on April 23, 2019
Yes I know about the Great Game, but why QEII?
posted by mumimor at 3:33 AM on April 23, 2019
The Safe For Democracy podcast, by MeFi's own TheProfessor, did a great episode on early modern Iranian history, first in a nine-part series. (Which I'm not seeing a home page for but here's the “Iran” tag.)
posted by XMLicious at 3:39 AM on April 23, 2019 [9 favorites]
posted by XMLicious at 3:39 AM on April 23, 2019 [9 favorites]
If you're baffled by what Nancy Pelosi is doing, Joe Lockhart's Op-Ed in the NYT suggests an answer: Keeping Trump in office will destroy the Republican Party.
Also destroyed: the Federal Judiciary and many freedoms for women, people of color, and LGBTQ people, as well as even more Latinx families. And, of course, the ecosystem.
posted by kewb at 3:39 AM on April 23, 2019 [78 favorites]
Also destroyed: the Federal Judiciary and many freedoms for women, people of color, and LGBTQ people, as well as even more Latinx families. And, of course, the ecosystem.
posted by kewb at 3:39 AM on April 23, 2019 [78 favorites]
If you're baffled by what Nancy Pelosi is doing, Joe Lockhart's Op-Ed in the NYT suggests an answer: Keeping Trump in office will destroy the Republican Party.
Yeah, that op ed pisses me right off. I am pretty indifferent on the subject of an impeachment that doesn't lead to removal. But if someone could convince me there WAS a path to removal from office via impeachment, I would be 100% in favor. (I used to believe this was possible, but the last two years have really disillusioned me about Senate Republicans.)
Lockhart's argument, that we should leave him in place even if we had the power to remove him because it supposedly benefits us politicallly, is the SAME bullshit reasoning that those Senate Republicans are using.
Country before party.
posted by OnceUponATime at 3:55 AM on April 23, 2019 [41 favorites]
Yeah, that op ed pisses me right off. I am pretty indifferent on the subject of an impeachment that doesn't lead to removal. But if someone could convince me there WAS a path to removal from office via impeachment, I would be 100% in favor. (I used to believe this was possible, but the last two years have really disillusioned me about Senate Republicans.)
Lockhart's argument, that we should leave him in place even if we had the power to remove him because it supposedly benefits us politicallly, is the SAME bullshit reasoning that those Senate Republicans are using.
Country before party.
posted by OnceUponATime at 3:55 AM on April 23, 2019 [41 favorites]
Corn and wheat are staples, there has been a fairly big interruption to the process, and nobody knows what to do next, and we don't seem to have any national agencies that are planning for how to manage disruption like this.SecretAgentSockpuppet, now I’m imagining what it would be like to have a Department of Agriculture that isn’t being dismantled from within by its own Secretary...
posted by wintermind at 3:59 AM on April 23, 2019 [8 favorites]
I just had a bit of an unexpectedly emotional moment... watching a Deutsche Welle documentary on the Nansen passport system^ and the beginning of the League of Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, (World War I and the interbellum period; content warning: discussion of the Armenian genocide) a historian's comment was translated,
posted by XMLicious at 4:43 AM on April 23, 2019 [18 favorites]
At the time, France was seen as the United States of Europe.—meaning that France freely accepted refugees and immigrants, a virtue the United States was once synonymous with.
posted by XMLicious at 4:43 AM on April 23, 2019 [18 favorites]
SecretAgentSockpuppet, now I’m imagining what it would be like to have a Department of Agriculture that isn’t being dismantled from within by its own Secretary...
Thankfully, it takes a very long time to wind down long entrenched functions of government. It's one of the things that really keeps Trump wound up and is probably the underlying cause of many of his Deep State Conspiracy ravings. A lunatic, a traitor, and a would-be-if-only-people-would-listen despot, yet McConnell and the rest of them still prop him up. It's almost enough to make you think they're involved.
posted by wierdo at 5:20 AM on April 23, 2019 [6 favorites]
Thankfully, it takes a very long time to wind down long entrenched functions of government. It's one of the things that really keeps Trump wound up and is probably the underlying cause of many of his Deep State Conspiracy ravings. A lunatic, a traitor, and a would-be-if-only-people-would-listen despot, yet McConnell and the rest of them still prop him up. It's almost enough to make you think they're involved.
posted by wierdo at 5:20 AM on April 23, 2019 [6 favorites]
For Decades, We All Ate Trump Up. Artist Andres Serrano Asks, ‘Why?’ In which the artist who might be best known for 'Piss Christ' curates a collection of Trump-related objects.
posted by box at 5:43 AM on April 23, 2019 [19 favorites]
posted by box at 5:43 AM on April 23, 2019 [19 favorites]
Chlling rewind in that Vulture Andres Serrano article, from 1989:
"Trump’s ad called for the return of the death penalty to kill “the Central Park Five.” These were four black boys and one Hispanic who were accused of, and later acquitted of, the brutal rape of a white female jogger. Baring the fangs of who he was and is, that May Trump told Larry King, “I hate these people, and let’s all hate these people, because maybe hate is what we need if we’re gonna get something done.”
posted by Harry Caul at 5:59 AM on April 23, 2019 [33 favorites]
"Trump’s ad called for the return of the death penalty to kill “the Central Park Five.” These were four black boys and one Hispanic who were accused of, and later acquitted of, the brutal rape of a white female jogger. Baring the fangs of who he was and is, that May Trump told Larry King, “I hate these people, and let’s all hate these people, because maybe hate is what we need if we’re gonna get something done.”
posted by Harry Caul at 5:59 AM on April 23, 2019 [33 favorites]
Joining the Egg in having bad politics but the right take on impeachment...
Greg Sargent (WaPo)
Dems are not making one of their best arguments: That by obstructing the probe, Trump impeded the inquiry into not just his conduct, but also into the Russian attack on our political system.
Here's scholar Philip Bobbit on why this might be impeachable: Trump plausibly committed impeachable offenses. A leading expert explains how.
George Conway (retweeted Greg Sargeant)
Exactly right. In fact, it’s why Trump’s misconduct is worse than the misconduct that led to Nixon’s resignation.
And for the Framers of our Constitution, if you posed to them the question of whether the impeachment clause was directed at public officials who placed their own selfish interests above those of the nation’s, they would have said, yes, that’s exactly what we had in mind. For them, the case of Donald J. Trump would have been an easy one. It should be an easy one for us as well.
posted by chris24 at 6:02 AM on April 23, 2019 [60 favorites]
Greg Sargent (WaPo)
Dems are not making one of their best arguments: That by obstructing the probe, Trump impeded the inquiry into not just his conduct, but also into the Russian attack on our political system.
Here's scholar Philip Bobbit on why this might be impeachable: Trump plausibly committed impeachable offenses. A leading expert explains how.
George Conway (retweeted Greg Sargeant)
Exactly right. In fact, it’s why Trump’s misconduct is worse than the misconduct that led to Nixon’s resignation.
Trump is a cancer on the presidency. Congress should remove him: As for Trump’s supposed defense that there was no underlying “collusion” crime, well, as the special counsel points out, it’s not a defense, even in a criminal prosecution. But it’s actually unhelpful in the comparison to Watergate. The underlying crime in Watergate was a clumsy, third-rate burglary in an election campaign that turned out to be a landslide.Put another way, a president takes an oath in which he “solemnly swear[s] [to] support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” Here, in attempting to subvert the investigation into Russia’s effort’s to interfere with our electoral process, Trump violated that oath and put his own vanity and self-interest above that of the nation and people whose laws and Constitution he swore to faithfully execute and uphold. If that’s not impeachable, nothing is. This is a simple point, and it doesn’t turn on the kaleidoscopic meaning of collusion or the criminal-law technicalities of obstruction. It goes to something very fundamental: Do we have a president who is loyal to the country, or loyal only to himself? When you put the question that way, and the object of the question is Donald J. Trump, now that we know all that we know about him and have seen all that we have seen, there can only be one answer.
The investigation that Trump tried to interfere with here, to protect his own personal interests, was in significant part an investigation of how a hostile foreign power interfered with our democracy. If that’s not putting personal interests above a presidential duty to the nation, nothing is.
And for the Framers of our Constitution, if you posed to them the question of whether the impeachment clause was directed at public officials who placed their own selfish interests above those of the nation’s, they would have said, yes, that’s exactly what we had in mind. For them, the case of Donald J. Trump would have been an easy one. It should be an easy one for us as well.
posted by chris24 at 6:02 AM on April 23, 2019 [60 favorites]
WaPo, Josh Rogin, No more waivers: The United States will try to force Iranian oil exports to zero
Axios's Jonathan Swan suggests some tensions between the Pompeo and Bolton strategies toward Iran: Scoop: Trump administration opposes military intervention in Iran
posted by Doktor Zed at 7:22 AM on April 23, 2019 [3 favorites]
Axios's Jonathan Swan suggests some tensions between the Pompeo and Bolton strategies toward Iran: Scoop: Trump administration opposes military intervention in Iran
In a closed-door meeting with Iranian-American community leaders last Monday, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said the Trump administration is "not going to do a military exercise inside Iran" to expedite a regime change, according to three sources who were in the room, including one who took detailed contemporaneous notes and shared them with me.Elsewhere in Trumpland diplomacy, AP: [Buckingham] Palace: Trump to Pay State Visit to Britain In June This will include a meeting with HMQ in London, a carriage procession with the Household Cavalry down The Mall, and a banquet for 150 people (BBC). Incidentally, it will take place in conjunction with Trump's attendance of the 75th anniversary commemorations of the World War II D-Day landings. Expect more of the same diplomatic disasters as last time he visited Europe.
Pompeo also sought to distance the Trump administration from a controversial Iranian resistance group that has welcomed John Bolton and Rudy Giuliani as speakers in a private capacity.[…]
[W]hen asked how he could guarantee that the Trump administration's tough new sanctions wouldn't hurt the people of Iran, he replied: "There are no guarantees."
posted by Doktor Zed at 7:22 AM on April 23, 2019 [3 favorites]
mmoncur: Most of the crimes Trump is accused of INVOLVE COMPROMISING THE RESULTS OF AN ELECTION.
We can't defeat him with an even-more compromised election. Don't they see this?
But what if, and hear me out now, Hillary was the reason Trump won? {/hamburger of sadness and extreme grief}
Seriously though, I can imagine some folks think "if we just have the right candidate, we can beat Trump this time, and no need to get into the muck and mire of his *alleged* crimes!"
Overlooking the fact that WE HAVE A LOT OF DOCUMENTATION OF HIS CRIMES, and now we just need to try him for those crimes, via the impeachment process, as THOSE CRIMES SHOW HE IS NOT FIT FOR HIS OFFICE.
Sorry for the shouting.
From NPR, some notes on possible future events:
A Decade Of Implications At Stake, Supreme Court Hears Census Citizenship Question (Hansi Lo Wang and Nina Totenberg, April 23, 2019)
In other words, I'm just another internet commentator who is pulling at random loose threads.
posted by filthy light thief at 7:33 AM on April 23, 2019 [7 favorites]
We can't defeat him with an even-more compromised election. Don't they see this?
But what if, and hear me out now, Hillary was the reason Trump won? {/hamburger of sadness and extreme grief}
Seriously though, I can imagine some folks think "if we just have the right candidate, we can beat Trump this time, and no need to get into the muck and mire of his *alleged* crimes!"
Overlooking the fact that WE HAVE A LOT OF DOCUMENTATION OF HIS CRIMES, and now we just need to try him for those crimes, via the impeachment process, as THOSE CRIMES SHOW HE IS NOT FIT FOR HIS OFFICE.
Sorry for the shouting.
From NPR, some notes on possible future events:
A Decade Of Implications At Stake, Supreme Court Hears Census Citizenship Question (Hansi Lo Wang and Nina Totenberg, April 23, 2019)
The U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments Tuesday in a legal battle with lasting implications that could dramatically affect political representation and federal funding over the next decade. The justices are weighing whether to allow the Trump administration to add a question about U.S. citizenship status to forms for the upcoming 2020 census.Key U.S. Attorney, Swept Into Russia Investigation, May Prosecute WikiLeaks Case (Carrie Johnson, April 23, 2019) -- it's a bio piece on Zachary Terwilliger, who was named as the interim U.S. Attorney by then-AG Jeff Sessions. So that's not ominous, not at all. Though his record otherwise sounds positive, as reported by NPR, including the note that Virginia's two Democratic senators recommended Terwilliger to serve as U.S. attorney, and currently presented on Wikipedia.
In multiple lawsuits brought by dozens of states, cities and other groups, three federal judges at U.S. district courts have issued rulings blocking the administration's plans for the question. It asks, "Is this person a citizen of the United States?"
All three judges — in New York, California and Maryland — ruled that Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross' decision to include the question violated procedures for adding new census questions under administrative law. The judges in California and Maryland have also ruled that adding the question is unconstitutional because it hurts the government's ability to carry out the constitutional mandate for a once-a-decade head count of every person living in the U.S.
In other words, I'm just another internet commentator who is pulling at random loose threads.
posted by filthy light thief at 7:33 AM on April 23, 2019 [7 favorites]
If waiting a year to impeach Trump results in the destruction of the Republican party I'm all for it.
posted by M-x shell at 7:33 AM on April 23, 2019 [4 favorites]
posted by M-x shell at 7:33 AM on April 23, 2019 [4 favorites]
Kamala Harris Calls for Trump to Be Impeached
During a CNN town hall on Monday, a member of the audience asked the Democratic senator whether she thought that the president ought to be impeached over the findings in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. Harris replied that anyone who’s seen the report can see that there’s a lot of evidence pointing toward obstruction of justice.posted by kirkaracha at 7:42 AM on April 23, 2019 [21 favorites]
“I believe that we need to get rid of this president,” Harris said, nodding to her own presidential run before concluding that she believes “Congress should take the steps towards impeachment.”
One approach would be to pick three really clear incidents of obstruction, and then say it's crystal clear the president obstructed an investigation into an attack on our country. If this isn't impeachable, nothing is. We want to spare the country from a protracted fight and endless sea of investigation. We humbly ask that Republicans do the same. Impeach him right now.
Because if this can't be done simply and quickly Trump has now committed so many questionable acts that require investigation that the investigations will likely never end. Trump's foreign emoluments, questionable business dealings, unpaid taxes, separation of families at the border, and other acts too numerous to mention mean that if he wins in 2020 our investigations will likely continue well into and beyond his second term.
In other words, impeach him now or expect Trump to always be under the impeachment process for as long as he stays in office.
posted by xammerboy at 7:44 AM on April 23, 2019 [10 favorites]
Because if this can't be done simply and quickly Trump has now committed so many questionable acts that require investigation that the investigations will likely never end. Trump's foreign emoluments, questionable business dealings, unpaid taxes, separation of families at the border, and other acts too numerous to mention mean that if he wins in 2020 our investigations will likely continue well into and beyond his second term.
In other words, impeach him now or expect Trump to always be under the impeachment process for as long as he stays in office.
posted by xammerboy at 7:44 AM on April 23, 2019 [10 favorites]
Call for his fucking resignation! Ask why Republicans aren’t calling for it. Why more people aren’t doing this amazes me. As I posted yesterday, by this time after the Starr Report, over 100 newspapers had called for resignation. Make that part of the conversation. Obviously he won’t, but it adds to the pressure on him and confirms to the public that yes this is serious and criminal. It also puts an onus on him and Republicans to respond, as opposed to right now it all being about Ds and impeachment.
Anytime a reporter asks a Democrat about impeachment, no matter their yes or no feeling on it, they should start by saying “Why aren’t you also asking Republicans if he should resign.”
posted by chris24 at 7:55 AM on April 23, 2019 [57 favorites]
Anytime a reporter asks a Democrat about impeachment, no matter their yes or no feeling on it, they should start by saying “Why aren’t you also asking Republicans if he should resign.”
posted by chris24 at 7:55 AM on April 23, 2019 [57 favorites]
If the idea is to wait and let the Republicans destroy their own party... I just hope the Democrats have some kind of media blitz planned. It seems to me that there are indeed a lot of people ready to listen to helpful Democratic ideas, but messaging has been a weak point for a long time.
I mean, right now I desperately need to hear them say something more about the report, and what the point of all that was, and I'm not hearing it.
posted by heatvision at 7:55 AM on April 23, 2019 [7 favorites]
I mean, right now I desperately need to hear them say something more about the report, and what the point of all that was, and I'm not hearing it.
posted by heatvision at 7:55 AM on April 23, 2019 [7 favorites]
In better news, the electorate is as non-white as it’s ever been.
Michael McDonald (Elect Project)
The 2018 CPS Voting and Registration summary tables are now up. Here is a stunner. The non-Hispanic White share of the electorate (people who voted) declined from 2016 to 2018 from 73.4% to 72.8%. Census Bureau: Voting and Registration in the Election of November 2016
• In recent decades, there has been a long-term downward trend in the non-Hispanic White share of the electorate. Usually, the midterm electorate becomes a shade whiter than the last presidential. Not true in 2018 compared to 2016
• The 2018 election saw the highest midterm turnout rate since 1914, so I expected the midterm electorate to more demographically like a presidential, but I did not expect to see the non-Hispanic White share of the electorate actually drop from 2016
• Youth turnout was up from 2014. As a share of the electorate, 18-24 year olds were 7.1% of the 2018 electorate compared with 5.1% in 2014, a 2 point increase
• You might wonder why I'm not posting turnout rates. I'm cautious of CPS turnout rates because they do not account for non-response and vote over-report bias. I need the individual data to make corrections. The electorate demos, however, aren't so sensitive to these polling issues
• What does this all mean for 2020? We are likely in for a storm of the century, with turnout levels not seen for a presidential election in the past 100 years. It is likely persons of color and younger people will participate in 2020 at unprecedented levels
posted by chris24 at 8:00 AM on April 23, 2019 [18 favorites]
Michael McDonald (Elect Project)
The 2018 CPS Voting and Registration summary tables are now up. Here is a stunner. The non-Hispanic White share of the electorate (people who voted) declined from 2016 to 2018 from 73.4% to 72.8%. Census Bureau: Voting and Registration in the Election of November 2016
• In recent decades, there has been a long-term downward trend in the non-Hispanic White share of the electorate. Usually, the midterm electorate becomes a shade whiter than the last presidential. Not true in 2018 compared to 2016
• The 2018 election saw the highest midterm turnout rate since 1914, so I expected the midterm electorate to more demographically like a presidential, but I did not expect to see the non-Hispanic White share of the electorate actually drop from 2016
• Youth turnout was up from 2014. As a share of the electorate, 18-24 year olds were 7.1% of the 2018 electorate compared with 5.1% in 2014, a 2 point increase
• You might wonder why I'm not posting turnout rates. I'm cautious of CPS turnout rates because they do not account for non-response and vote over-report bias. I need the individual data to make corrections. The electorate demos, however, aren't so sensitive to these polling issues
• What does this all mean for 2020? We are likely in for a storm of the century, with turnout levels not seen for a presidential election in the past 100 years. It is likely persons of color and younger people will participate in 2020 at unprecedented levels
posted by chris24 at 8:00 AM on April 23, 2019 [18 favorites]
What the Press Is Missing About Pete Buttigieg (Rahm Emanuel, Atlantic Op-Ed)
The thing the American people ought to learn through the media is what in the candidates’ own life experiences—the good, the bad, and the ugly—has prepared and educated them to solve the problems the country is facing today, and the challenges we will inevitably face in the future. What have they learned from their own failures? Incessant questioning about the prospect of a gay president (let alone a female president, or a Hispanic president, or a female African American president, or, well, you get the drift) won’t do much to provide voters with a satisfying answer.posted by ZeusHumms at 8:06 AM on April 23, 2019 [11 favorites]
Why do life experiences matter? I was by President Barack Obama’s side when he was trying to figure out how to address the auto-industry crisis. It was his experience as a community organizer on Chicago’s South Side working with communities affected by shuttered steel mills that informed his decision to save both General Motors and Chrysler, not one or the other.
The cultural blinders of many reporters are one reason Trump is president today. If reporters largely focus on the topics most interesting to the people they live among, people who live elsewhere in the country will presume that those are the only issues that candidates care about. Is it any wonder that so many voters wonder about the Democratic Party’s approach to economic opportunity, or national security, or the fraying social fabric? Even when Democratic candidates talk about their approaches to these issues, reporters remain focused on the process stuff, such as fundraising figures and polling data, or on novelties, such as which barrier or glass ceiling any given candidate is poised to break.
Democrats have been waiting for Republican policies to destroy the Republican Party since at least 2004. Seems like a great plan to date.
posted by T.D. Strange at 8:11 AM on April 23, 2019 [42 favorites]
posted by T.D. Strange at 8:11 AM on April 23, 2019 [42 favorites]
c-span's census case oral argument attorney stakeout briefing is just beginning.
posted by 20 year lurk at 8:47 AM on April 23, 2019
posted by 20 year lurk at 8:47 AM on April 23, 2019
Republicans have been waiting for Republican policies to destroy the American working class since at least the 1970s. That plan, on the other hand, is showing fruit.
posted by delfin at 8:51 AM on April 23, 2019 [17 favorites]
posted by delfin at 8:51 AM on April 23, 2019 [17 favorites]
A Decade Of Implications At Stake, Supreme Court Hears Census Citizenship Question
Ian Milhiser:
posted by zombieflanders at 8:51 AM on April 23, 2019 [23 favorites]
Ian Milhiser:
Leaving SCOTUS now.Can't wait to hear how Steny "why impeachment when we totally have fair elections" Hoyer will react if this happens.
Court looks likely to vote along party lines to allow Trump to rig the Census. Roberts’ questions were less clear than other Republicans, but he did not seem sympathetic to challengers.
In related news, the case for court-packing just got much stronger. If Roberts will tolerate lawbreaking this egregious in a voting rights case, our elections will soon be uncompetitive.
posted by zombieflanders at 8:51 AM on April 23, 2019 [23 favorites]
If you're baffled by what Nancy Pelosi is doing, Joe Lockhart's Op-Ed in the NYT suggests an answer: Keeping Trump in office will destroy the Republican Party.
Good lord, what horseshit. This is what we get when the "Surely, this ..." wing of the Democratic party is allowed to keep loudly fantasizing instead of being told to shut the fuck up and start living in the real world. Real people are being harmed by leaving Trump in office. There is no scenario where we can just suffer it out knowing that by doing so it will somehow result in the destruction of his horde of enablers and be better in the end.
posted by tocts at 8:58 AM on April 23, 2019 [27 favorites]
Good lord, what horseshit. This is what we get when the "Surely, this ..." wing of the Democratic party is allowed to keep loudly fantasizing instead of being told to shut the fuck up and start living in the real world. Real people are being harmed by leaving Trump in office. There is no scenario where we can just suffer it out knowing that by doing so it will somehow result in the destruction of his horde of enablers and be better in the end.
posted by tocts at 8:58 AM on April 23, 2019 [27 favorites]
Court looks likely to vote along party lines to allow Trump to rig the Census.
It's long past time coverage of SCOTUS started referring to its votes exactly this way, instead of euphemisms such as "ideological" or "the liberal/conservative split."
It may pain Roberts to have the legitimacy of his court trashed by justices voting along party lines, but that ship sailed with Bush v Gore.
posted by Gelatin at 9:15 AM on April 23, 2019 [21 favorites]
It's long past time coverage of SCOTUS started referring to its votes exactly this way, instead of euphemisms such as "ideological" or "the liberal/conservative split."
It may pain Roberts to have the legitimacy of his court trashed by justices voting along party lines, but that ship sailed with Bush v Gore.
posted by Gelatin at 9:15 AM on April 23, 2019 [21 favorites]
Republicans have been waiting for Republican policies to destroy the American working class since at least the 1970s. That plan, on the other hand, is showing fruit.
It helps when you have a giant propaganda machine distracting people from your fuckery. And I'm not talking about Fox News or even the so-called "liberal media." The gigantic grift network of blatantly illegal "religious" nonprofits created by the televangelist movement saw to it the pro-business propaganda was forced upon the members of several religious organizations in exchange for political support for the so-called "pro family" movement by the Republican Party.
Religious organizations have been propagandizing their members, soliciting donations to the wingnut welfare fund and the NRA, and promoting candidates (all illegally, mind) since at least the 1970s. In return they get political support and a ride on the gravy train that starts with the fleecing of their flock.
posted by wierdo at 9:15 AM on April 23, 2019 [22 favorites]
It helps when you have a giant propaganda machine distracting people from your fuckery. And I'm not talking about Fox News or even the so-called "liberal media." The gigantic grift network of blatantly illegal "religious" nonprofits created by the televangelist movement saw to it the pro-business propaganda was forced upon the members of several religious organizations in exchange for political support for the so-called "pro family" movement by the Republican Party.
Religious organizations have been propagandizing their members, soliciting donations to the wingnut welfare fund and the NRA, and promoting candidates (all illegally, mind) since at least the 1970s. In return they get political support and a ride on the gravy train that starts with the fleecing of their flock.
posted by wierdo at 9:15 AM on April 23, 2019 [22 favorites]
Court looks likely to vote along party lines to allow Trump to rig the Census.
I'm more than willing to believe this in the abstract and based on ideology and past behavior. But OMFG people really need to stop presuming votes based on oral arguments. It doesn't work.
posted by phearlez at 9:22 AM on April 23, 2019 [11 favorites]
I'm more than willing to believe this in the abstract and based on ideology and past behavior. But OMFG people really need to stop presuming votes based on oral arguments. It doesn't work.
posted by phearlez at 9:22 AM on April 23, 2019 [11 favorites]
...but to be fair the British did a lot of the practical on the ground stuff back when they and the US decided to coup Iran's legitimate government back in 1953.
Buried the lede. UK instigated the coup, persuading the US to take their side over Iran's discovery of chicanery the Anglo-Persian Oil Company pulled to cheat it out of it's fair share of the revenue. Without the UK's importuning of the US, and Kermit Roosevelt Jr.'s and Norman Schwarzkopf Sr.'s skullduggery, the coup would never have happened.
posted by Mental Wimp at 9:28 AM on April 23, 2019 [6 favorites]
Buried the lede. UK instigated the coup, persuading the US to take their side over Iran's discovery of chicanery the Anglo-Persian Oil Company pulled to cheat it out of it's fair share of the revenue. Without the UK's importuning of the US, and Kermit Roosevelt Jr.'s and Norman Schwarzkopf Sr.'s skullduggery, the coup would never have happened.
posted by Mental Wimp at 9:28 AM on April 23, 2019 [6 favorites]
Court looks likely to vote along party lines to allow Trump to rig the Census
So, they're just going to decide the Administrative Procedure Act doesn't exist anymore? Are they going to ignore the extensive findings of fact of the District Court, which showed that the Secretary lied repeatedly and ignored all the expertise of his own agency?
If the APA goes down, we're in a great deal of trouble.
posted by suelac at 9:28 AM on April 23, 2019 [21 favorites]
So, they're just going to decide the Administrative Procedure Act doesn't exist anymore? Are they going to ignore the extensive findings of fact of the District Court, which showed that the Secretary lied repeatedly and ignored all the expertise of his own agency?
If the APA goes down, we're in a great deal of trouble.
posted by suelac at 9:28 AM on April 23, 2019 [21 favorites]
Jared Yates Sexton
There's an aspect to this Trump/Russia/Impeachment business that is getting undersold, and that's that totalitarian regimes are supporting Trump because their ideologies align and if Democrats don't stand up for what's right they have no reason whatsoever to stop. We've spent a lot of time pondering whether Trump was bought off, which he might very well be, but in the end, his philosophy of greed, personal empowerment, and the self over society aligns exactly with totalitarian regimes in Russia, Saudi Arabia, and North Korea.
Russia is an oligarchy enforced by totalitarian rule and buttressed by angry whites longing for a mythical past. That's what Trump has sold and pushed for since he arrived on the scene. They're in perfect alignment, both in philosophy and practice. With North Korea, Trump sees the power he wants to have. He's openly longed for a state-run media, worship by a frightened populace. It's no wonder he likes Kim Jong Un so much. He has what he wants. With Saudi Arabia, Trump ran interference with the murder of a journalist, and that support of a brutal dictatorship has won Trump undying support. Even now, Saudi Arabia is working overtime to support Trump on social media and provide Russian-style misinformation online. If nobody does anything about Russian interference (the Republicans have completely passed) and nobody holds Trump accountable for collusion and obstruction, why would any of these interests NOT interfere in an election for Trump or in our domestic affairs?
So, here's what you have: an American president whose worldview aligns with the worst despots in the world. You have a government that allows him to align with them and receive constant support and aid in the form of propaganda and subterfuge. Russia and Saudi Arabia represent a new vision of the world in which the lie of democratic freedom is wiped away so a total aristocracy can rule unobstructed. That's why they support Trump, because that's his vision of the world as well. They promote him to promote that vision.
So, heading into 2020, we're already seeing that Russia has no interest in quitting their aid for Trump and Saudi Arabia is stepping up their efforts. They're doing so in order to bring America further into their illiberal democracy. This is MAJOR STUFF. And though it's terribly, terribly frightening, neither party is addressing it. Republicans are embracing this transnational subversion for empowerment and Democrats are worrying about election strategy over embracing their constitutional duty. That's...a problem. The politics at play are going to doom this country to further ties with dictatorships, a process that is going to change this country, both in how it operates and where it stands. This is an absolute crisis, and neither party is taking their responsibility seriously. And the story is so large and complex that it gets lost in all these stories, or else the people telling them aren't capable of addressing the whole ball of wax. This is a philosophical takeover of the United States. It could completely undermine our politics and society.
Already we are more or less a corporate aristocracy. What happened in Russia could easily happen here, and when that door closes on liberal democracy it is almost impossible to open it back up. This is a really, really important moment, and people need to wake up. I've lost all faith in Republicans doing the right thing, but Dems need to see this moment for what it is and act swiftly and decisively. The people who tell the stories of politics and interference need to tell better stories. It's more important than ever.
posted by chris24 at 9:34 AM on April 23, 2019 [91 favorites]
There's an aspect to this Trump/Russia/Impeachment business that is getting undersold, and that's that totalitarian regimes are supporting Trump because their ideologies align and if Democrats don't stand up for what's right they have no reason whatsoever to stop. We've spent a lot of time pondering whether Trump was bought off, which he might very well be, but in the end, his philosophy of greed, personal empowerment, and the self over society aligns exactly with totalitarian regimes in Russia, Saudi Arabia, and North Korea.
Russia is an oligarchy enforced by totalitarian rule and buttressed by angry whites longing for a mythical past. That's what Trump has sold and pushed for since he arrived on the scene. They're in perfect alignment, both in philosophy and practice. With North Korea, Trump sees the power he wants to have. He's openly longed for a state-run media, worship by a frightened populace. It's no wonder he likes Kim Jong Un so much. He has what he wants. With Saudi Arabia, Trump ran interference with the murder of a journalist, and that support of a brutal dictatorship has won Trump undying support. Even now, Saudi Arabia is working overtime to support Trump on social media and provide Russian-style misinformation online. If nobody does anything about Russian interference (the Republicans have completely passed) and nobody holds Trump accountable for collusion and obstruction, why would any of these interests NOT interfere in an election for Trump or in our domestic affairs?
So, here's what you have: an American president whose worldview aligns with the worst despots in the world. You have a government that allows him to align with them and receive constant support and aid in the form of propaganda and subterfuge. Russia and Saudi Arabia represent a new vision of the world in which the lie of democratic freedom is wiped away so a total aristocracy can rule unobstructed. That's why they support Trump, because that's his vision of the world as well. They promote him to promote that vision.
So, heading into 2020, we're already seeing that Russia has no interest in quitting their aid for Trump and Saudi Arabia is stepping up their efforts. They're doing so in order to bring America further into their illiberal democracy. This is MAJOR STUFF. And though it's terribly, terribly frightening, neither party is addressing it. Republicans are embracing this transnational subversion for empowerment and Democrats are worrying about election strategy over embracing their constitutional duty. That's...a problem. The politics at play are going to doom this country to further ties with dictatorships, a process that is going to change this country, both in how it operates and where it stands. This is an absolute crisis, and neither party is taking their responsibility seriously. And the story is so large and complex that it gets lost in all these stories, or else the people telling them aren't capable of addressing the whole ball of wax. This is a philosophical takeover of the United States. It could completely undermine our politics and society.
Already we are more or less a corporate aristocracy. What happened in Russia could easily happen here, and when that door closes on liberal democracy it is almost impossible to open it back up. This is a really, really important moment, and people need to wake up. I've lost all faith in Republicans doing the right thing, but Dems need to see this moment for what it is and act swiftly and decisively. The people who tell the stories of politics and interference need to tell better stories. It's more important than ever.
posted by chris24 at 9:34 AM on April 23, 2019 [91 favorites]
I don't GAF at this point; they're obviously not going to do anything and they're not going to do it agonizingly slowly and loudly. But could they possibly at least just stop with the "we can't impeach him because impeachment will make him popular like it did Bill Clinton" recitative while they torture the nation and the world by doing nothing at all about this dangerous scourge?
Clinton was already popular; nobody knew what Whitewater was supposed to have been about; nobody cared that he boned an intern or that he lied about it. By contrast, Trump is not popular. Everybody understands what "he handed the power over to Putin" is supposed to be about. Most people do care that he lies twenty times a day and is trying to steal everything that isn't nailed down, and, above all, everyone alive and sentient cares very much that he's risking all of our lives and futures in like sixteen separate different ways. Want to roll over and slobber and kick the air at the sight of him? Fine: you do you. But don't hand me this outrageous horseshit about "impeachment will make him popular." That's insane.
posted by Don Pepino at 9:43 AM on April 23, 2019 [27 favorites]
Clinton was already popular; nobody knew what Whitewater was supposed to have been about; nobody cared that he boned an intern or that he lied about it. By contrast, Trump is not popular. Everybody understands what "he handed the power over to Putin" is supposed to be about. Most people do care that he lies twenty times a day and is trying to steal everything that isn't nailed down, and, above all, everyone alive and sentient cares very much that he's risking all of our lives and futures in like sixteen separate different ways. Want to roll over and slobber and kick the air at the sight of him? Fine: you do you. But don't hand me this outrageous horseshit about "impeachment will make him popular." That's insane.
posted by Don Pepino at 9:43 AM on April 23, 2019 [27 favorites]
Clinton was 20 points higher in approval than Trump. Percentage that thought the economy was good or great was 68% in October 1998 vs. 50% now.
posted by chris24 at 9:55 AM on April 23, 2019 [8 favorites]
posted by chris24 at 9:55 AM on April 23, 2019 [8 favorites]
how do the Democrats use the impeachment process to inflict maximum political damage on both Trump and GOP Senators?
Seen in that light, a series of investigations that supplies a steady flow of bad-news-for-Trump for many months, followed by a vote that makes Mitch McConnell and the vulnerable members of his caucus explicitly defend an obvious criminal may be the best achievable outcome.
How is that different than the past two years of the Mueller investigation? By the time the impeachment process comes to the Senate vote, McConnell will cheerfully have the vote so the Republicans can proclaim victory and Trump’s innocence. It will be like the Barr summary, but without any subsequent reveal to counter the vote. Trump is immune from impeachment. Not just because he won’t be removed from office but because his base doesn’t care about his crimes.
I think the Democrats should still work towards impeachment to preserve some sense that this administration is criminal, but I don’t think it will have any political cost to Trump.
posted by gladly at 9:56 AM on April 23, 2019
Seen in that light, a series of investigations that supplies a steady flow of bad-news-for-Trump for many months, followed by a vote that makes Mitch McConnell and the vulnerable members of his caucus explicitly defend an obvious criminal may be the best achievable outcome.
How is that different than the past two years of the Mueller investigation? By the time the impeachment process comes to the Senate vote, McConnell will cheerfully have the vote so the Republicans can proclaim victory and Trump’s innocence. It will be like the Barr summary, but without any subsequent reveal to counter the vote. Trump is immune from impeachment. Not just because he won’t be removed from office but because his base doesn’t care about his crimes.
I think the Democrats should still work towards impeachment to preserve some sense that this administration is criminal, but I don’t think it will have any political cost to Trump.
posted by gladly at 9:56 AM on April 23, 2019
his base doesn’t care about his crimes.
His base is a small number. Flipping them is only of interest to dipshit oped writers who have to fill column inches. Everyone else knows the point is energizing everyone fucking else and making it possible for them to actually vote.
posted by phearlez at 10:00 AM on April 23, 2019 [55 favorites]
His base is a small number. Flipping them is only of interest to dipshit oped writers who have to fill column inches. Everyone else knows the point is energizing everyone fucking else and making it possible for them to actually vote.
posted by phearlez at 10:00 AM on April 23, 2019 [55 favorites]
I think the Democrats should still work towards impeachment to preserve some sense that this administration is criminal, but I don’t think it will have any political cost to Trump.
Trump's approval sinks when he starts with the wack tweets and the garish media appearances and the dumb refocus on immigration. He does all that when he's feeling attacked or pressured or not in control of the media cycle. The Democrats can call it impeachment or ongoing investigation or whatever. Just keep doing it.
posted by notyou at 10:08 AM on April 23, 2019 [12 favorites]
Trump's approval sinks when he starts with the wack tweets and the garish media appearances and the dumb refocus on immigration. He does all that when he's feeling attacked or pressured or not in control of the media cycle. The Democrats can call it impeachment or ongoing investigation or whatever. Just keep doing it.
posted by notyou at 10:08 AM on April 23, 2019 [12 favorites]
I think the Democrats should still work towards impeachment to preserve some sense that this administration is criminal, but I don’t think it will have any political cost to Trump.
The course that Pelosi has laid out, without being explicit - is first investigate, then when the evidence is insurmountable, impeach. Yes, the Mueller report is, truly, insurmountable, or should be - but for the fact that Barr and Trump and any of a number of other talking heads have gone out there and said so many many different lies that these lies are drowning out the truth (c.f. Masha Gessen) - but a steady stream of news stories outlining in detail one crime after another could, very well, provide the insurmountable truth that ruins Trump, finally, perfectly and with absolute maximum Freude über sein schäden (the plural, schäden, is meant optimistically).
The facts of the case - Jr. was too dumb to actually collude, Trump was too ineffective to compel his staff to obstruct - are the points that can and will be driven home. Add onto that Bernie asking people the very simple questions all politicians should be asking, "Why should getting sick ruin you financially as well as physically? Why shouldn't you be able to afford college, and housing, on a part-time job, and etc." My only worry is Georgia 2018 - they set out to ruin things and they did a pretty damn good job. I wish there were more talking out about protecting the vote.
posted by From Bklyn at 10:21 AM on April 23, 2019 [12 favorites]
The course that Pelosi has laid out, without being explicit - is first investigate, then when the evidence is insurmountable, impeach. Yes, the Mueller report is, truly, insurmountable, or should be - but for the fact that Barr and Trump and any of a number of other talking heads have gone out there and said so many many different lies that these lies are drowning out the truth (c.f. Masha Gessen) - but a steady stream of news stories outlining in detail one crime after another could, very well, provide the insurmountable truth that ruins Trump, finally, perfectly and with absolute maximum Freude über sein schäden (the plural, schäden, is meant optimistically).
The facts of the case - Jr. was too dumb to actually collude, Trump was too ineffective to compel his staff to obstruct - are the points that can and will be driven home. Add onto that Bernie asking people the very simple questions all politicians should be asking, "Why should getting sick ruin you financially as well as physically? Why shouldn't you be able to afford college, and housing, on a part-time job, and etc." My only worry is Georgia 2018 - they set out to ruin things and they did a pretty damn good job. I wish there were more talking out about protecting the vote.
posted by From Bklyn at 10:21 AM on April 23, 2019 [12 favorites]
A bit of an aside here, crossing the streams: just saw a chyron on CNN that fresh off his electoral squeaker in Israel, Bibi Netanyahu is proposing to name the settlements on the Golan heights in honor of Donald Trump.
This would, of course, be a win-win-win: Bibi makes a show of honoring his biggest benefactor, Trump gets his name on something, and it also works for the people looking for symbolic targets to attack.
posted by RedOrGreen at 10:26 AM on April 23, 2019 [6 favorites]
This would, of course, be a win-win-win: Bibi makes a show of honoring his biggest benefactor, Trump gets his name on something, and it also works for the people looking for symbolic targets to attack.
posted by RedOrGreen at 10:26 AM on April 23, 2019 [6 favorites]
In less of a "win" situation, it looks like Jared Kushner's "Middle East peace plan" has completely dropped any pretense of a two-state solution and is finally being exposed as laying the groundwork for the annexation of Palestine.
posted by zombieflanders at 10:33 AM on April 23, 2019 [18 favorites]
posted by zombieflanders at 10:33 AM on April 23, 2019 [18 favorites]
Percentage that thought the economy was good or great was 68% in October 1998 vs. 50% now.
Trump is definitely trying to juice the economy, giving tax cuts to the wealthiest voters, picking winners of tariff exemptions for industries and businesses favorable to his base, stacking the Federal Reserve with people loyal to him and who will lower interest rates on demand.
Economists across the board seem to be warning him that this gives the country little financial room to maneuver when the next recession hits in a year or so, but I guess he thinks he can get re-elected before the clock runs out.
While these aren't crimes, per se, they are demonstrations of exceptionally bad governance that add to the need to start impeachment proceedings. When it is cold outside, he would tear down and burn down the house just to stay warm, no matter what the cost to everyone else around him who need shelter.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 10:34 AM on April 23, 2019 [5 favorites]
Trump is definitely trying to juice the economy, giving tax cuts to the wealthiest voters, picking winners of tariff exemptions for industries and businesses favorable to his base, stacking the Federal Reserve with people loyal to him and who will lower interest rates on demand.
Economists across the board seem to be warning him that this gives the country little financial room to maneuver when the next recession hits in a year or so, but I guess he thinks he can get re-elected before the clock runs out.
While these aren't crimes, per se, they are demonstrations of exceptionally bad governance that add to the need to start impeachment proceedings. When it is cold outside, he would tear down and burn down the house just to stay warm, no matter what the cost to everyone else around him who need shelter.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 10:34 AM on April 23, 2019 [5 favorites]
US threatens to veto UN resolution on rape as weapon of war, officials say
Update: @MichLKosinski: NEW: The US has successfully excised ALL reference to sexual and reproductive health in a UN resolution to help victims of wartime rape. INCLUDING what was thought yesterday to be a possible compromise, a simple reference to a prior resolution.
posted by zachlipton at 10:35 AM on April 23, 2019 [27 favorites]
Update: @MichLKosinski: NEW: The US has successfully excised ALL reference to sexual and reproductive health in a UN resolution to help victims of wartime rape. INCLUDING what was thought yesterday to be a possible compromise, a simple reference to a prior resolution.
posted by zachlipton at 10:35 AM on April 23, 2019 [27 favorites]
So, they're just going to decide the Administrative Procedure Act doesn't exist anymore?
I wouldn't be surprised if the Administrative Procedure Act is itself a target because of the substance it adds to regulatory action. It means you can't just change policy just because you won the election and are in charge, you have to make a substantial case that it's reasonable policy so you're not judged arbitrary and capricious.
If your approach to governing is making good policy that balances different interests, that's not really a problem, but if your approach is ideological -- and the usual Republican ideological case is ("regulation BAD" ~ socialize costs/privatize profits) -- then you can get hit with the arbitrary and capricious bit in court and your changes won't stick.
At least, until the reactionary-favored Senate finishes sufficiently packing the courts with the activists judges they've wanted for the entire time they've been yelling about "activist judges."
posted by wildblueyonder at 11:03 AM on April 23, 2019 [7 favorites]
I wouldn't be surprised if the Administrative Procedure Act is itself a target because of the substance it adds to regulatory action. It means you can't just change policy just because you won the election and are in charge, you have to make a substantial case that it's reasonable policy so you're not judged arbitrary and capricious.
If your approach to governing is making good policy that balances different interests, that's not really a problem, but if your approach is ideological -- and the usual Republican ideological case is ("regulation BAD" ~ socialize costs/privatize profits) -- then you can get hit with the arbitrary and capricious bit in court and your changes won't stick.
At least, until the reactionary-favored Senate finishes sufficiently packing the courts with the activists judges they've wanted for the entire time they've been yelling about "activist judges."
posted by wildblueyonder at 11:03 AM on April 23, 2019 [7 favorites]
How does the audiobook handle the deleted text? Just make loud beeping noises?
posted by jenfullmoon at 11:05 AM on April 23, 2019 [8 favorites]
posted by jenfullmoon at 11:05 AM on April 23, 2019 [8 favorites]
NBC: After Mueller Report, Twitter Bots Pushed 'Russiagate Hoax' Narrative—As social media platforms continue to prepare for the 2020 election, efforts to spread disinformation and sow discord remain an ongoing issue.
posted by Doktor Zed at 11:07 AM on April 23, 2019 [17 favorites]
A network of more than 5,000 pro-Trump Twitter bots railed against the “Russiagate hoax” shortly after the release of special counsel Robert Mueller’s report last week, according to data gathered by a prominent disinformation researcher and analyzed by NBC News. The network illustrates the ongoing challenge Twitter faces in persistent efforts to manipulate its platform.This was probably what Clint Watts calls an “influence seeding” campaign, a digital operation intended to manipulate search returns for general news rather than amplifying pro-Trump Twitter accounts or targeting ordinary users.
These bots, however, did not appear to come from Russia. Instead, the bots had ties to a social media operation that previously pushed messages backing the government of Saudi Arabia and were connected to a person who claimed to be a private social media consultant, according to internet domain and account registration records. The bots, which were created last November and December, were pulled down by Twitter on Sunday night for breaking the social network’s rules against “manipulation,” the company said.
posted by Doktor Zed at 11:07 AM on April 23, 2019 [17 favorites]
I'm not supporting impeachment because it "punishes" the bad people. I'm supporting it because it's the right and moral thing to do to end the suffering and damage they're doing as a direct result of their crimes. How do we do maximum damage? We remove him from office, and we criminally indict him. We do the same for other members of the GOP who are criminals. But we do this not because it inflicts damage, but because it serves justice and prevents further harm to innocent people.
This type of naive Sorkin-esque thinking is why the Democrats are a rump party with 55% of the popular vote, and the CHUDS currently control the government with roughly 33% of it.
posted by codacorolla at 11:14 AM on April 23, 2019 [3 favorites]
This type of naive Sorkin-esque thinking is why the Democrats are a rump party with 55% of the popular vote, and the CHUDS currently control the government with roughly 33% of it.
posted by codacorolla at 11:14 AM on April 23, 2019 [3 favorites]
I wouldn't be surprised if the Administrative Procedure Act is itself a target because of the substance it adds to regulatory action.
Oh, it absolutely is. The GOP has been trying to gut it for years, except it also gives their constituents leverage. Their current plan is to "revise" it in such a way as to remove the deference to agency expertise and prioritize corporate "science". They also want to require more formal hearings, which end up being too costly for non-profits or members of the general public to participate in.
The APA is the backbone of federal environmental protection, and hardly anyone outside the regulatory agencies (or non-profits) seems to be concerned about it.
posted by suelac at 11:19 AM on April 23, 2019 [13 favorites]
Oh, it absolutely is. The GOP has been trying to gut it for years, except it also gives their constituents leverage. Their current plan is to "revise" it in such a way as to remove the deference to agency expertise and prioritize corporate "science". They also want to require more formal hearings, which end up being too costly for non-profits or members of the general public to participate in.
The APA is the backbone of federal environmental protection, and hardly anyone outside the regulatory agencies (or non-profits) seems to be concerned about it.
posted by suelac at 11:19 AM on April 23, 2019 [13 favorites]
No one who's been paying attention thinks that hardcore Trump supporters can be swayed, but some of the more marginal voters may be depressed enough by a constant stream of bad news to stay home.
Also, constant investigations revealing more bad news for Trump should help energize the Democratic base, and as notyou notes, they keep the pressure up on Trump, which causes him to behave in a way that makes him look even worse to everyone who hasn't already drunk the Flavor-Aid.
And the point of "inflicting political damage" is not damage for its own sake, or "punishing the bad people," as odinsdream suggests, but to try to increase the chances of winning the election in 2020.
posted by Nat "King" Cole Porter Wagoner at 11:27 AM on April 23, 2019 [5 favorites]
Also, constant investigations revealing more bad news for Trump should help energize the Democratic base, and as notyou notes, they keep the pressure up on Trump, which causes him to behave in a way that makes him look even worse to everyone who hasn't already drunk the Flavor-Aid.
And the point of "inflicting political damage" is not damage for its own sake, or "punishing the bad people," as odinsdream suggests, but to try to increase the chances of winning the election in 2020.
posted by Nat "King" Cole Porter Wagoner at 11:27 AM on April 23, 2019 [5 favorites]
Supreme Court looks ready to let Donald Trump skew the U.S. Census
posted by T.D. Strange at 11:27 AM on April 23, 2019 [7 favorites]
That means that the lawyers challenging the question needed to hang onto all four liberal justices, while also picking up either Chief Justice John Roberts or Brett Kavanaugh to prevail.As if there was any question.
Kavanaugh left little doubt, however, that he stands firmly in Donald Trump’s camp. At one point, for example, Kavanaugh pointed to a United Nations recommendation that nations ask about citizenship when they count their population, and pointed to other nations that follow this recommendation — although, as New York Solicitor General Barbara Underwood noted in response, the UN also says that census takers should be careful to test such questions to make sure they won’t discourage participation.
At another point, Kavanaugh suggested that his court’s review of Secretary Ross’ decision should be “deferential.” So the court’s newest member appears to have little interest in checking the man who gave him his current job.
That leaves the Chief, who, admittedly, asked less pointed questions than Kavanaugh.
Nevertheless, Roberts appeared unsympathetic to the challengers’ arguments — and he asked a handful of questions that suggest he will also back the Trump administration’s play. At one point, for example, Roberts asked whether the citizenship question would improve Voting Rights Act enforcement, and he did so in a tone which suggested that he thinks it will. (Ordinarily, Roberts is not known to be particularly sympathetic to arguments that the Voting Rights Act must be enforced).
At another point, Roberts noted that the census has long asked demographic questions — so why should the citizenship question be any different?
posted by T.D. Strange at 11:27 AM on April 23, 2019 [7 favorites]
At one point, for example, Kavanaugh pointed to a United Nations recommendation that nations ask about citizenship when they count their population, and pointed to other nations that follow this recommendation
Because it's a hallmark of conservative jurisprudence that the US should take its cues from foreign nations. Sheesh.
The bad faith is meant to be obvious, and a sign of contempt.
posted by Gelatin at 11:41 AM on April 23, 2019 [17 favorites]
Because it's a hallmark of conservative jurisprudence that the US should take its cues from foreign nations. Sheesh.
The bad faith is meant to be obvious, and a sign of contempt.
posted by Gelatin at 11:41 AM on April 23, 2019 [17 favorites]
Please don't put words in my mouth, I don't agree that we should seek justice in order to increase Democratic chance of winning elections. I
Nat was asserting you suggested "punishing the bad people," as an end unto itself, not "increase the chances of winning the election in 2020." Just FYI.
posted by avalonian at 11:42 AM on April 23, 2019 [3 favorites]
Nat was asserting you suggested "punishing the bad people," as an end unto itself, not "increase the chances of winning the election in 2020." Just FYI.
posted by avalonian at 11:42 AM on April 23, 2019 [3 favorites]
You're right, odinsdream, should not have used quote marks there. My apologies.
The thing is, though, no one's going to get "justice" from impeachment alone. There would need to be a conviction in the Senate, which requires 20 GOP Senators (plus all the Democrats and the two independents) voting to convict. No one has proposed any plausible scenario under which that could happen, but if you have one, lots of people would like to know what it is.
The only way anything resembling justice happens is if Trump is defeated and the Senate gets flipped. Hence my concern about maximizing the political utility of impeachment proceedings. If they're going to happen, do them in a way most likely to produce the worst political outcomes for the GOP.
posted by Nat "King" Cole Porter Wagoner at 11:48 AM on April 23, 2019 [5 favorites]
The thing is, though, no one's going to get "justice" from impeachment alone. There would need to be a conviction in the Senate, which requires 20 GOP Senators (plus all the Democrats and the two independents) voting to convict. No one has proposed any plausible scenario under which that could happen, but if you have one, lots of people would like to know what it is.
The only way anything resembling justice happens is if Trump is defeated and the Senate gets flipped. Hence my concern about maximizing the political utility of impeachment proceedings. If they're going to happen, do them in a way most likely to produce the worst political outcomes for the GOP.
posted by Nat "King" Cole Porter Wagoner at 11:48 AM on April 23, 2019 [5 favorites]
Just in case anyone forgot, the Republican party spent the last fifteen years flipping their collective shit every time Kennedy even acknowledged that other nations had laws that might have been more informatively useful than shit-smeared messages on a truck stop bathroom wall. And of course there's always Scalia.
Foreign laws can “never, never be relevant to the meaning of the U.S. Constitution,” he told a law student audience in May 2015, because “who cares? We have our laws, they have theirs.”posted by phearlez at 11:57 AM on April 23, 2019 [16 favorites]
Nat "King" Cole Porter Wagoner: The only way anything resembling justice happens is if Trump is defeated and the Senate gets flipped.
Even though Trump has committed lots of federal crime, there are also state crimes to consider. I actually think it's considerably more politically likely (though still under 50%) that he experiences some kind of real punishment for those.
It is frustrating that non-impeachment, impeachment-with-acquittal, and even impeachment-with-conviction could all be spun to a hypothetical prosecutor/judge/jury (whether federal or state) as a sound reason to not pursue criminal charges. "If he were guilty, he would have been impeached / would have been convicted, his acquittal is absolution / he was convicted and obviously that's punishment enough, this is double jeopardy". At least the Mueller Report actually spells out the simple fact that impeachment is entirely outside criminal procedures, but. Hmm.
posted by InTheYear2017 at 11:57 AM on April 23, 2019 [2 favorites]
Even though Trump has committed lots of federal crime, there are also state crimes to consider. I actually think it's considerably more politically likely (though still under 50%) that he experiences some kind of real punishment for those.
It is frustrating that non-impeachment, impeachment-with-acquittal, and even impeachment-with-conviction could all be spun to a hypothetical prosecutor/judge/jury (whether federal or state) as a sound reason to not pursue criminal charges. "If he were guilty, he would have been impeached / would have been convicted, his acquittal is absolution / he was convicted and obviously that's punishment enough, this is double jeopardy". At least the Mueller Report actually spells out the simple fact that impeachment is entirely outside criminal procedures, but. Hmm.
posted by InTheYear2017 at 11:57 AM on April 23, 2019 [2 favorites]
Good point about state crimes, InTheYear2017, and I hope you're right. It looks like there's a lot of stuff that could be charged at that level, and I hope the state of New York in particular throws the book at Trump and his vile spawn.
posted by Nat "King" Cole Porter Wagoner at 12:01 PM on April 23, 2019 [1 favorite]
posted by Nat "King" Cole Porter Wagoner at 12:01 PM on April 23, 2019 [1 favorite]
xammerboy: "Impeach him right now. Because if this can't be done simply and quickly Trump has now committed so many questionable acts that require investigation that the investigations will likely never end. "
"I sent wave after wave of my ownmen crime at them, until they reached their limit and shut down."
heatvision: "If the idea is to wait and let the Republicans destroy their own party... I just hope the Democrats have some kind of media blitz planned. It seems to me that there are indeed a lot of people ready to listen to helpful Democratic ideas, but messaging has been a weak point for a long time.
I mean, right now I desperately need to hear them say something more about the report, and what the point of all that was, and I'm not hearing it."
Makes me think of all those devastating attack ads showing Trump openly taking blame for the shutdown that I saw precisely zero times on TV. The ads might write themselves, but they don't record, fund, and broadcast themselves.
posted by Rhaomi at 12:02 PM on April 23, 2019 [26 favorites]
"I sent wave after wave of my own
heatvision: "If the idea is to wait and let the Republicans destroy their own party... I just hope the Democrats have some kind of media blitz planned. It seems to me that there are indeed a lot of people ready to listen to helpful Democratic ideas, but messaging has been a weak point for a long time.
I mean, right now I desperately need to hear them say something more about the report, and what the point of all that was, and I'm not hearing it."
Makes me think of all those devastating attack ads showing Trump openly taking blame for the shutdown that I saw precisely zero times on TV. The ads might write themselves, but they don't record, fund, and broadcast themselves.
posted by Rhaomi at 12:02 PM on April 23, 2019 [26 favorites]
I was a Trump transition staffer, and I’ve seen enough. It’s time for impeachment.
posted by Sublimity at 12:12 PM on April 23, 2019 [37 favorites]
posted by Sublimity at 12:12 PM on April 23, 2019 [37 favorites]
and surprising to see how few of the reported questions addressed the secretary's fabricated administrative record and his duties under the administrative procedures act. this observer hopes it is because the malfeasance and misrepresentations of ross and his government lawyers is so egregious that no justice had any questions about that. wonder, though, how the court will get a majority to agree that three separate courts' thorough (think i've only read two) findings of fact and law were so erroneous they must be overturned.
posted by 20 year lurk at 12:38 PM on April 23, 2019 [2 favorites]
posted by 20 year lurk at 12:38 PM on April 23, 2019 [2 favorites]
“Since 2012, every presidential election stands up a pre-transition team for both candidates, so that the real transition will have had a six-month head start when the election is decided. I participated in a similar effort for Mitt Romney, and despite our defeat, it was a thrilling and rewarding experience.”
posted by mcdoublewide at 12:42 PM on April 23, 2019 [14 favorites]
posted by mcdoublewide at 12:42 PM on April 23, 2019 [14 favorites]
Presidential nominees who don't win still set up transition teams. All of them (except Trump) know that it takes about 6 months to really get an administration set up.
posted by hydropsyche at 12:45 PM on April 23, 2019 [5 favorites]
posted by hydropsyche at 12:45 PM on April 23, 2019 [5 favorites]
That article by Vetter was weak ("The Mueller report was the tipping point for me") but the Rahm Emmanuel article about Buttigieg was great.
posted by M-x shell at 12:46 PM on April 23, 2019
posted by M-x shell at 12:46 PM on April 23, 2019
It's interesting to see the Justices' questions at oral argument being interpreted as though they are rhetorical questions designed to make a point, rather than actual question questions designed to illicit a response from the attorney before the court. That sort of interpretation of oral argument
Isn't that the interpretation of at least one currently sitting justice? IIR Thomas virtually never asks questions because he thinks questions during oral argument are a performance.
posted by Justinian at 12:59 PM on April 23, 2019 [1 favorite]
Isn't that the interpretation of at least one currently sitting justice? IIR Thomas virtually never asks questions because he thinks questions during oral argument are a performance.
posted by Justinian at 12:59 PM on April 23, 2019 [1 favorite]
Mod note: Enough on the "transition" thing.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 12:59 PM on April 23, 2019 [7 favorites]
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 12:59 PM on April 23, 2019 [7 favorites]
Yup, and his first question in three years came in March, and you can't read his question- about whether the defense had also struck jurors off (and what race they were), after the prosecutors had struck off almost all the black jurors- as anything but an indication of his position on the case.
posted by BungaDunga at 1:09 PM on April 23, 2019
posted by BungaDunga at 1:09 PM on April 23, 2019
George Conway’s #NeverTrumper Checks and Balances group has issued a statement on the Mueller report:
And CNN reports: Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan hits Trump over Mueller report as he mulls 2020 challenge
posted by Doktor Zed at 1:15 PM on April 23, 2019 [5 favorites]
The Special Counsel’s extensive investigation revealed, and the report released April 18th further confirmed, that there was a persistent effort by the Russian government to affect the 2016 U.S. election. U.S. intelligence community officials have continued to state publicly that these efforts continued through the 2018 midterm elections and remain a threat. […] We call on Congress to conduct robust, bipartisan oversight to ensure that the threats posed by ongoing foreign malign activities are addressed as matters of the highest priority as we increasingly near the 2020 election.[…](So, not advocating for impeachment immediately, but tacitly putting the process into motion.)
The report further revealed a pattern of behavior that is starkly inconsistent with the President’s constitutional duty to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” [W]e believe that the President’s conduct demonstrates a flagrant disregard for the rule of law — a disregard that is in direct conflict with his constitutional responsibilities, including his commitment under oath to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” […] We believe the framers of the Constitution would have viewed the totality of this conduct as evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors. Accordingly, Congress, which carries its own constitutional oversight responsibilities, should conduct further investigation.
And CNN reports: Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan hits Trump over Mueller report as he mulls 2020 challenge
Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan harshly criticized President Donald Trump over the findings released in special counsel Robert Mueller's report, telling reporters Tuesday that "it certainly did not completely exonerate the President as he said."But that doesn’t mean he supports impeaching Trump, however: "I don't think they should begin impeachment proceedings; I don't think it would be productive, I think most people in America are sick and tired of this whole two-year investigation, I don't think there should be Democratic overreach."
"There was some very disturbing stuff found in the report and just because aides did not follow his orders," the Republican governor said Tuesday in New Hampshire. "That's the only reason we don't have obstruction of justice."
The Republican governor, who's publicly been considering a primary challenge to the President since winning re-election in 2018 by a double-digits margin in deep blue Maryland, told reporters that Republican reluctance to criticize the President was "very frustrating."
"I know that there are a number of my colleagues, both governors and senators, members of the House who will say privately they're very concerned, that they won't say anything publicly, and I think it's because, you know, they're afraid," he said. "There's no profiles in courage here. They're afraid of being primaried. They're afraid of being tweeted about and very few of us are willing to say what we really think."
posted by Doktor Zed at 1:15 PM on April 23, 2019 [5 favorites]
"There was some very disturbing stuff found in the report and just because aides did not follow his orders," the Republican governor said Tuesday in New Hampshire. "That's the only reason we don't have obstruction of justice."
As a Marylander, I beg everyone to not be fooled by Hogan as a 'reasonable' Republican, and this slimy half-truth shows exactly why: he's basically trump, supports everything trump does, but is cunning enough to say the quiet parts quiet to win over shitheel County residents who are nominally Democrats and like putting 'hate has no place here' signs in their front yard, but also really hate paying taxes.
posted by codacorolla at 1:19 PM on April 23, 2019 [26 favorites]
As a Marylander, I beg everyone to not be fooled by Hogan as a 'reasonable' Republican, and this slimy half-truth shows exactly why: he's basically trump, supports everything trump does, but is cunning enough to say the quiet parts quiet to win over shitheel County residents who are nominally Democrats and like putting 'hate has no place here' signs in their front yard, but also really hate paying taxes.
posted by codacorolla at 1:19 PM on April 23, 2019 [26 favorites]
Agreed, codacorolla. Hogan is garbage, and I wouldn't vote for him in a million years. That said, I do endorse anything that could cause a rift between Republicans.
posted by Faint of Butt at 1:22 PM on April 23, 2019 [6 favorites]
posted by Faint of Butt at 1:22 PM on April 23, 2019 [6 favorites]
Twitter’s CEO Jack Dorsey to Hold Closed-Door Meeting With President Trump
n.b. This leaked news follows @realDonaldTrump’s two-part complaint this morning: ““The best thing ever to happen to Twitter is Donald Trump.” @MariaBartiromo So true, but they don’t treat me well as a Republican. Very discriminatory, hard for people to sign on. Constantly taking people off list. Big complaints from many people. Different names-over 100 M..... .....But should be much higher than that if Twitter wasn’t playing their political games. No wonder Congress wants to get involved - and they should. Must be more, and fairer, companies to get out the WORD!”
Trump fact-checker extraordinaire Daniel Dale dryly notes, “Twitter occasionally purges bots from people’s follower counts, including Trump’s. He has never explained how Twitter is supposedly making it hard for people to “sign on” or to follow him — appears to be something he just made up.”
posted by Doktor Zed at 1:29 PM on April 23, 2019 [19 favorites]
n.b. This leaked news follows @realDonaldTrump’s two-part complaint this morning: ““The best thing ever to happen to Twitter is Donald Trump.” @MariaBartiromo So true, but they don’t treat me well as a Republican. Very discriminatory, hard for people to sign on. Constantly taking people off list. Big complaints from many people. Different names-over 100 M..... .....But should be much higher than that if Twitter wasn’t playing their political games. No wonder Congress wants to get involved - and they should. Must be more, and fairer, companies to get out the WORD!”
Trump fact-checker extraordinaire Daniel Dale dryly notes, “Twitter occasionally purges bots from people’s follower counts, including Trump’s. He has never explained how Twitter is supposedly making it hard for people to “sign on” or to follow him — appears to be something he just made up.”
posted by Doktor Zed at 1:29 PM on April 23, 2019 [19 favorites]
M-x shell: That article by Vetter was weak ("The Mueller report was the tipping point for me")
If a Republican is jumping ship now (and to a position further than most Democratic politicians!), whether or not I respond with rolled eyes depends on their central subject. If it's "Look at me. Buy my book. Vote for my campaign", then no. But if they're keeping the focus on Trump's unfitness, that's exactly the point of impeachment and similar actions: to change minds and hearts and the popular sense of what's acceptable. The last message I want to spread to Americans is "If you change your mind, we'll hold you accountable for you entire past". Remember, even Elizabeth Warren is an ex-Republican!
(It's 'Verret'. I picked a fun new hobby)
posted by InTheYear2017 at 1:40 PM on April 23, 2019 [19 favorites]
If a Republican is jumping ship now (and to a position further than most Democratic politicians!), whether or not I respond with rolled eyes depends on their central subject. If it's "Look at me. Buy my book. Vote for my campaign", then no. But if they're keeping the focus on Trump's unfitness, that's exactly the point of impeachment and similar actions: to change minds and hearts and the popular sense of what's acceptable. The last message I want to spread to Americans is "If you change your mind, we'll hold you accountable for you entire past". Remember, even Elizabeth Warren is an ex-Republican!
(It's 'Verret'. I picked a fun new hobby)
posted by InTheYear2017 at 1:40 PM on April 23, 2019 [19 favorites]
Yesterday Jerry Nadler subpoenaed Don McGahn, both to appear and testify on May 21, but also to turn over a slew of documents pertaining to 36 topics, according to Marcy Wheeler, who responds with Hell Hath No Fury Like a Self-Promoting Republican Lawyer Scorned: Don McGahn apparently imagined working for a corrupt asshole like Trump would get him named to the Supreme Court. Instead, his firm has a lost a very lucrative client. He appears to be upping the ante by further distancing himself from Trump’s corruption. That may get ugly, because Don McGahn knows where a whole lot of Donald Trump’s bodies are buried. And given that McGahn, not Trump, is the one who packed the courts, the Republicans may have really divided loyalties over this fight.
posted by Bella Donna at 2:09 PM on April 23, 2019 [15 favorites]
posted by Bella Donna at 2:09 PM on April 23, 2019 [15 favorites]
He has never explained how Twitter is supposedly making it hard for people to “sign on” or to follow him — appears to be something he just made up.
I bet this is based on an elderly Mar-a-Lago club member bending his ear because they couldn't work out how to set up a Twitter account.
posted by jack_mo at 2:12 PM on April 23, 2019 [17 favorites]
I bet this is based on an elderly Mar-a-Lago club member bending his ear because they couldn't work out how to set up a Twitter account.
posted by jack_mo at 2:12 PM on April 23, 2019 [17 favorites]
Today Sarah Kendzior and Andrea Chalupa posted free access to their Gaslit Nation podcast Mueller Report Special, Part 1 for everyone on their Patreon page. In addition to this podcast episode, the page includes lots of links to resources and there is also an action guide! The system is broken and the institutionalists either don’t understand how to fix it or don’t care who it hurts. We have no time to lose, which is why we created a Gaslit Nation Action Guide full of suggestions you can act on now. If you don't know Gaslit Nation, it's worth check out.
posted by Bella Donna at 2:32 PM on April 23, 2019 [18 favorites]
posted by Bella Donna at 2:32 PM on April 23, 2019 [18 favorites]
Seconding the recommendation of Gaslit Nation, episodes of which (including the latest mentioned above by Bella Donna) also can be found here.
posted by Nat "King" Cole Porter Wagoner at 2:41 PM on April 23, 2019 [4 favorites]
posted by Nat "King" Cole Porter Wagoner at 2:41 PM on April 23, 2019 [4 favorites]
the Republicans may have really divided loyalties over this fight.
A classic divide by zero error.
posted by srboisvert at 2:50 PM on April 23, 2019 [38 favorites]
A classic divide by zero error.
posted by srboisvert at 2:50 PM on April 23, 2019 [38 favorites]
Trump's problem with the "public conversation" is that the thinking part of the public insists on being part of it.
posted by delfin at 2:55 PM on April 23, 2019 [2 favorites]
posted by delfin at 2:55 PM on April 23, 2019 [2 favorites]
The 5 p.m. deadline for the IRS to turn over Trump's tax returns to the House Ways and Means Committee has come and gone. Treasury Secretary Mnuchin has issued a response [PDF] to Ways and Means Chair Richard Neal saying Treasury can't act on his request for Trump's tax returns until it has been deemed in accordance with the law, and that he will let Neal know the Justice Department's legal conclusions by May 6. Neal's reply is a measly two-paragraph statement saying he will "consult with counsel about my next steps."
posted by ultraviolet catastrophe at 2:57 PM on April 23, 2019 [7 favorites]
posted by ultraviolet catastrophe at 2:57 PM on April 23, 2019 [7 favorites]
Just a quick note to say there's a new hyucking hyuck thread up.
posted by filthy light thief at 3:08 PM on April 23, 2019 [8 favorites]
posted by filthy light thief at 3:08 PM on April 23, 2019 [8 favorites]
Twitter’s CEO Jack Dorsey to Hold Closed-Door Meeting With President Trump
WaPo, Trump met with Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey -- and complained about his follower count
posted by zachlipton at 3:32 PM on April 23, 2019 [58 favorites]
WaPo, Trump met with Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey -- and complained about his follower count
A significant portion of the meeting focused on Trump’s concerns that Twitter quietly, and deliberately, has limited or removed some of his followers, according to a person with direct knowledge of the conversation who requested anonymity because it was private. Trump said he had heard from fellow conservatives who had lost followers for unclear reasons as well.Everything is so dumb all the time now.
posted by zachlipton at 3:32 PM on April 23, 2019 [58 favorites]
Trump is an empty suit, there was no way the meeting was for anything other than a convenient setting to exercise some power over some new people, even if that exercise was limited to their flying into town for the occasion.
posted by rhizome at 3:38 PM on April 23, 2019 [4 favorites]
posted by rhizome at 3:38 PM on April 23, 2019 [4 favorites]
I feel like I'm going crazy.
You're not going crazy. Shit's fucked up.
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 3:55 PM on April 23, 2019 [34 favorites]
You're not going crazy. Shit's fucked up.
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 3:55 PM on April 23, 2019 [34 favorites]
Andy McKean, the longest-serving Republican member of the Iowa state legislature, is leaving the Republican Party and registering as a Democrat.
"With the 2020 presidential election looming on the horizon, I feel, as a Republican, that I need to be able to support the standard bearer of our party," McKean said during a news conference at the Capitol. "Unfortunately, that's something I'm unable to do."
posted by Sublimity at 4:30 PM on April 23, 2019 [45 favorites]
"With the 2020 presidential election looming on the horizon, I feel, as a Republican, that I need to be able to support the standard bearer of our party," McKean said during a news conference at the Capitol. "Unfortunately, that's something I'm unable to do."
posted by Sublimity at 4:30 PM on April 23, 2019 [45 favorites]
Gorsuch Comments Preview Endgame If Citizenship Question Is Added To Census
posted by T.D. Strange at 4:32 PM on April 23, 2019 [30 favorites]
If the citizenship question is allowed to stay on the census — and the conduct of conservative justices Tuesday suggests it will be — a case establishing whether the data could be used to cut noncitizens from the redistricting count would only be a matter of time.This is how they prevent make gerrymandering reform obsolete. The underlying census data will be bogus. Make no mistake, the Roberts Court will not allow fair elections again.
posted by T.D. Strange at 4:32 PM on April 23, 2019 [30 favorites]
Trump administration confused as to why an inaccurate census is a ‘bad thing’ (Alexandra Petri, WaPo)
For too long, we have been trammeled and burdened by accurate numbers. For too long, we have been forced to give more resources to California than to North Dakota on the absurd grounds that, factually, more people reside in the one than in the other. Well, if the court finds — as they sounded pretty inclined to do! — that Wilbur “King of Bankruptcy, Prince of Not Filling Out Financial Disclosure Forms With Perfect Accuracy” Ross is within his rights to ask for less accurate data, then soon, we will no longer be bound by such pedestrian concerns. There can be as many or as few people in a state as we would like! This will make 2020 much more interesting.posted by Johnny Wallflower at 4:37 PM on April 23, 2019 [12 favorites]
Some days, there will be no one in Florida at all. On other days, there will be three Floridas. Sometimes there will be a whole gaggle of people driving through Arizona with trunks full of women covered in duct tape, like in “Sicario,” and on other days they will disappear as if they never really existed. Puerto Rico may turn out to contain no people worth sending federal aid to at all. It will vary by the time, the weather and whether Fox News remembered to mention Rhode Island that morning. In any case, the country will never not be “full.”
Hey guys, Infrastructure Week is back on
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 4:46 PM on April 23, 2019 [8 favorites]
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 4:46 PM on April 23, 2019 [8 favorites]
A memo distributed to employees of the US Department of Agriculture requires them to include a disclaimer that their peer-reviewed work doesn’t represent agency findings or policy.
posted by Joe in Australia at 5:31 PM on April 23, 2019 [8 favorites]
posted by Joe in Australia at 5:31 PM on April 23, 2019 [8 favorites]
Trump says he is opposed to White House aides testifying to Congress, deepening power struggle with Hill (WaPo)
President Trump on Tuesday said he is opposed to current and former White House aides providing testimony to congressional panels in the wake of the special counsel report, intensifying a power struggle between his administration and House Democrats.posted by Barack Spinoza at 5:37 PM on April 23, 2019 [9 favorites]
In an interview with the Washington Post, Trump said that complying with congressional requests was unnecessary after the White House cooperated with special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s probe of Russian> interference and the president’s own conduct in office.
President Trump on Tuesday said he is opposed to current and former White House aides providing testimony to congressional panels.
Former White House aides? How does that work? Trump holds no control over people who don't work for him. What can he do - threaten to fire them from a job they don't have if they don't obey him?
posted by JackFlash at 5:53 PM on April 23, 2019 [3 favorites]
Former White House aides? How does that work? Trump holds no control over people who don't work for him. What can he do - threaten to fire them from a job they don't have if they don't obey him?
posted by JackFlash at 5:53 PM on April 23, 2019 [3 favorites]
You'd think he'd be practically begging them to testify, since Mueller's report was so unfair and they'd be able to clear it up and explain how it should have exonerated him.
posted by BungaDunga at 5:54 PM on April 23, 2019 [15 favorites]
posted by BungaDunga at 5:54 PM on April 23, 2019 [15 favorites]
And that's something Democrats should capitalize on! I mean, it's sitting right there. Maybe even an genuine humiliation.
posted by rhizome at 6:04 PM on April 23, 2019 [3 favorites]
posted by rhizome at 6:04 PM on April 23, 2019 [3 favorites]
@nycsouthpaw
The executive says he doesn’t have to answer to the legislature because he cooperated with a subordinate executive branch official.
posted by chris24 at 6:07 PM on April 23, 2019 [41 favorites]
The executive says he doesn’t have to answer to the legislature because he cooperated with a subordinate executive branch official.
posted by chris24 at 6:07 PM on April 23, 2019 [41 favorites]
Joe in Australia, I’ve seen that article going around today, and I don’t doubt Secretary Perdue would support such an, um, I’ll-considered policy. However, I’m a USDA scientist, and I’ve not [yet] seen such a memo. I also expect that the rule will be widely ignored. Manuscripts are long, complex documents, and sometimes you miss a little detail or two. My pension vests in a few years and I’m counting the days.
posted by wintermind at 6:55 PM on April 23, 2019 [11 favorites]
posted by wintermind at 6:55 PM on April 23, 2019 [11 favorites]
US immigration officials looking at housing migrant children at Guantánamo Bay, report says
America is bad.
posted by Rust Moranis at 7:26 PM on April 23, 2019 [45 favorites]
America is bad.
posted by Rust Moranis at 7:26 PM on April 23, 2019 [45 favorites]
The original report on that says the plan was "looked at" previously, past tense, and does not appear to be moving forward (there's a "dormitory facility that has been used in the past to hold asylum seekers" there—the story of Haitian refugees held there, initially what amounted to an "HIV prison camp," is something people should know, speaking of "America is bad"), though DoD is looking at other military facilities.
posted by zachlipton at 7:32 PM on April 23, 2019 [8 favorites]
posted by zachlipton at 7:32 PM on April 23, 2019 [8 favorites]
Debt hits an all time high. Trump finances his tax cuts to game the economy while bankrupting the nation. Same trick as Reagan.
@realDonaldTrump: You mean the Stock Market hit an all-time record high today and they’re actually talking impeachment!? Will I ever be given credit for anything by the Fake News Media or Radical Liberal Dems? NO COLLUSION!posted by xammerboy at 8:26 PM on April 23, 2019 [8 favorites]
Slate: The Black Feminists Who Saw the Alt-Right Threat Coming
[...] It’s impossible to say how many of the fake accounts that #YourSlipIsShowing called out were actually part of the Russian propaganda operation that may have helped tilt the 2016 election. But what does seem clear is that the misinformation, bot networks, and weaponized trolls that Twitter did little to curb back in 2014 were a “dry run” for the presidential campaign two years later. In 2018, a New Knowledge report commissioned by the Senate described how Russian agents specifically “focused on developing black audiences and recruiting black Americans as assets,” a campaign honed in the depths of 4chan. “It should be validating,” Hudson said, to be proved right about what she calls the “toxic white manosphere.” “But instead it’s been upsetting and alarming. Nobody wants to be right about how much real peril we’re all in, even if you saw it coming.”posted by Joe in Australia at 9:21 PM on April 23, 2019 [21 favorites]
The Guardian view on Donald Trump’s UK visit: a mistake
Editorial
Editorial
During his last visit, Mr Trump avoided central London due to the expected protests. He will have to endure them this time. John Bercow, the Commons Speaker, refused to offer Mr Trump an invitation to address parliament. He has previously said it was an “earned honour” and not a right. Mr Trump has earned no such distinction.posted by mumimor at 12:43 AM on April 24, 2019 [17 favorites]
My grudging admiration for John Bercow becomes slightly less grudging.
posted by skybluepink at 1:34 AM on April 24, 2019 [11 favorites]
posted by skybluepink at 1:34 AM on April 24, 2019 [11 favorites]
Boy, that UK trip is gonna be great.
@realDonaldTrump
“Former CIA analyst Larry Johnson accuses United Kingdom Intelligence of helping Obama Administration Spy on the 2016 Trump Presidential Campaign.” @OANN
WOW! It is now just a question of time before the truth comes out, and when it does, it will be a beauty!
posted by chris24 at 4:12 AM on April 24, 2019 [8 favorites]
@realDonaldTrump
“Former CIA analyst Larry Johnson accuses United Kingdom Intelligence of helping Obama Administration Spy on the 2016 Trump Presidential Campaign.” @OANN
WOW! It is now just a question of time before the truth comes out, and when it does, it will be a beauty!
posted by chris24 at 4:12 AM on April 24, 2019 [8 favorites]
I am a big Pelosi fan in general, but it is disturbing how some Republicans are so much better on impeachment than Dem leadership is. From Michael Gerson, former Bush chief speechwriter in the Post.
House leaders should lay the groundwork for impeachment
House leaders should lay the groundwork for impeachment
It is indeed likely that elected Republicans would fail to defend constitutional values if tested by an impeachment vote. But they should be tested nonetheless. The honor of the presidency now depends on the actions of Congress. Beginning with a thorough series of coordinated hearings, House leaders should lay the groundwork for impeachment — and at least delay the surrender of our institutions to cynicism.posted by chris24 at 4:35 AM on April 24, 2019 [17 favorites]
@realDonaldTrump:“Former CIA analyst Larry Johnson accuses United Kingdom Intelligence of helping Obama Administration Spy on the 2016 Trump Presidential Campaign.” @OANN WOW! It is now just a question of time before the truth comes out, and when it does, it will be a beauty!
Matthew Gertz (Media Matters)
In March 2017, Sean Spicer started an international incident by spreading Fox commentator Andrew Napolitano's claim about this. Napolitano was citing Johnson, who had made the claim on RT. Brits denied it, Fox suspended Napolitano. Andrew Napolitano Off Fox News “Indefinitely” After Media Matters Exposed His Lie About Britain Spying On Trump
posted by chris24 at 4:43 AM on April 24, 2019 [27 favorites]
Matthew Gertz (Media Matters)
In March 2017, Sean Spicer started an international incident by spreading Fox commentator Andrew Napolitano's claim about this. Napolitano was citing Johnson, who had made the claim on RT. Brits denied it, Fox suspended Napolitano. Andrew Napolitano Off Fox News “Indefinitely” After Media Matters Exposed His Lie About Britain Spying On Trump
posted by chris24 at 4:43 AM on April 24, 2019 [27 favorites]
Bill Kristol
The third Article of Impeachment against Richard Nixon charged him with failing "without lawful cause or excuse to produce papers and things as directed by duly authorized subpoenas issued by the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives."
posted by chris24 at 4:47 AM on April 24, 2019 [70 favorites]
The third Article of Impeachment against Richard Nixon charged him with failing "without lawful cause or excuse to produce papers and things as directed by duly authorized subpoenas issued by the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives."
posted by chris24 at 4:47 AM on April 24, 2019 [70 favorites]
Europe Doubles Down on Iran Support as Trump Targets Oil Exports
This will end up becoming the wedge that fragments "the West" into squabbling ideological factions, just like internal politics in the US and the UK.
posted by hugbucket at 4:50 AM on April 24, 2019 [5 favorites]
This will end up becoming the wedge that fragments "the West" into squabbling ideological factions, just like internal politics in the US and the UK.
posted by hugbucket at 4:50 AM on April 24, 2019 [5 favorites]
@realDonaldTrump:“Former CIA analyst Larry Johnson accuses United Kingdom Intelligence of helping Obama Administration Spy on the 2016 Trump Presidential Campaign.” @OANN WOW! It is now just a question of time before the truth comes out, and when it does, it will be a beauty!
Oliver Willis (Shareblue)
Larry Johnson is the guy who pushed the lie that there was a Michelle Obama “whitey” tape back in 2008.
posted by chris24 at 4:54 AM on April 24, 2019 [21 favorites]
Oliver Willis (Shareblue)
Larry Johnson is the guy who pushed the lie that there was a Michelle Obama “whitey” tape back in 2008.
posted by chris24 at 4:54 AM on April 24, 2019 [21 favorites]
Quinta Jurecic made a helpful chart of the possible obstruction charges Mueller considered, color-coded to show the instances where he appears to conclude all three prongs of the statute were violated. As you can see, that’s eight different charges where he seems to be saying Trump committed all three elements.
posted by zachlipton at 10:43 PM on April 19 [45 favorites +] [!]
It appears this link is broken, though Ms. Jurecic has published this chart in a full post to LawFare, including more detail about each possible instance of collusion and each of the three relevant statutes -
https://www.lawfareblog.com/obstruction-justice-mueller-report-heat-map
posted by Ian.I.Am at 5:00 AM on April 24, 2019 [13 favorites]
posted by zachlipton at 10:43 PM on April 19 [45 favorites +] [!]
It appears this link is broken, though Ms. Jurecic has published this chart in a full post to LawFare, including more detail about each possible instance of collusion and each of the three relevant statutes -
https://www.lawfareblog.com/obstruction-justice-mueller-report-heat-map
posted by Ian.I.Am at 5:00 AM on April 24, 2019 [13 favorites]
In other morning-tweet news:
The Mueller Report, despite being written by Angry Democrats and Trump Haters, and with unlimited money behind it ($35,000,000), didn’t lay a glove on me. I DID NOTHING WRONG. If the partisan Dems ever tried to Impeach, I would first head to the U.S. Supreme Court. Not only......posted by box at 5:28 AM on April 24, 2019 [4 favorites]
.....are there no “High Crimes and Misdemeanors,” there are no Crimes by me at all. All of the Crimes were committed by Crooked Hillary, the Dems, the DNC and Dirty Cops - and we caught them in the act! We waited for Mueller and WON, so now the Dems look to Congress as last hope!
Provoking a constitutional crisis at home...
...and an international one with Mexico.
@realDonaldTrump
Mexico’s Soldiers recently pulled guns on our National Guard Soldiers, probably as a diversionary tactic for drug smugglers on the Border. Better not happen again! We are now sending ARMED SOLDIERS to the Border. Mexico is not doing nearly enough in apprehending & returning!
posted by chris24 at 5:32 AM on April 24, 2019 [3 favorites]
...and an international one with Mexico.
@realDonaldTrump
Mexico’s Soldiers recently pulled guns on our National Guard Soldiers, probably as a diversionary tactic for drug smugglers on the Border. Better not happen again! We are now sending ARMED SOLDIERS to the Border. Mexico is not doing nearly enough in apprehending & returning!
posted by chris24 at 5:32 AM on April 24, 2019 [3 favorites]
Waiting is For White People: The Privilege of Not Impeaching Trump (Michael Harriot, The Root)
posted by pjenks at 5:34 AM on April 24, 2019 [39 favorites]
posted by pjenks at 5:34 AM on April 24, 2019 [39 favorites]
House Democrats Are Failing to Investigate the White House
Given this history, it was disappointing when—the day after the midterms—House Democratic leadership staff told Politico they would push committees to move slowly on basic matters such as obtaining Trump’s tax returns and financial records. It was even more disappointing when February came around and Hakeem Jeffries, the Democratic Caucus Chairman, declared: “We’re not going to overreach. We’re not going to over-investigate.”posted by T.D. Strange at 6:08 AM on April 24, 2019 [11 favorites]
The logic behind this strategy is clear. The party wants to avoid accusations that they are mainly driven by hatred of Trump. But empirical evidence suggests that the public does not share these concerns. An April 2019 poll asked Americans if they are more worried that the Trump administration will get away with “corruption, unethical behavior, or mishandling important problems” or if they are more worried that Democrats will “go too far and abuse oversight powers.” They opted for the former, 51 percent to 42 percent. That nine-point gap is a steady increase over what it was in December and November 2018.
In other morning-tweet news...
This was the point of "alternative facts" folks
posted by thelonius at 6:11 AM on April 24, 2019 [2 favorites]
This was the point of "alternative facts" folks
posted by thelonius at 6:11 AM on April 24, 2019 [2 favorites]
In case anybody is wondering what the ARMED SOLDIERS yammering was about:
Two U.S. soldiers stopped in Texas by Mexican troops who thought they crossed the border (Mark Ramirez, Dallas Morning News)
posted by mcdoublewide at 6:25 AM on April 24, 2019 [10 favorites]
Two U.S. soldiers stopped in Texas by Mexican troops who thought they crossed the border (Mark Ramirez, Dallas Morning News)
posted by mcdoublewide at 6:25 AM on April 24, 2019 [10 favorites]
So, Mexican troops enforcing the border even more stringently (considering the US troops hadn't actually crossed the border) is Mexican troops not doing enough to enforce the border.
posted by emelenjr at 6:34 AM on April 24, 2019 [10 favorites]
posted by emelenjr at 6:34 AM on April 24, 2019 [10 favorites]
In other morning-tweet news
Media Matter's Matt Gertz connects @realDonaldTrump's morning rant about "no Crimes by me at all" and "I DID NOTHING WRONG" with a Fox & Friends segment "Dems Divided: Impeach or Investigate?" (video). Their talking points are "it's political, and the politics are the Democrats would like revenge for the fact that Donald Trump won" because the Mueller report totally cleared Trump. This is what the rightwing news bubble sounds like—no wonder even the most vulnerable GOP incumbents are staying loyal to Trump (Politico).
As for the "Dems Divided on Impeachment" theme, the Toronto Star's Daniel Dale on his new article, Democratic Leaders Remain Reluctant To Impeach Trump: "I contacted Democratic county chairs around the U.S. to ask them about impeachment. The main response was concern about backlash. Of 12 who got back to me, 7 said don't do it, 4 said more evidence is needed, 1 said she'd do it but has apprehensions[.] There was a consensus that Trump had committed impeachable offences, but lots of skepticism that it's the right thing to do given Trump's talent for using perceived victimhood. One said impeachment would be obvious in a "fully functioning democracy," but not in the current U.S. Polls suggest that Democratic voters are generally supportive of impeachment, so don't treat local party activist-officials as broadly representative. But it was interesting."
posted by Doktor Zed at 6:37 AM on April 24, 2019 [14 favorites]
Media Matter's Matt Gertz connects @realDonaldTrump's morning rant about "no Crimes by me at all" and "I DID NOTHING WRONG" with a Fox & Friends segment "Dems Divided: Impeach or Investigate?" (video). Their talking points are "it's political, and the politics are the Democrats would like revenge for the fact that Donald Trump won" because the Mueller report totally cleared Trump. This is what the rightwing news bubble sounds like—no wonder even the most vulnerable GOP incumbents are staying loyal to Trump (Politico).
As for the "Dems Divided on Impeachment" theme, the Toronto Star's Daniel Dale on his new article, Democratic Leaders Remain Reluctant To Impeach Trump: "I contacted Democratic county chairs around the U.S. to ask them about impeachment. The main response was concern about backlash. Of 12 who got back to me, 7 said don't do it, 4 said more evidence is needed, 1 said she'd do it but has apprehensions[.] There was a consensus that Trump had committed impeachable offences, but lots of skepticism that it's the right thing to do given Trump's talent for using perceived victimhood. One said impeachment would be obvious in a "fully functioning democracy," but not in the current U.S. Polls suggest that Democratic voters are generally supportive of impeachment, so don't treat local party activist-officials as broadly representative. But it was interesting."
posted by Doktor Zed at 6:37 AM on April 24, 2019 [14 favorites]
Also FWIW, that border incident with the Mexican soldiers apparently took place on April 13. Must just happen to be a dire emergency today for... some reason.
posted by Rykey at 6:55 AM on April 24, 2019 [12 favorites]
posted by Rykey at 6:55 AM on April 24, 2019 [12 favorites]
It'd sure be nifty if there were some Democrats with power that had grasped we are in a completely different information environment than we were when Clinton was president. The longer they let Trump control the news cycle the more difficult it becomes to do anything constructive since they're always having to play catch up because they're reacting instead of instigating and controlling events and perception of them. If the demented troll occupying the White House gets this, the one thing he does seem to clearly understand, you'd think it'd be obvious to everyone, but some of the party seems to not have gotten the memo.
posted by gusottertrout at 6:59 AM on April 24, 2019 [28 favorites]
posted by gusottertrout at 6:59 AM on April 24, 2019 [28 favorites]
In the name of research, I watched morning Fox. Wow. In 30 minutes, I annotated 16 cases of intentional disinformation, four cases where nlp type triggering language was used, and a significant semantic load in almost every sentence uttered by the talking heads. Fox News, assuming we all survive, is going to make a stunning PhD project on how propaganda became mainstream for some future anthropologist.
posted by SecretAgentSockpuppet at 7:02 AM on April 24, 2019 [32 favorites]
posted by SecretAgentSockpuppet at 7:02 AM on April 24, 2019 [32 favorites]
McConnell vows to block Democratic proposals after 2020 elections: "Think of me as the Grim Reaper" (Igor Derysh, Salon) - It's an ironic turn for a Republican who just weeks earlier complained of “historic obstruction” by Democrats
McConnell told constituents in Owensboro, Kentucky, that none of the proposals would come to pass if he is still in power in 2021. […]posted by ZeusHumms at 7:02 AM on April 24, 2019 [14 favorites]
"Are we going to turn this into a socialist country? Don't assume it cannot happen," he added. "If I'm still the majority leader of the Senate, think of me as the 'Grim Reaper.' None of that stuff is going to pass – none of it." […]
McConnell, who is among 22 Republicans vying for reelection next year, told reporters earlier this month that he wants to make the 2020 elections a “referendum on socialism,” because he believes it will help the party win over voters, according to The Hill. But public opinion polls suggest Republicans may be overplaying their hand.
Polling on the Green New Deal, which seeks to phase out fossil fuels, provide guaranteed clean energy jobs and a $15 minimum wage with health care benefits and collective bargaining rights, among other things, shows that the idea does not provoke the anti-socialist backlash McConnell and Republicans think.
According to a survey from Data for Progress and Civis Analytics, 46 percent of voters back the Green New Deal, while 34 percent oppose the proposal. Among voters who voted for both Trump and former President Barack Obama, 45 percent support the idea while 39 percent oppose.
Re: propaganda and style
How shock jock comedy gave way to Donald Trump’s Republican Party
posted by The Whelk at 7:05 AM on April 24, 2019 [22 favorites]
How shock jock comedy gave way to Donald Trump’s Republican Party
posted by The Whelk at 7:05 AM on April 24, 2019 [22 favorites]
"In the months before Kirstjen Nielsen was forced to resign, she tried to focus the White House on one of her highest priorities as homeland security secretary: preparing for new and different Russian forms of interference in the 2020 election.
[Mick Mulvaney] told her not to bring it up in front of the president." (NYT)
posted by box at 7:08 AM on April 24, 2019 [43 favorites]
[Mick Mulvaney] told her not to bring it up in front of the president." (NYT)
posted by box at 7:08 AM on April 24, 2019 [43 favorites]
In the months before Kirstjen Nielsen was forced to resign, she tried to focus the White House on one of her highest priorities as homeland security secretary: preparing for new and different Russian forms of interference in the 2020 election.
Ah, I see Haberman is back to rehabilitating her sources for access.
posted by chris24 at 7:38 AM on April 24, 2019 [29 favorites]
Ah, I see Haberman is back to rehabilitating her sources for access.
posted by chris24 at 7:38 AM on April 24, 2019 [29 favorites]
odinsdream: So, obstruction of justice even beyond what the Mueller report documents, in that he was forcing the Dept. of Homeland Security to shift priorities to torturing children instead of defending our infrastructure from foreign attacks.
Yes, and also a good example of the "Trump himself (probably) didn't outright articulate it, so it wasn't a willful action on his part" principle that got him (and others) off the hook for conspiracy.
Someday soon we'll need to rework the laws and their application to adequately account for "working toward the Fuhrer" and such. It's actually a little surprising that a requisite legal theory didn't arise after the era of Prohibition-fueled organized crime.
posted by InTheYear2017 at 7:39 AM on April 24, 2019 [9 favorites]
Yes, and also a good example of the "Trump himself (probably) didn't outright articulate it, so it wasn't a willful action on his part" principle that got him (and others) off the hook for conspiracy.
Someday soon we'll need to rework the laws and their application to adequately account for "working toward the Fuhrer" and such. It's actually a little surprising that a requisite legal theory didn't arise after the era of Prohibition-fueled organized crime.
posted by InTheYear2017 at 7:39 AM on April 24, 2019 [9 favorites]
Another issue with waiting for the election to resolve this; if they steal the election with foreign help, even if the Ds retain the House and even get the Senate and investigate and find the crime, the only remedy is impeachment. And that’s assuming you can get some Rs to vote for conviction if it’s that egregious. Not a reversal of the election. Or another election. Which means President Pence for the remainder of the term. Which means another partisan hack to replace RBG and more nut jobs in the rest of the judiciary. And every other vile policy continued.
posted by chris24 at 7:50 AM on April 24, 2019 [12 favorites]
posted by chris24 at 7:50 AM on April 24, 2019 [12 favorites]
If the partisan Dems ever tried to Impeach, I would first head to the U.S. Supreme Court.
And SCOTUS would do nothing for him, at least if stare decisis has any meaning at all. Impeached and convicted Judge Walter Nixon tried to challenge it in Nixon v. United States, and the Court ruled that impeachment was a non-justiciable political question, i.e. the Judicial Branch has no authority to review impeachments.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 8:22 AM on April 24, 2019 [31 favorites]
And SCOTUS would do nothing for him, at least if stare decisis has any meaning at all. Impeached and convicted Judge Walter Nixon tried to challenge it in Nixon v. United States, and the Court ruled that impeachment was a non-justiciable political question, i.e. the Judicial Branch has no authority to review impeachments.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 8:22 AM on April 24, 2019 [31 favorites]
Wouldn't that be asking the SCOTUS to declare the Constitution....unconstitutional?
posted by JoeZydeco at 8:31 AM on April 24, 2019 [8 favorites]
posted by JoeZydeco at 8:31 AM on April 24, 2019 [8 favorites]
While we second guess what we think Democratic leadership is or is not about to do, remember that they have only had the full verified copy of the Mueller report for 0 days.
They've had a white-house version for 6 days. Of course this regime's honesty is [redacted ] beyond question so we might as well take [redacted] at face value.
posted by Anchorite_of_Palgrave at 8:35 AM on April 24, 2019 [7 favorites]
They've had a white-house version for 6 days. Of course this regime's honesty is [redacted ] beyond question so we might as well take [redacted] at face value.
posted by Anchorite_of_Palgrave at 8:35 AM on April 24, 2019 [7 favorites]
If a candidate has read the Mueller report and is waffling on whether or not to impeach Trump, will they go on to fight for my healthcare and a livable planet? I think not.
posted by xammerboy at 8:46 AM on April 24, 2019 [51 favorites]
posted by xammerboy at 8:46 AM on April 24, 2019 [51 favorites]
zachlipton: A significant portion of the meeting focused on Trump’s concerns that Twitter quietly, and deliberately, has limited or removed some of his followers, according to a person with direct knowledge of the conversation who requested anonymity because it was private. Trump said he had heard from fellow conservatives who had lost followers for unclear reasons as well.
It's not unclear at all -- Twitter shuts down 5,000 pro-Trump bots retweeting anti-Mueller report invective -- Bots were tied to account formerly used for pro-Saudi messaging. (Sean Gallagher for Ars Technica, April 23, 2019)
posted by filthy light thief at 8:51 AM on April 24, 2019 [21 favorites]
It's not unclear at all -- Twitter shuts down 5,000 pro-Trump bots retweeting anti-Mueller report invective -- Bots were tied to account formerly used for pro-Saudi messaging. (Sean Gallagher for Ars Technica, April 23, 2019)
Twitter has suspended over 5,000 accounts tied to a network amplifying a message denouncing the report by Special Counsel Robert Mueller as a "RussiaGate hoax." According to a researcher, the accounts—most of which had only posted three or four times in the past—were connected to other accounts previously used to post pro-Saudi messages.Also, the President should't be worried about his number of Twitter followers anyway, but he is, and that's totally normal now.
In response to an inquiry by Ars, a Twitter spokeswoman said, "We suspended a network of accounts and others associated with it for engaging in platform manipulation—a violation of the Twitter Rules." An investigation into the network is still ongoing, the spokeswoman said, but no determination has yet been made about who was behind the campaign.
posted by filthy light thief at 8:51 AM on April 24, 2019 [21 favorites]
Mod note: A few comments deleted. Let's please reel back the "this is what will totally happen" predictions, and stick more to actual now-happening events and facts. Thanks.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 9:06 AM on April 24, 2019 [7 favorites]
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 9:06 AM on April 24, 2019 [7 favorites]
There was an interview with the executive director of the ACLU of New Mexico on yesterday's Democracy Now! (full episode, direct .mp4, alt link, torrents 1, 2) about the militia bozos / “United Constitutional Patriots” kidnapping people.
BBC World's The Documentary podcast a few weeks ago: “Will China and America go to war?” Not any specific event but a long-term analysis of whether the military component of the geopolitical rivalry is likely to result in a confrontation.
posted by XMLicious at 9:13 AM on April 24, 2019 [1 favorite]
BBC World's The Documentary podcast a few weeks ago: “Will China and America go to war?” Not any specific event but a long-term analysis of whether the military component of the geopolitical rivalry is likely to result in a confrontation.
posted by XMLicious at 9:13 AM on April 24, 2019 [1 favorite]
Some links I have not seen here yet...
Summaries of some of Mueller's findings...
Sharon LaFraniere, NYT: "Prodded by Putin, Russians Sought Back Channels to Trump Through the Business World"
Erik Larson, Bloomberg: "Inside the Trump Campaign’s Frenzied Search for Clinton’s Emails"
On the national security and counterintelligence implications:
Tweet thread by Andrew S Weiss: "The Mueller Report is conspicuously silent on the harm to US national security from the Trump team’s dalliances w Russian emissaries during 2015-2017, but a little-noticed DoJ filing last Friday sheds light on Mueller’s ongoing counter-intelligence (CI) investigation."
Garret M Graff, Wired: "Mueller Makes it Clear: Trump Was Worse Than a 'Useful Idiot'"
David French for Time, elaborating on the "idiot" part: "Donald Trump Is Weak and Afraid. The Mueller Report Proves It"
And finally, an update on where we stand with the Steele Dossier...
Glenn Kessler, WaPo: "What the Steele dossier said vs. what the Mueller report said"
(The fact check at this link misses two relevant points about the (apparently incorrect) allegation in the dossier that Cohen had traveled to Prague to pay Russian hackers. 1) Reporters indicated a while ago that they had found evidence of a different New Yorker named Michael Cohen with the same birth year traveling to Prague in the alleged dates. McClatchy had supposedly seen evidence that the real Cohen's cell phone was in Prague, though, and I would like them to explain... 2) According to the Mueller report as summarized at the Bloomberg link above, two Republican operatives working with Michael Flynn WERE trying to buy copies of Hillary's emails on the dark web, which would be a way of "paying hackers" if they had succeeded. And they thought they did! It seems that whatever they found was inauthentic. The real hackers were paid by the GRU, because they worked for the GRU.)
posted by OnceUponATime at 9:16 AM on April 24, 2019 [33 favorites]
Summaries of some of Mueller's findings...
Sharon LaFraniere, NYT: "Prodded by Putin, Russians Sought Back Channels to Trump Through the Business World"
Erik Larson, Bloomberg: "Inside the Trump Campaign’s Frenzied Search for Clinton’s Emails"
On the national security and counterintelligence implications:
Tweet thread by Andrew S Weiss: "The Mueller Report is conspicuously silent on the harm to US national security from the Trump team’s dalliances w Russian emissaries during 2015-2017, but a little-noticed DoJ filing last Friday sheds light on Mueller’s ongoing counter-intelligence (CI) investigation."
Garret M Graff, Wired: "Mueller Makes it Clear: Trump Was Worse Than a 'Useful Idiot'"
David French for Time, elaborating on the "idiot" part: "Donald Trump Is Weak and Afraid. The Mueller Report Proves It"
And finally, an update on where we stand with the Steele Dossier...
Glenn Kessler, WaPo: "What the Steele dossier said vs. what the Mueller report said"
(The fact check at this link misses two relevant points about the (apparently incorrect) allegation in the dossier that Cohen had traveled to Prague to pay Russian hackers. 1) Reporters indicated a while ago that they had found evidence of a different New Yorker named Michael Cohen with the same birth year traveling to Prague in the alleged dates. McClatchy had supposedly seen evidence that the real Cohen's cell phone was in Prague, though, and I would like them to explain... 2) According to the Mueller report as summarized at the Bloomberg link above, two Republican operatives working with Michael Flynn WERE trying to buy copies of Hillary's emails on the dark web, which would be a way of "paying hackers" if they had succeeded. And they thought they did! It seems that whatever they found was inauthentic. The real hackers were paid by the GRU, because they worked for the GRU.)
posted by OnceUponATime at 9:16 AM on April 24, 2019 [33 favorites]
@BillKristol: "Trump: “We are fighting all the subpoenas.” So Trump intends to abide by none of the norms observed (often grudgingly) by his predecessors that enable congressional oversight. The House could complain and threaten and go to court; or it could simply begin impeachment proceedings."
bill kristol, people
bill fuckin kristol
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 9:41 AM on April 24, 2019 [68 favorites]
bill kristol, people
bill fuckin kristol
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 9:41 AM on April 24, 2019 [68 favorites]
538 on the standard early-polls-not-meaningful talking point: We Analyzed 40 Years Of Primary Polls. Even Early On, They’re Fairly Predictive.
tl-dr; a candidate's adjusted polling average, which is their polling average divided by their name recognition, is a decent proxy even this early.
posted by Justinian at 9:46 AM on April 24, 2019 [5 favorites]
tl-dr; a candidate's adjusted polling average, which is their polling average divided by their name recognition, is a decent proxy even this early.
posted by Justinian at 9:46 AM on April 24, 2019 [5 favorites]
tl-dr; a candidate's adjusted polling average, which is their polling average divided by their name recognition, is a decent proxy even this early.
posted by Justinian at 9:46 AM on April 24 [4 favorites +] [!]
So extrapolating from this, early polling data are useless without name recognition data. So why isn't that asked and published with every poll result?
posted by Mental Wimp at 10:59 AM on April 24, 2019 [5 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 9:46 AM on April 24 [4 favorites +] [!]
So extrapolating from this, early polling data are useless without name recognition data. So why isn't that asked and published with every poll result?
posted by Mental Wimp at 10:59 AM on April 24, 2019 [5 favorites]
Hey folks, don't forget Jared Kushner's not in jail yet! He's still doing stuff! Like getting included in the Inaugural TIME 100 Summit (TIME highlights, April 23, 2019).
NPR FACT CHECK: Russian Interference Went Far Beyond 'Facebook Ads' Kushner Described (Miles Parks, April 24, 2019)
And NPR failed to mention Mueller's report documenting the various meetings held by Kushner with Russian operatives and representatives. "On June 9, 2016, for example, a Russian lawyer met with senior Trump Campaign officials Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner, and campaign chairman Paul Manafort to deliver what the email proposing the meeting had described as "official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary." "
And they didn't tell the FBI about this, which is just one of the issues at hand.
posted by filthy light thief at 11:01 AM on April 24, 2019 [23 favorites]
NPR FACT CHECK: Russian Interference Went Far Beyond 'Facebook Ads' Kushner Described (Miles Parks, April 24, 2019)
In describing Russia's efforts leading up to the 2016 election, Kushner emphasized what he called the relatively small amount of money Russian agents spent advertising on social media.Emphasis original.
"They said they spent $160,000. I spent $160,000 on Facebook in three hours during the campaign," Kushner said. "If you look at the magnitude of what they did and what they accomplished, I think the ensuing investigations have been way more harmful to our country."
Fact check: Were Facebook ads the extent of Russian election interference?
The short answer: No.
The long answer: The redacted version of Justice Department special counsel Robert Mueller's report revealed a years-long plot by the Russian government to interfere in the U.S. that investigators called "sweeping and systemic."
As to the amount of money expended on Facebook ads, the company said Russian operatives did spend less than $200,000 on advertising on the platform — but that doesn't account for the organic content the operatives created and shared.
Not only were influence specialists within Russia's Internet Research Agency purchasing normal advertisements, they were authoring their own posts, memes and other content as they posed as American users.
They also reached out to politically active Americans, posing as like-minded supporters, and helped organize rallies and other events in the real world.
And NPR failed to mention Mueller's report documenting the various meetings held by Kushner with Russian operatives and representatives. "On June 9, 2016, for example, a Russian lawyer met with senior Trump Campaign officials Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner, and campaign chairman Paul Manafort to deliver what the email proposing the meeting had described as "official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary." "
And they didn't tell the FBI about this, which is just one of the issues at hand.
posted by filthy light thief at 11:01 AM on April 24, 2019 [23 favorites]
Elliott Morris has also pointed out that below ~30% the predictivity of polling at this point goes way down.
I know it's always Different This Time, but I do think there are a couple of factors , especially the size of the field, that could throw in a monkeywrench. I think we will be much closer to knowing what's going on by say, early fall.
posted by Chrysostom at 11:03 AM on April 24, 2019 [3 favorites]
I know it's always Different This Time, but I do think there are a couple of factors , especially the size of the field, that could throw in a monkeywrench. I think we will be much closer to knowing what's going on by say, early fall.
posted by Chrysostom at 11:03 AM on April 24, 2019 [3 favorites]
WaPo, Young people actually rocked the vote in 2018, new Census Bureau data finds
posted by zachlipton at 12:08 PM on April 24, 2019 [20 favorites]
Voter turnout spiked to a 100-year high in last year’s midterm congressional elections. Census Bureau data released Tuesday finds turnout rates jumped across nearly all groups, but the shift was particularly notable among young adults who typically stay home in nonpresidential years.The article also breaks down turnout by race and education.
...
The Census found that 36 percent of citizens ages 18-29 reported voting in last year’s midterm elections, jumping 16 percentage points since 2014 (when turnout was 20 percent) and easily surpassing any midterm election since the 1980s. Turnout also increased sharply among adults ages 30-44, rising from 36 percent in 2014 to 49 percent in 2018. While turnout among younger adults still lags that of their elders, last year’s election marked a clear break from the past two decades of anemic turnout among the youngest citizens.
posted by zachlipton at 12:08 PM on April 24, 2019 [20 favorites]
WaPo, Justice Department refuses to comply with congressional subpoena for testimony on citizenship question and 2020 Census
It should be clear by now that they just aren't going to comply with everything. A lot of people are going to be surprised to learn there isn't a ton that Congress normally does about that.
posted by zachlipton at 12:20 PM on April 24, 2019 [16 favorites]
It should be clear by now that they just aren't going to comply with everything. A lot of people are going to be surprised to learn there isn't a ton that Congress normally does about that.
posted by zachlipton at 12:20 PM on April 24, 2019 [16 favorites]
It should be clear by now that they just aren't going to comply with anything.
posted by Cocodrillo at 12:24 PM on April 24, 2019 [40 favorites]
posted by Cocodrillo at 12:24 PM on April 24, 2019 [40 favorites]
I've always said it's more about legwork than adwork, and the fake accounts on Facebook and Twitter, from the Russians, the PACs, the Friends of Donald or whoever, had a much stronger influence than any advertising anywhere. And the figures from 2018 aren't that encouraging... the highest mid-term turnout in a century, most of it driven by anti-Trump attitudes, and the Democrats gained only half the number of Congress seats as the Republicans did in 2010, and the Senate... zilch. Democrats and Leftists are going to have to learn how to fight dirty. And most of the Ds already in Washington just ain't gonna do it.
posted by oneswellfoop at 12:33 PM on April 24, 2019 [4 favorites]
posted by oneswellfoop at 12:33 PM on April 24, 2019 [4 favorites]
If someone refuses a subpoena, isn't there someone who can arrest them?
posted by M-x shell at 12:37 PM on April 24, 2019 [2 favorites]
posted by M-x shell at 12:37 PM on April 24, 2019 [2 favorites]
Either this thread or the previous one had links and details about Congress' ability to compel if DoJ doesn't cooperate/help and the bottom line is a depressing "barely."
posted by phearlez at 12:40 PM on April 24, 2019 [3 favorites]
posted by phearlez at 12:40 PM on April 24, 2019 [3 favorites]
WaPo, Justice Department refuses to comply with congressional subpoena for testimony on citizenship question and 2020 Census
The WaPo's overview analysis of how the Trump-Congress subpoena fight is likely to play out suggests we're in this for the long haul.
While Congress's broad oversight function accords it legitimate subpoena powers, it lacks lacks robust criminal enforcement for issuing contempt citations—which go to the DoJ to be actually carried out—and civil enforcement winds up in court. Team Trump obviously intends to stonewall all requests and run out the clock, a strategy that they can leverage better with members of the administration like Carl Kline about security clearances and John Gore about the citizenship question than with former ones like Don McGahn or companies like Deutsche Bank or Mazars USA. They're hoping to tie everything up in the courts, especially with Trump approving federal judges at a record pace.
In the meantime, Politico's Kyle Cheney reports that Elijah Cummings announced yesterday that he plans to schedule a contempt vote for Kline, noting, "To date, the White House has refused to produce a single piece of paper or a single witness in any of the Committee’s investigations this entire year."
posted by Doktor Zed at 12:44 PM on April 24, 2019 [13 favorites]
The WaPo's overview analysis of how the Trump-Congress subpoena fight is likely to play out suggests we're in this for the long haul.
While Congress's broad oversight function accords it legitimate subpoena powers, it lacks lacks robust criminal enforcement for issuing contempt citations—which go to the DoJ to be actually carried out—and civil enforcement winds up in court. Team Trump obviously intends to stonewall all requests and run out the clock, a strategy that they can leverage better with members of the administration like Carl Kline about security clearances and John Gore about the citizenship question than with former ones like Don McGahn or companies like Deutsche Bank or Mazars USA. They're hoping to tie everything up in the courts, especially with Trump approving federal judges at a record pace.
In the meantime, Politico's Kyle Cheney reports that Elijah Cummings announced yesterday that he plans to schedule a contempt vote for Kline, noting, "To date, the White House has refused to produce a single piece of paper or a single witness in any of the Committee’s investigations this entire year."
posted by Doktor Zed at 12:44 PM on April 24, 2019 [13 favorites]
A chamber of Congress can use their inherent contempt power. They haven't done so in recent decades, but then, they haven't really had to - the executive branch often drags their feet or stonewalls, but it's basically never just raised both middle fingers to Congress like this.
posted by Chrysostom at 12:44 PM on April 24, 2019 [22 favorites]
posted by Chrysostom at 12:44 PM on April 24, 2019 [22 favorites]
If someone refuses a subpoena, isn't there someone who can arrest them?
Yes, the US Marshals. Under the direction of the DoJ, headed by one William Barr. And that would require a criminal indictment, which would have to be brought by... the DoJ.
Civil contempt cases can be appealed all the way even to SCOTUS, if the court accepts the case. This will be used to drag the process out as long as possible. You can be imprisoned for civil contempt on order of a judge.
posted by BungaDunga at 12:48 PM on April 24, 2019 [1 favorite]
Yes, the US Marshals. Under the direction of the DoJ, headed by one William Barr. And that would require a criminal indictment, which would have to be brought by... the DoJ.
Civil contempt cases can be appealed all the way even to SCOTUS, if the court accepts the case. This will be used to drag the process out as long as possible. You can be imprisoned for civil contempt on order of a judge.
posted by BungaDunga at 12:48 PM on April 24, 2019 [1 favorite]
Bloomberg, Trump Backed Libyan Strongman’s Attack on Tripoli, U.S. Officials Say
President Donald Trump indicated in a phone call with Libyan strongman Khalifa Haftar last week that the U.S. supported an assault on the country’s capital to depose its United Nations-backed government, according to American officials familiar with the matter.posted by zachlipton at 1:10 PM on April 24, 2019 [21 favorites]
An earlier call from White House National Security Adviser John Bolton also left Haftar with the impression of a U.S. green light for an offensive on Tripoli by his forces, known as the Libyan National Army, according to three diplomats.
Those accounts go beyond a White House statement issued Friday on an April 15 call between Trump and Haftar. The revelation that the U.S. president had tacitly recognized Haftar -- addressed as “field marshal” in the statement -- as a Libyan leader abruptly undermined the country’s internationally-recognized government led by Prime Minister Fayez Al-Sarraj.
...
The White House encouragement for Haftar represented a dramatic turn from the public position taken days earlier by Secretary of State Michael Pompeo. In an April 7 statement, Pompeo said: “We have made clear that we oppose the military offensive by Khalifa Haftar’s forces and urge the immediate halt to these military operations against the Libyan capital.”
Trump and Bolton also undercut the U.S. charge d’affairs in Libya, Peter Bodde, who has repeatedly warned Haftar against advancing on Tripoli. He told Haftar during a February meeting in Abu Dhabi that the capital was a red line, according to diplomats familiar with the matter.
From the NYTimes:
Tennessee’s Vengeful Lawmakers
After enormous black turnout in the 2018 midterms, Republicans are advancing a bill that would penalize voter registration drives.
By Cliff Albright
posted by mumimor at 1:17 PM on April 24, 2019 [33 favorites]
Tennessee’s Vengeful Lawmakers
After enormous black turnout in the 2018 midterms, Republicans are advancing a bill that would penalize voter registration drives.
By Cliff Albright
posted by mumimor at 1:17 PM on April 24, 2019 [33 favorites]
A pro-Trump, anti-abortion Rhode Island man was arrested today for allegedly sending a Massachusetts professor a series of violent e-mails over the professor's pro-abortion, anti-Trump views - like threatening to dismember the professor and his family. When police in the guy's town paid him a visit over the e-mails, he said he didn't mean any harm. He now faces up to five years in prison on charges of cyberstalking and transmitting a threat in interstate commerce. Affidavit by a detective on the case details the messages (content warning).
posted by adamg at 1:54 PM on April 24, 2019 [23 favorites]
posted by adamg at 1:54 PM on April 24, 2019 [23 favorites]
> If someone refuses a subpoena, isn't there someone who can arrest them?
Yes, the US Marshals.
Or, as Chrysostom alluded to, the Sergeant at Arms of the United States House of Representatives or that of the United States Senate.
posted by nicwolff at 2:02 PM on April 24, 2019 [7 favorites]
Yes, the US Marshals.
Or, as Chrysostom alluded to, the Sergeant at Arms of the United States House of Representatives or that of the United States Senate.
posted by nicwolff at 2:02 PM on April 24, 2019 [7 favorites]
WSJ, Michael Cohen Denies Some Crimes in Tom Arnold Call: ‘It’s a Lie’ [video], in which Tom Arnold secretly recorded a phone call with Michael Cohen last month, and Cohen denies committing crimes he pleaded guilty to last fall, and I hate absolutely everyone with anything to do with this story.
Cohen says stuff like "I lost my business. I lost everything. My insurance, my bank accounts, all for what? All for what? Because Trump, you know, had an affari with a porn star. That's really what this is about. There is no tax evasion. And the HELOC? I have an 18% loan to value on my home. How could there be a HELOC issue? How? It's a lie." He does acknowledge they had him on campaign finance violations though. Cohen says he took the guilty plea because he loves his wife. His statements that he didn't commit tax evasion or mortgage fraud will not endear him to prosecutors, from whom he'd like a sentence reduction for his cooperation.
Cohen on Trump: "[it's] very hard when you spend 10 years taking care of somebody and their family. And look, I always knew, you know, who he was and what he was and so on, but it didn't really matter because it's——he's a small microcosm of New York real estate. It's very different when you start looking to seeing what's happening now in the country, in the world."
posted by zachlipton at 2:02 PM on April 24, 2019 [6 favorites]
Cohen says stuff like "I lost my business. I lost everything. My insurance, my bank accounts, all for what? All for what? Because Trump, you know, had an affari with a porn star. That's really what this is about. There is no tax evasion. And the HELOC? I have an 18% loan to value on my home. How could there be a HELOC issue? How? It's a lie." He does acknowledge they had him on campaign finance violations though. Cohen says he took the guilty plea because he loves his wife. His statements that he didn't commit tax evasion or mortgage fraud will not endear him to prosecutors, from whom he'd like a sentence reduction for his cooperation.
Cohen on Trump: "[it's] very hard when you spend 10 years taking care of somebody and their family. And look, I always knew, you know, who he was and what he was and so on, but it didn't really matter because it's——he's a small microcosm of New York real estate. It's very different when you start looking to seeing what's happening now in the country, in the world."
posted by zachlipton at 2:02 PM on April 24, 2019 [6 favorites]
Unusual foray into politics by one of my favorite tech-related writers, John Gruber at Daring Fireball: The Drumbeat of Impeachment
posted by RedOrGreen at 2:02 PM on April 24, 2019 [26 favorites]
Political support erodes similarly to how Hemingway described going bankrupt: “Two ways. Gradually, then suddenly.” ... Ignore the noise and listen closely — the drumbeat is growing.(It's really worth a read!)
posted by RedOrGreen at 2:02 PM on April 24, 2019 [26 favorites]
President Donald Trump indicated in a phone call with Libyan strongman Khalifa Haftar last week that the U.S. supported an assault on the country’s capital to depose its United Nations-backed government […]
Trump probably couldn't find Libya on a map; he certainly doesn't have any knowledge of or interest in the conflict there. But, I wouldn't have expected that anyone else in the administration would, either. Who's shaping US foreign policy here, and why? Is Bolton just trying to mess things up, or is there some substantial reason behind this?
posted by Joe in Australia at 2:05 PM on April 24, 2019 [11 favorites]
Trump probably couldn't find Libya on a map; he certainly doesn't have any knowledge of or interest in the conflict there. But, I wouldn't have expected that anyone else in the administration would, either. Who's shaping US foreign policy here, and why? Is Bolton just trying to mess things up, or is there some substantial reason behind this?
posted by Joe in Australia at 2:05 PM on April 24, 2019 [11 favorites]
WaPo op-ed, Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton: Mueller documented a serious crime against all Americans. Here’s how to respond.
The debate about how to respond to Russia’s “sweeping and systemic” attack — and how to hold President Trump accountable for obstructing the investigation and possibly breaking the law — has been reduced to a false choice: immediate impeachment or nothing. History suggests there’s a better way to think about the choices ahead.I know you're yelling and throwing things and relitigating the primaries at this point, but read on:
...
First, like any time our nation is threatened, we have to remember that this is bigger than politics. What our country needs now is clear-eyed patriotism, not reflexive partisanship. Whether they like it or not, Republicans in Congress share the constitutional responsibility to protect the country. Mueller’s report leaves many unanswered questions — in part because of Attorney General William P. Barr’s redactions and obfuscations. But it is a road map. It’s up to members of both parties to see where that road map leads — to the eventual filing of articles of impeachment, or not. Either way, the nation’s interests will be best served by putting party and political considerations aside and being deliberate, fair and fearless.
Second, Congress should hold substantive hearings that build on the Mueller report and fill in its gaps, not jump straight to an up-or-down vote on impeachment. In 1998, the Republican-led House rushed to judgment. That was a mistake then and would be a mistake now.
Watergate offers a better precedent. Then, as now, there was an investigation that found evidence of corruption and a coverup. It was complemented by public hearings conducted by a Senate select committee, which insisted that executive privilege could not be used to shield criminal conduct and compelled White House aides to testify. The televised hearings added to the factual record and, crucially, helped the public understand the facts in a way that no dense legal report could. Similar hearings with Mueller, former White House counsel Donald McGahn and other key witnesses could do the same today.posted by zachlipton at 2:11 PM on April 24, 2019 [66 favorites]
During Watergate, the House Judiciary Committee also began a formal impeachment inquiry that was led by John Doar, a widely respected former Justice Department official and hero of the civil rights struggle. He was determined to run a process that the public and history would judge as fair and thorough, no matter the outcome. If today’s House proceeds to an impeachment inquiry, I hope it will find someone as distinguished and principled as Doar to lead it.
Third, Congress can’t forget that the issue today is not just the president’s possible obstruction of justice — it’s our national security. After 9/11, Congress established an independent, bipartisan commission to recommend steps that would help guard against future attacks. We need a similar commission today to help protect our elections. This is necessary because the president of the United States has proved himself unwilling to defend our nation from a clear and present danger. It was just reported that Trump’s recently departed secretary of homeland security tried to prioritize election security because of concerns about continued interference in 2020 and was told by the acting White House chief of staff not to bring it up in front of the president. This is the latest example of an administration that refuses to take even the most minimal, common-sense steps to prevent future attacks and counter ongoing threats to our nation.
Fourth, while House Democrats pursue these efforts, they also should stay focused on the sensible agenda that voters demanded in the midterms, from protecting health care to investing in infrastructure. During Watergate, Congress passed major legislation such as the War Powers Act, the Endangered Species Act and the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1973. For today’s Democrats, it’s not only possible to move forward on multiple fronts at the same time, it’s essential. The House has already passed sweeping reforms that would strengthen voting rights and crack down on corruption, and now is the time for Democrats to keep their foot on the gas and put pressure on the do-nothing Senate. It’s critical to remind the American people that Democrats are in the solutions business and can walk and chew gum at the same time.
...
Of all the lessons from our history, the one that’s most important may be that each of us has a vital role to play as citizens. A crime was committed against all Americans, and all Americans should demand action and accountability. Our founders envisioned the danger we face today and designed a system to meet it. Now it’s up to us to prove the wisdom of our Constitution, the resilience of our democracy and the strength of our nation.
> Who's shaping US foreign policy here, and why? Is Bolton just trying to mess things up, or is there some substantial reason behind this?
I suspect that this is just part of an ongoing great big "Fuck You, just because" to the State department, which refuses to just die somewhere in spite of the administration's best efforts so far. (See also: Sleepy T and the Order of Lenin.)
posted by RedOrGreen at 2:11 PM on April 24, 2019 [3 favorites]
I suspect that this is just part of an ongoing great big "Fuck You, just because" to the State department, which refuses to just die somewhere in spite of the administration's best efforts so far. (See also: Sleepy T and the Order of Lenin.)
posted by RedOrGreen at 2:11 PM on April 24, 2019 [3 favorites]
During Watergate, the House Judiciary Committee also began a formal impeachment inquiry that was led by John Doar, a widely respected former Justice Department official and hero of the civil rights struggle. He was determined to run a process that the public and history would judge as fair and thorough, no matter the outcome. If today’s House proceeds to an impeachment inquiry, I hope it will find someone as distinguished and principled as Doar to lead it.
Just as, like, a hilarious thought experiment, can ANYONE think of a single person who could possibly be selected for this without setting off claims of partisanship from one side?
posted by Exceptional_Hubris at 2:13 PM on April 24, 2019 [2 favorites]
Just as, like, a hilarious thought experiment, can ANYONE think of a single person who could possibly be selected for this without setting off claims of partisanship from one side?
posted by Exceptional_Hubris at 2:13 PM on April 24, 2019 [2 favorites]
Now would be a very good time to hire a bunch more deputy sergeants-at-arms in the house because more subpoenas will be forthcoming and surely ignored when the inevitable chicanery begins against the dem candidates this fall.
what happens if US law enforcement begins locking up trump's political opponents on false pretenses and the house demands to know wtf is going on? what happens if the russians hack more emails or, failing that, release doctored or fake emails to embarrass dems? what happens if trump just up and postpones the election if he is way down in the polls?
the house NEEDS some enforcement mechanisms that dont depend on DOJ. as long as it's not straight up illegal to deputize a force of agents, and i dont think it is, it should do so immediately. not after the fact with their pants down. NOW.
posted by wibari at 2:18 PM on April 24, 2019 [30 favorites]
what happens if US law enforcement begins locking up trump's political opponents on false pretenses and the house demands to know wtf is going on? what happens if the russians hack more emails or, failing that, release doctored or fake emails to embarrass dems? what happens if trump just up and postpones the election if he is way down in the polls?
the house NEEDS some enforcement mechanisms that dont depend on DOJ. as long as it's not straight up illegal to deputize a force of agents, and i dont think it is, it should do so immediately. not after the fact with their pants down. NOW.
posted by wibari at 2:18 PM on April 24, 2019 [30 favorites]
what happens if US law enforcement begins locking up trump's political opponents on false pretenses and the house demands to know wtf is going on?
I think we're a long way from this, though of course it could "then suddenly" at any time. Trump seems to like staking out extreme positions and talk a lot of shit, but the guy hasn't been able to pass hardly anything, so I imagine there would have to be some serious klaxons as the country drifted into his locking up actual citizens. In the face of his inability to get new laws passed, he'd have to task Stephen Miller with finding loopholes, which...might take some time.
If Mnuchin happened to get locked up for Contempt of Congress, Trump would still only talk shit. He'd still try to work the refs from the sidelines, but he'll never stick his own neck out and pardon the guy right off the bat.
posted by rhizome at 2:39 PM on April 24, 2019 [3 favorites]
I think we're a long way from this, though of course it could "then suddenly" at any time. Trump seems to like staking out extreme positions and talk a lot of shit, but the guy hasn't been able to pass hardly anything, so I imagine there would have to be some serious klaxons as the country drifted into his locking up actual citizens. In the face of his inability to get new laws passed, he'd have to task Stephen Miller with finding loopholes, which...might take some time.
If Mnuchin happened to get locked up for Contempt of Congress, Trump would still only talk shit. He'd still try to work the refs from the sidelines, but he'll never stick his own neck out and pardon the guy right off the bat.
posted by rhizome at 2:39 PM on April 24, 2019 [3 favorites]
Haftar is supported by a rogues gallery of nations, he's fighting the UN and European recognized government in Tripoli. So, Trump's approval of him is quite natural.
Also, Trump just likes strongmen. Maybe he's heard nice things about him from the CIA.
posted by BungaDunga at 2:41 PM on April 24, 2019 [5 favorites]
Also, Trump just likes strongmen. Maybe he's heard nice things about him from the CIA.
posted by BungaDunga at 2:41 PM on April 24, 2019 [5 favorites]
Also, if there's one thing Trump knows about Haftar, it's that his forces control Libya's oil fields.
posted by BungaDunga at 2:44 PM on April 24, 2019 [1 favorite]
posted by BungaDunga at 2:44 PM on April 24, 2019 [1 favorite]
filthy light thief: "They said they spent $160,000. I spent $160,000 on Facebook in three hours during the campaign," Kushner said. "If you look at the magnitude of what they did and what they accomplished, I think the ensuing investigations have been way more harmful to our country."
I think Kushner is pushing on two topics: first, the Russians didn't really do that much, and second, something that matches with the current GOP narrative -- we're not going to comply with all these Congressional requests from Democrats because that's what is keeping us from succeeding to MAGA.
Meanwhile, Blasting Trump's 'Unacceptable Behavior,' Iowa Lawmaker Leaves GOP After 40+ Years (Katarina Sostaric for NPR, April 24, 2019)
Going the other way: Founder of New Mexico Democrats for Democracy running for U.S. House seat in GOP primary (Andrew Oxford for the Santa Fe New Mexican, Apr. 23, 2019)
posted by filthy light thief at 2:49 PM on April 24, 2019 [7 favorites]
I think Kushner is pushing on two topics: first, the Russians didn't really do that much, and second, something that matches with the current GOP narrative -- we're not going to comply with all these Congressional requests from Democrats because that's what is keeping us from succeeding to MAGA.
Meanwhile, Blasting Trump's 'Unacceptable Behavior,' Iowa Lawmaker Leaves GOP After 40+ Years (Katarina Sostaric for NPR, April 24, 2019)
The longest-serving Republican in the Iowa Legislature announced he is switching to the Democratic Party, citing increasing discomfort with Republicans' stance on many high-profile issues and his unwillingness to support President Trump in the 2020 election.Just "a bit further"? What was that one or two steps too far?
Rep. Andy McKean said Tuesday that the Capitol is much more partisan than when he was first elected in 1978 and that the Republican Party has changed.
"I think the party has veered very sharply to the right," McKean said. "And that concerns me. It's a bit further than I would care to be."
This narrows the party split in the Iowa House of Representatives to 53 Republicans and 47 Democrats.These 3 Former Kansas Republicans Say They No Longer Felt At Home In The GOP (Jim Mclean for NPR, January 21, 2019)
McKean said that this was a gradual decision and that there wasn't a single event that persuaded him to make the switch. He said he considers himself a political moderate, and he thinks there is room for him in the Democratic Party.
...
Jeff Kaufmann, Republican Party of Iowa chairman, said in a statement that McKean has deceived his constituents. "When Rep. McKean ran in 2016, he had no problem riding to victory on President Trump's coattails," Kaufmann said. "He's about to feel the headwind of Trump's support in District 58."
Stephanie Clayton won her fourth term in the Kansas legislature as a moderate Republican but when she started in office this month, she did so as a Democrat. She says she had an abrupt change of heart about a month after the November election last year.She was joined by Senators Dinah Sykes and Barbara Bollier.
Going the other way: Founder of New Mexico Democrats for Democracy running for U.S. House seat in GOP primary (Andrew Oxford for the Santa Fe New Mexican, Apr. 23, 2019)
The founder of New Mexico Democrats for Democracy is running for Congress. But there’s a twist: He’s running as a Republican.Because a long shot is better than no shot? And you somehow think current Republican policies are things you can and should support?
Brett Kokinadis of Santa Fe said Tuesday he changed his party affiliation and is jumping into the GOP primary for New Mexico’s 3rd Congressional District.
Call it a long shot in this deeply Democratic part of the state. Call it an interesting experiment in reaching across the aisle. Call it just the latest surprising turn for an organization that has emerged as a thorn in the side of plenty in New Mexico’s Democratic Party. Either way, Kokinadis is — at this point — the only Republican who has filed to run for the seat that U.S. Rep. Ben Ray Luján, D-N.M., is vacating to run for a Senate seat.
posted by filthy light thief at 2:49 PM on April 24, 2019 [7 favorites]
That Daring Fireball article above links to "... [A] good thread on Twitter from Tom Nichols, a “never Trump” conservative who until now — I think correctly — has opposed beginning impeachment proceedings:"
(sorry for the blockquote, but if one comments without it, said comment gets deleted with dazzling rapidity.)
There's probably a non-zero-percent "law & order" segment of the MAGAverse that would like to see him carted out kicking and squealing. No one suggested that all of Trump's base was specifically bound to logic or philosophy. Not that co-operation needs to be an objective, as the quote suggests it's about principle as much as anything. Without impeachment, what's the effective difference between them? One party throws children in cages and the other party ... doesn't get them out?
posted by petebest at 2:58 PM on April 24, 2019 [12 favorites]
But there’s an argument, internal to us, that Trump should be impeached as a lesson in civics, as a reminder that trashing the rule of law and discarding your oath is not cost-free. That’s a political question. Until now, I’ve said it’s probably a bad idea for the Dems.
But political expediency is a bad idea too. At some point, not impeaching means that nothing matters in our constitutional life, and that nothing ever will matter. Impeachment, if it follows a careful rollout and debate, can negate that legacy.
And maybe, years from now, what we need is an asterisk in the history books that says: “There was a penalty for violating the oath of office, and engaging in these high crimes. And President Trump survived due only to the corruption of a single party.”
(sorry for the blockquote, but if one comments without it, said comment gets deleted with dazzling rapidity.)
There's probably a non-zero-percent "law & order" segment of the MAGAverse that would like to see him carted out kicking and squealing. No one suggested that all of Trump's base was specifically bound to logic or philosophy. Not that co-operation needs to be an objective, as the quote suggests it's about principle as much as anything. Without impeachment, what's the effective difference between them? One party throws children in cages and the other party ... doesn't get them out?
posted by petebest at 2:58 PM on April 24, 2019 [12 favorites]
Just "a bit further"? What was that one or two steps too far?It is weird to me that nobody has been pointing out that McKean served in the state legislature from 1978 to 2002, voluntarily retired, and then ran again in 2016. Part of what he's reacting to, I think, is how much more hostile the party is to moderates now than it was from 1978 to 2002. And I don't know what that means: he's from an older generation, and I don't know how many moderate Republicans there are left in Iowa. But he was the kind of Republican who was moderate on social issues, not opposed to immigration, and in favor of environmental protection, and that's not someone who is going to feel at home in the Iowa Republican legislative delegation of 2019.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 3:32 PM on April 24, 2019 [7 favorites]
Conducting oversight on Trump makes us seem obsessed and creepy, House Republicans worry (Alexandra Petri, WaPo)
Look, we can all agree that conducting too much oversight looks kind of … desperate. It’s like, why are you so curious about Donald Trump’s finances? Don’t you have finances of your own?posted by Johnny Wallflower at 3:38 PM on April 24, 2019 [9 favorites]
On these grounds, the Republicans on the House Oversight Committee would like to distance themselves from all the efforts by the committee to subpoena Trump officials and conduct oversight into the president’s finances and potential irregularities in the granting of security clearances. They have lives of their own, and they are being made to look bad by this weird fixation on the president’s deeds and dealings. […]
It’s so embarrassing that the Democrats keep asking for things. It’s like, take the hint! He doesn’t want to give you any of this paperwork or testimony you keep requesting! In some cases, this has even led to subpoenas (ew)! Gross, clingy and not what Madison would have wanted. Honestly, it makes it seem like they don’t know that everything the president is doing, has done and will do is fine. Does he think he’s above the law? Probably not! No further questions!
If people do not want to answer you, you should leave them alone. That was the lesson of the, I think, 93rd Benghazi hearing.
Another Republican responding better than Dem leadership.
Weld: It’s Time for Trump to Resign
posted by chris24 at 3:48 PM on April 24, 2019 [13 favorites]
Weld: It’s Time for Trump to Resign
posted by chris24 at 3:48 PM on April 24, 2019 [13 favorites]
WaPo op-ed, Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton: Mueller documented a serious crime against all Americans. Here’s how to respond.
George Conway
“Obviously, this is personal for me, and some may say that I’m not the right messenger.”
Perhaps so. Probably so. But if she’s with the Constitution, I’m with her
posted by chris24 at 4:06 PM on April 24, 2019 [18 favorites]
George Conway
“Obviously, this is personal for me, and some may say that I’m not the right messenger.”
Perhaps so. Probably so. But if she’s with the Constitution, I’m with her
posted by chris24 at 4:06 PM on April 24, 2019 [18 favorites]
Garrett M. Graff
I went through the whole Mueller Report—the House Dems demanding to see the full report are stalling. There are no redactions that materially change the unredacted conclusion: The President committed obstruction.
WIRED: 14 MUELLER REPORT TAKEAWAYS YOU MIGHT HAVE MISSED
posted by chris24 at 4:08 PM on April 24, 2019 [18 favorites]
I went through the whole Mueller Report—the House Dems demanding to see the full report are stalling. There are no redactions that materially change the unredacted conclusion: The President committed obstruction.
WIRED: 14 MUELLER REPORT TAKEAWAYS YOU MIGHT HAVE MISSED
posted by chris24 at 4:08 PM on April 24, 2019 [18 favorites]
Weld: It’s Time for Trump to Resign
Call me back when even one person who actually matters says this, a Republican in the senate. Turns out there is even a member of the senate who was a Republican governor of Massachusetts like Weld. So far he only has "concerns."
Weld could be more effective if, instead of calling out Trump, he called out Romney for his complicity.
posted by JackFlash at 4:13 PM on April 24, 2019 [11 favorites]
Call me back when even one person who actually matters says this, a Republican in the senate. Turns out there is even a member of the senate who was a Republican governor of Massachusetts like Weld. So far he only has "concerns."
Weld could be more effective if, instead of calling out Trump, he called out Romney for his complicity.
posted by JackFlash at 4:13 PM on April 24, 2019 [11 favorites]
Weld could be more effective if, instead of calling out Trump, he called out Romney for his complicity.
For fuck’s sake, we’re on the edge of dictatorship. We’ve been yelling for Republicans to stand up to Trump for three years and now one does and we’re gonna reject it and say he needs to do something else? How about we take all the fucking help we can now in hopes that Romney joins him. Excoriating Weld for stepping up sure the fuck doesn’t encourage Romney to speak out.
posted by chris24 at 4:16 PM on April 24, 2019 [35 favorites]
For fuck’s sake, we’re on the edge of dictatorship. We’ve been yelling for Republicans to stand up to Trump for three years and now one does and we’re gonna reject it and say he needs to do something else? How about we take all the fucking help we can now in hopes that Romney joins him. Excoriating Weld for stepping up sure the fuck doesn’t encourage Romney to speak out.
posted by chris24 at 4:16 PM on April 24, 2019 [35 favorites]
That tweet from Garrett M. Graff makes it sound like he's read the unredacted report (at least, that was the first impression of myself and a lot of the Twitter responders) but he's just a Politico reporter and that would make little sense. I think what he means is "there couldn't be redactions that materially change..." rather than the implication that he knows what each rdaction is.
posted by InTheYear2017 at 4:16 PM on April 24, 2019 [2 favorites]
posted by InTheYear2017 at 4:16 PM on April 24, 2019 [2 favorites]
He’s saying that even with the limitations of the redactions, there’s still obvious obstruction. You don’t need the rest to decide. Waiting for unnecessary and possibly extraneous info at this point is a cop out.
posted by chris24 at 4:17 PM on April 24, 2019 [20 favorites]
posted by chris24 at 4:17 PM on April 24, 2019 [20 favorites]
CNN: Deutsche Bank begins process of providing Trump financial records to New York's attorney general
posted by Doktor Zed at 4:21 PM on April 24, 2019 [37 favorites]
The bank is in the process of turning over documents, including emails and loan documents, related to Trump International Hotel in Washington, DC; the Trump National Doral Miami; the Trump International Hotel and Tower in Chicago; and the unsuccessful effort to buy the NFL's Buffalo Bills.[…]n.b. Back in January, the Trump administration waived part of the punishment for five megabanks whose affiliates were convicted and fined for manipulating global interest rates—including Deutsche Bank. (International Business Times)
Trump's businesses have borrowed more than $300 million from Deutsche to finance the company's Florida golf course and hotels in Chicago and Washington, according to financial disclosures and public filings from 2012 to 2015.
posted by Doktor Zed at 4:21 PM on April 24, 2019 [37 favorites]
Politico, Dan Diamond, HHS nearing plan to roll back transgender protections
The controversial rules — which the Trump administration has been scrutinizing for more than a year to prepare for expected legal challenges — have been closely guarded inside the administration, following several media reports on the efforts that sparked backlash and complicated officials’ strategy. Officials say the two health department rules are now expected within the next 10 days.posted by zachlipton at 5:17 PM on April 24, 2019 [8 favorites]
One rule would replace an Obama administration policy extending nondiscrimination protections to transgender patients, which have been blocked in court. A second rule would finalize broad protections for health workers who cite religious or moral objections to providing services such as abortion or contraception, a priority for Christian conservative groups allied with the administration.
...
For instance, a medical school receiving federal funds could not deny admission to applicants who refuse to perform abortions; providers could not require staff to inform patients about services like sterilization procedures or advance directives rejecting end-of-life care; and doctors and nurses would gain further protections to refuse providing services like vaccinations.
A medical professional who refuses to inform patients about reproductive choices is being immoral, but refusing to vaccinate is off the scale of irresponsibility and renders the word "doctor" almost meaningless. Like, at least the first thing isn't grounds to 100% disregard whatever medical advice they are willing to give.
posted by InTheYear2017 at 5:28 PM on April 24, 2019 [18 favorites]
posted by InTheYear2017 at 5:28 PM on April 24, 2019 [18 favorites]
Oh my god, the task of cleaning up after this administration is going to be so vast. So vast.
posted by SecretAgentSockpuppet at 5:38 PM on April 24, 2019 [49 favorites]
posted by SecretAgentSockpuppet at 5:38 PM on April 24, 2019 [49 favorites]
Or, as Chrysostom alluded to, the Sergeant at Arms of the United States House of Representatives or that of the United States Senate.
Maybe David Vitter left behind some handcuffs they can use
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 5:40 PM on April 24, 2019 [1 favorite]
Maybe David Vitter left behind some handcuffs they can use
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 5:40 PM on April 24, 2019 [1 favorite]
Seriously. It would be the same as it you had religious convictions that germ theory was a hoax, and infectious disease was actually caused by demon possession, and therefore refused to prescribe antibiotics to treat bacterial infections. Simply incomprehensible that a state would license a physician under those conditions.
posted by darkstar at 5:45 PM on April 24, 2019 [7 favorites]
posted by darkstar at 5:45 PM on April 24, 2019 [7 favorites]
A medical professional who refuses to inform patients about reproductive choices is unprofessional and negligent; refusing to vaccinate, same. The modern version (1964) of the Hippocratic oath has bits about I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.
Even, Above all, I must not play at God.
posted by Iris Gambol at 5:52 PM on April 24, 2019 [16 favorites]
Even, Above all, I must not play at God.
posted by Iris Gambol at 5:52 PM on April 24, 2019 [16 favorites]
Laura Krantz (Boston Globe)
Half the students at the Jeff Sessions speech at Amherst College just got up and walked out, holding a rainbow flag
posted by chris24 at 5:57 PM on April 24, 2019 [78 favorites]
Half the students at the Jeff Sessions speech at Amherst College just got up and walked out, holding a rainbow flag
posted by chris24 at 5:57 PM on April 24, 2019 [78 favorites]
A second rule would finalize broad protections for health workers who cite religious or moral objections to providing services
Any healthcare workers belong to The Satanic Temple?
posted by benzenedream at 6:26 PM on April 24, 2019 [6 favorites]
Any healthcare workers belong to The Satanic Temple?
posted by benzenedream at 6:26 PM on April 24, 2019 [6 favorites]
The WaPo's overview analysis of how the Trump-Congress subpoena fight is likely to play out suggests we're in this for the long haul.
This is why the lengthy delays have been absolutely inexcusable. It was always going to go like this. We've wasted months with "one more week to comply". They're still doing it. Maybe Congress doesn't actually have the ability to conduct oversight of a rogue executive aided by a lick-spittle compliant judiciary, but we won't know that until the entire court process plays out. So waiting 4+ months to get any of that started was a fantastic plan.
posted by T.D. Strange at 6:31 PM on April 24, 2019 [17 favorites]
This is why the lengthy delays have been absolutely inexcusable. It was always going to go like this. We've wasted months with "one more week to comply". They're still doing it. Maybe Congress doesn't actually have the ability to conduct oversight of a rogue executive aided by a lick-spittle compliant judiciary, but we won't know that until the entire court process plays out. So waiting 4+ months to get any of that started was a fantastic plan.
posted by T.D. Strange at 6:31 PM on April 24, 2019 [17 favorites]
Trump Wanted to Use Law Enforcement Against Rival
New York Times: “Mr. Mueller’s report released last week brimmed with examples of Mr. Trump seeking to protect himself from the investigation. But his request of Mr. Sessions — and two similar ones detailed in the report — stands apart because it shows Mr. Trump trying to wield the power of law enforcement to target a political rival, a step that no president since Richard M. Nixon is known to have taken.”
“The report gave a detailed account of Mr. Trump’s bids to wield power. Nine months into office in October 2017, he reminded Mr. Sessions in a private meeting that he believed the Justice Department was failing to investigate people who truly deserved scrutiny and mentioned Mrs. Clinton’s emails.”
Well at least it's not a full-blown Constitutional fuckin' crisis.
Democrats Grapple with Trump’s Refusal to Cooperate (WaPo (via))
“House Democrats are grappling with how to respond to President Trump’s blanket resistance to cooperating with their investigations — defiance that legal experts say could upend the nation’s fundamental principle of checks and balances,” the Washington Post reports.
“House Oversight and Reform Committee Chairman Elijah Cummings (D-MD) announced plans on Tuesday to hold one Trump administration official who defied a subpoena in contempt of Congress and has threatened a second with the same punishment if he failed to show for a Thursday deposition. And with Trump promising to bar all former and current aides from testifying, the House began confronting the possibility of issuing multiple contempt citations and initiating civil litigation to defend its oversight role.”
Said Cummings: “This is a massive, unprecedented, and growing pattern of obstruction.”
Huh.
posted by petebest at 6:49 PM on April 24, 2019 [27 favorites]
New York Times: “Mr. Mueller’s report released last week brimmed with examples of Mr. Trump seeking to protect himself from the investigation. But his request of Mr. Sessions — and two similar ones detailed in the report — stands apart because it shows Mr. Trump trying to wield the power of law enforcement to target a political rival, a step that no president since Richard M. Nixon is known to have taken.”
“The report gave a detailed account of Mr. Trump’s bids to wield power. Nine months into office in October 2017, he reminded Mr. Sessions in a private meeting that he believed the Justice Department was failing to investigate people who truly deserved scrutiny and mentioned Mrs. Clinton’s emails.”
Well at least it's not a full-blown Constitutional fuckin' crisis.
Democrats Grapple with Trump’s Refusal to Cooperate (WaPo (via))
“House Democrats are grappling with how to respond to President Trump’s blanket resistance to cooperating with their investigations — defiance that legal experts say could upend the nation’s fundamental principle of checks and balances,” the Washington Post reports.
“House Oversight and Reform Committee Chairman Elijah Cummings (D-MD) announced plans on Tuesday to hold one Trump administration official who defied a subpoena in contempt of Congress and has threatened a second with the same punishment if he failed to show for a Thursday deposition. And with Trump promising to bar all former and current aides from testifying, the House began confronting the possibility of issuing multiple contempt citations and initiating civil litigation to defend its oversight role.”
Said Cummings: “This is a massive, unprecedented, and growing pattern of obstruction.”
Huh.
posted by petebest at 6:49 PM on April 24, 2019 [27 favorites]
We watched Trump obstruct Justice in front of the nation on day one. Then we were told, it's too early, we need to wait for a full investigation. Two years later we received confirmation that, yes, what we saw with our own eyes actually happened, and all the other crimes we came to know about, those happened too. Two years for a report that added little to no insight beyond what we already knew. But now? Now we're being told it's too late.
Fool me once shame on you. Fool me twice shame on me. I vote for wafflers no longer. I vote for fighters.
posted by xammerboy at 7:03 PM on April 24, 2019 [66 favorites]
Fool me once shame on you. Fool me twice shame on me. I vote for wafflers no longer. I vote for fighters.
posted by xammerboy at 7:03 PM on April 24, 2019 [66 favorites]
"THIS ISN’T ‘NAM, DONNY, THERE ARE RULES. If the Trump administration intends to “fight” Congressional subpoenas, they have to make a legal argument. “This is so unfair” is not a legal argument. “No collusion” is not a legal argument. “A bunch of angry Democrats” is not a legal argument. Donald Trump has, thus far, made NO argument or invocation that counts as a colorable legal reason to ignore a Congressional request for testimony." Elie Mystal, Is Trump Invoking Executive Privilege Or Not? (Above the Law)
posted by MonkeyToes at 7:23 PM on April 24, 2019 [25 favorites]
posted by MonkeyToes at 7:23 PM on April 24, 2019 [25 favorites]
Y'know, The Interwebs are a strange and wonderful place sometimes. Through a seemingly-random series of clicks I occasioned upon the letter General Sherman wrote to the city council of Atlanta in 1864. Somehow - and that's where it gets tricky - it reminded me of our current political situation. Because ... well, I don't rightly know. The full letter is absolutely worth a click, and then some, but here's some of the most relevant passages, or so it seemed.
How does that apply today? How indeed. I think it's this: ... to stop the war, [which] can only be done by admitting that it began in error and is perpetuated in pride. and this [W]e do want and will have a just obedience to the laws of the United States.
Let us leave it as an exercise to the reader to infer which parties may be assigned which character roles in this story.
posted by petebest at 7:31 PM on April 24, 2019 [41 favorites]
Gentlemen,Now that's how it starts. And that's after perusing today's headlines which was uncomfortably on point to begin. But let us skip a bit brother, where we read:
I have your letter of the 11th, in the nature of a petition to revoke my orders removing all the inhabitants from Atlanta. I have read it carefully, and give full credit to your statements of the distress that will be occasioned, and yet shall not revoke my orders, because they were not designed to meet the humanities of the case, but to prepare for the future struggles in which millions of good people outside of Atlanta have a deep interest.
We must have Peace, not only in Atlanta, but in All America. To secure this, we must stop the war that now desolates our once happy and favored country. To stop war, we must defeat the rebel armies which are now arrayed against the laws and Constitution that all must respect and obey. To defeat those armies, we must prepare the way to reach them in their recesses, provided with the arms and instruments which enable us to accomplish our purpose
You might as well appeal against the thunder-storm as against these terrible hardships of war. They are inevitable, and the only way the people of Atlanta can hope once more to live in peace and quiet at home, is to stop the war, which can only be done by admitting that it began in error and is perpetuated in pride. We don't want your negroes, or your horses, or your houses, or your hands, or any thing that you have, but we do want and will have a just obedience to the laws of the United States. That we will have, and, if it involves the destruction of your improvements, we cannot help it. You have heretofore read public sentiment in your newspapers, that live by falsehood and excitement; and the quicker you seek for truth in other quarters, the better.So that's pretty stark. He goes on to point out how the South was totally MCGA and whoop-de-dooing as they sent troops and guns, but got real fidgety when the war showed up on their doorstep. He was making a distinction between the propaganda and the realities.
How does that apply today? How indeed. I think it's this: ... to stop the war, [which] can only be done by admitting that it began in error and is perpetuated in pride. and this [W]e do want and will have a just obedience to the laws of the United States.
Let us leave it as an exercise to the reader to infer which parties may be assigned which character roles in this story.
posted by petebest at 7:31 PM on April 24, 2019 [41 favorites]
Missouri won't because Missouri, but how can it be made clear that your personal beliefs that cause you to [make decisions about] care makes you unfit for medicine?
You mean like being willing to provide an abortion in a state with a heartbeat law?
Careful. Constitutional privacy rights are held by the patient, but medical licenses are issued by the state.
posted by snuffleupagus at 7:58 PM on April 24, 2019
You mean like being willing to provide an abortion in a state with a heartbeat law?
Careful. Constitutional privacy rights are held by the patient, but medical licenses are issued by the state.
posted by snuffleupagus at 7:58 PM on April 24, 2019
I know it's ridiculous, but I've started wishing there had been some way to prevent Nixon from resigning before he could be tried.
posted by The Underpants Monster at 8:16 PM on April 24, 2019 [11 favorites]
posted by The Underpants Monster at 8:16 PM on April 24, 2019 [11 favorites]
You wouldn't be the first person to say that Ford let Nixon off.
posted by rhizome at 8:20 PM on April 24, 2019 [15 favorites]
posted by rhizome at 8:20 PM on April 24, 2019 [15 favorites]
Didn't Ford basically use his brief time to enrich himself immensely? ANyway, Carter doesn't get enough heat for swatting down the dem senate that wanted to pass like work guarantees and universal healthcare....
posted by The Whelk at 8:57 PM on April 24, 2019 [8 favorites]
posted by The Whelk at 8:57 PM on April 24, 2019 [8 favorites]
Group sues Federal Election Commission over allegation NRA broke campaign-finance law
A gun-safety group is suing the Federal Election Commission for failing to act on its complaints claiming a pattern of the National Rifle Association improperly coordinating its political spending with Donald Trump and other Republican candidates in recent elections.
The lawsuit, while focused on forcing the Federal Election Commission's hand on a technical timing issue, seeks to put a spotlight on a broader question: the NRA's role in recent elections and whether the powerful gun lobby skirted contribution limits to provide an unfair advantage to Trump and other candidates it backed.
The group is Gifford's Law Centre to Prevent Gun Violence. Yes, that Giffords. If you've wondered what she's been up to, she's doing great for someone who was shot in the head, and she's suing the damn FEC to do their fucking job. She kinda reminds me of Malala, she just recovers and becomes a thousand times stronger. GO GABBY!
As for the NRA, where to begin. It's a terrorist organisation that takes money from foreign governments to bribe corrupt politicians. They use fear, intimidation and violence to present a cowboy dystopia, war within a breath, distorted version of reality. Forget the NYT, these are the enemy of the people, go after them.
posted by adept256 at 9:33 PM on April 24, 2019 [46 favorites]
A gun-safety group is suing the Federal Election Commission for failing to act on its complaints claiming a pattern of the National Rifle Association improperly coordinating its political spending with Donald Trump and other Republican candidates in recent elections.
The lawsuit, while focused on forcing the Federal Election Commission's hand on a technical timing issue, seeks to put a spotlight on a broader question: the NRA's role in recent elections and whether the powerful gun lobby skirted contribution limits to provide an unfair advantage to Trump and other candidates it backed.
The group is Gifford's Law Centre to Prevent Gun Violence. Yes, that Giffords. If you've wondered what she's been up to, she's doing great for someone who was shot in the head, and she's suing the damn FEC to do their fucking job. She kinda reminds me of Malala, she just recovers and becomes a thousand times stronger. GO GABBY!
As for the NRA, where to begin. It's a terrorist organisation that takes money from foreign governments to bribe corrupt politicians. They use fear, intimidation and violence to present a cowboy dystopia, war within a breath, distorted version of reality. Forget the NYT, these are the enemy of the people, go after them.
posted by adept256 at 9:33 PM on April 24, 2019 [46 favorites]
Lest anyone think these looming new HHS rules are mostly 'just' going to impact abortion and perhaps contraception, here's some documentation about David Barton going full anti-vax. And, doing so from a wingnut claim that "parts of aborted fetuses are in vaccines". Barton has long been one of the important cross-contamination vectors between white evangelicals and their political class.
posted by bcd at 9:39 PM on April 24, 2019 [13 favorites]
posted by bcd at 9:39 PM on April 24, 2019 [13 favorites]
Is there any legal impediment to the house impeaching multiple times regardless of senate refusal to convict? Say, bi-weekly impeachments for very specific crimes, senate says no, impeach again, based on a different tweet? Does the Constitution say you can't do it more than once?
posted by albion moonlight at 11:40 PM on April 24, 2019 [6 favorites]
posted by albion moonlight at 11:40 PM on April 24, 2019 [6 favorites]
Is there any legal impediment to the house impeaching multiple times regardless of senate refusal to convict? Say, bi-weekly impeachments for very specific crimes, senate says no, impeach again, based on a different tweet? Does the Constitution say you can't do it more than once?
No limit on this, no.
But Trump's latest gambit, announcing that his administration will simply refuse to honor subpoenas, is an effort to force the House Democrats to either capitulate and make his power absolute, or to impeach which (Donny thinks) will make them look weak and wrong when Ol' Mitch just shuts it down. Unfortunately, it also takes a vote of two-thirds in the Senate to expel a Senator.
Between this and the voter suppression work, they're effectively aiming to break the Constitution, for good, in the name of permanent minority rule. And thanks to polarization and the technical nature of some of the crimes, it is unlikely that enough of the public will turn on the GOP to make any of them feel that they're taking any electoral risks. (Quite the opposite; they fear far-right primaries, or are just true believers themselves.)
So....now what?
posted by kewb at 3:47 AM on April 25, 2019 [27 favorites]
No limit on this, no.
But Trump's latest gambit, announcing that his administration will simply refuse to honor subpoenas, is an effort to force the House Democrats to either capitulate and make his power absolute, or to impeach which (Donny thinks) will make them look weak and wrong when Ol' Mitch just shuts it down. Unfortunately, it also takes a vote of two-thirds in the Senate to expel a Senator.
Between this and the voter suppression work, they're effectively aiming to break the Constitution, for good, in the name of permanent minority rule. And thanks to polarization and the technical nature of some of the crimes, it is unlikely that enough of the public will turn on the GOP to make any of them feel that they're taking any electoral risks. (Quite the opposite; they fear far-right primaries, or are just true believers themselves.)
So....now what?
posted by kewb at 3:47 AM on April 25, 2019 [27 favorites]
Is there any legal impediment to the house impeaching multiple times regardless of senate refusal to convict?
Per the Democratic Leadership, we don't have the will to do it even once.
But your daily news cycle has just been subsumed anyway. Biden's Hat: In. I'mma let the mods finish, but may I suggest someone pre-empt the derail and FPP it?
via Twitter, of course.
posted by petebest at 3:52 AM on April 25, 2019 [9 favorites]
Per the Democratic Leadership, we don't have the will to do it even once.
But your daily news cycle has just been subsumed anyway. Biden's Hat: In. I'mma let the mods finish, but may I suggest someone pre-empt the derail and FPP it?
via Twitter, of course.
posted by petebest at 3:52 AM on April 25, 2019 [9 favorites]
Now what indeed. When Trump feels cornered, he takes it out by committing a crime of humanity against a marginalized group. This isn’t an argument against impeachment, but it bears thinking about what we could expect after such a move. If Trump feels that he has the political support to ignore subpoenas, what happens next? Do we convict him of contempt of Congress and arrest him?
posted by Autumnheart at 4:36 AM on April 25, 2019 [5 favorites]
posted by Autumnheart at 4:36 AM on April 25, 2019 [5 favorites]
CNN: White House says Stephen Miller won't testify on immigration to House Oversight
posted by Doktor Zed at 4:49 AM on April 25, 2019 [16 favorites]
In the Wednesday letter, White House counsel Pat Cipollone says there's "long-standing precedent" for the White House to decline offers for staff to testify on Capitol Hill. Instead, the White House counsel said Cabinet secretaries and other executive branch officials would make a "reasonable accommodation" for House Oversight Chairman Elijah Cummings' questions on immigration policy.[…]CNN’s Jim Acosta reports, “Family separations are still under discussion inside the WH, I’m told. Stephen Miller is still driving those discussions and Trump remains receptive to the policy, a WH official said.”
Cummings invited Miller to testify on the administration's immigration policies on May 1. Cummings sent a letter to Miller asking him to "appear voluntarily" before the committee, and gave him until April 24 to inform the committee whether he would testify.
posted by Doktor Zed at 4:49 AM on April 25, 2019 [16 favorites]
Given his announcement today, here's the current Joe Biden thread, open through May 2nd.
posted by ZeusHumms at 6:27 AM on April 25, 2019 [5 favorites]
posted by ZeusHumms at 6:27 AM on April 25, 2019 [5 favorites]
@gin_and_tacos (The Nation)
What is the appropriate way to prepare for 18 months of Trump saying "If I did anything wrong, why wasn't I impeached?" and Democrats waving around the Mueller Report like the losing team's coach in Air Bud waving the rule book at the referee. Asking for me.
posted by chris24 at 6:43 AM on April 25, 2019 [55 favorites]
What is the appropriate way to prepare for 18 months of Trump saying "If I did anything wrong, why wasn't I impeached?" and Democrats waving around the Mueller Report like the losing team's coach in Air Bud waving the rule book at the referee. Asking for me.
posted by chris24 at 6:43 AM on April 25, 2019 [55 favorites]
adept256: Group sues Federal Election Commission over allegation NRA broke campaign-finance law
Meanwhile, NRA Sues Over LA Law Requiring Contractors To Disclose Ties To The Gun Rights Group (Richard Gonzales for NPR, April 24, 2019)
posted by filthy light thief at 7:16 AM on April 25, 2019 [31 favorites]
Meanwhile, NRA Sues Over LA Law Requiring Contractors To Disclose Ties To The Gun Rights Group (Richard Gonzales for NPR, April 24, 2019)
Under the ordinance, city contractors are required to fully disclose any sponsorship of, or contract with, the NRA. It was approved unanimously by the Los Angeles City Council in February. It allows the city to terminate a contract if the contractor does not disclose all ties with the NRA.Fuck yeah, Los Angeles!
The ordinance cites the NRA's blocking of "sensible gun safety reform" even in the aftermath of several mass shootings in the U.S. It says public funding provided to contractors with ties to the NRA "undermines the City's efforts to legislate and promote gun safety."
posted by filthy light thief at 7:16 AM on April 25, 2019 [31 favorites]
The insane thing is that this requirement, which only demands disclosures, is going to get much more heat and attention than much more prevalent laws demanding contractors promise not to support/participate in BDS.
posted by phearlez at 7:34 AM on April 25, 2019 [11 favorites]
posted by phearlez at 7:34 AM on April 25, 2019 [11 favorites]
CNN: State Lawmakers Move to Require Tax Returns From Presidential Candidates -- Including Trump
posted by Doktor Zed at 8:03 AM on April 25, 2019 [17 favorites]
Lawmakers in 18 states across the country, including New York, Illinois and Washington, have introduced bills that would require all presidential candidates and their running mates to release their individual tax returns in order to qualify for the presidential primary ballot, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.[…]The WSJ also points out Pence’s Tax Returns, Like Trump’s, Stay Out of Sight—Vice president released returns through 2015 during campaign, but none since taking office. (This makes me wonder if he has anything he'd like to keep quiet since joining the Trump administration or if this is just another case of his sycophantic emulation as a show of solidarity.)
Dylan Lynch, a policy associate for the National Conference of State Legislators, wrote in a recent blog post that although states have the authority to administer presidential elections, it is the Constitution that clearly outlines the qualifications for the presidency. The criteria include being a natural-born citizen, at least 35 years old and a resident of the US for the past 14 years.
"The possible addition of a new criteria established by a state would surely face court battle," Lynch wrote.
posted by Doktor Zed at 8:03 AM on April 25, 2019 [17 favorites]
Is there any legal impediment to the house impeaching multiple times regardless of senate refusal to convict? Say, bi-weekly impeachments for very specific crimes, senate says no, impeach again, based on a different tweet? Does the Constitution say you can't do it more than once?
This sort of constitutional hardball is totally allowed, but on the other side, the Senate is under no obligation to actually hold the impeachment trial. McConnell can almost certainly just sit on all of the impeachment referrals, in the same way he sat on Merrick Garland's SCOTUS nomination. And in this situation he'd have some justification- the trial has to be presided on by the Chief Justice of SCOTUS, and he could just say "I don't want to waste any more of John Roberts' time."
Politically this seems like a non-starter, since it will rapidly fade from the front pages. How many times did the Republicans pass an Obamacare repeal out of the House? It stopped making the news.
posted by BungaDunga at 8:09 AM on April 25, 2019 [3 favorites]
This sort of constitutional hardball is totally allowed, but on the other side, the Senate is under no obligation to actually hold the impeachment trial. McConnell can almost certainly just sit on all of the impeachment referrals, in the same way he sat on Merrick Garland's SCOTUS nomination. And in this situation he'd have some justification- the trial has to be presided on by the Chief Justice of SCOTUS, and he could just say "I don't want to waste any more of John Roberts' time."
Politically this seems like a non-starter, since it will rapidly fade from the front pages. How many times did the Republicans pass an Obamacare repeal out of the House? It stopped making the news.
posted by BungaDunga at 8:09 AM on April 25, 2019 [3 favorites]
The Republicans won the Presidency, House, and Senate after dozens of Obamacare repeal votes.
posted by vibrotronica at 8:13 AM on April 25, 2019 [11 favorites]
posted by vibrotronica at 8:13 AM on April 25, 2019 [11 favorites]
on the other side, the Senate is under no obligation to actually hold the impeachment trial.
That's part of the point, though, isn't it? Force the Senate to be the ones going on record as protecting Trump after the House goes on record wanting to get rid of him. Then the messaging for 2020 becomes "Voters, we need YOU to do what the Senate refuses to do."
Note to House Dems: You'll need messaging for 2020.
posted by Rykey at 8:35 AM on April 25, 2019 [29 favorites]
That's part of the point, though, isn't it? Force the Senate to be the ones going on record as protecting Trump after the House goes on record wanting to get rid of him. Then the messaging for 2020 becomes "Voters, we need YOU to do what the Senate refuses to do."
Note to House Dems: You'll need messaging for 2020.
posted by Rykey at 8:35 AM on April 25, 2019 [29 favorites]
the Senate to be the ones going on record
"We have already failed to convict once, and we simply don't have time to hold a new trial every week" is a perfectly reasonable argument, much more reasonable than the nonsense that McConnell came up with to steal a Senate seat.
He should be impeached, but let's do it the old-fashioned way and send a half-dozen focused, accurate and damning charges, and when the Senate fails to convict the Dems can message on that. Following a failure to convict with an impeachment cannon just doesn't seem to help.
posted by BungaDunga at 8:43 AM on April 25, 2019 [9 favorites]
"We have already failed to convict once, and we simply don't have time to hold a new trial every week" is a perfectly reasonable argument, much more reasonable than the nonsense that McConnell came up with to steal a Senate seat.
He should be impeached, but let's do it the old-fashioned way and send a half-dozen focused, accurate and damning charges, and when the Senate fails to convict the Dems can message on that. Following a failure to convict with an impeachment cannon just doesn't seem to help.
posted by BungaDunga at 8:43 AM on April 25, 2019 [9 favorites]
The Republicans won the Presidency, House, and Senate after dozens of Obamacare repeal votes. and the voter suppression, closing polling places, and gerrymandering. Because they're dirty cheating cheatertons who cheat. That's just science.
Also, your automatic reminder that Crystal Mason is serving five years in prison for voting in 2016. In Texas, but still. (NOT TEXASIST.)
After she was charged, Mason told the Fort Worth Star-Telegram that she did not even want to vote, but her mother had insisted she do so.
"You think I would jeopardise my freedom? You honestly think I would ever want to leave my babies again?" she said.
This is not the first case of a voter fraud conviction in Texas.
Rosa Maria Ortega, 37, an immigrant with a green card, was convicted of voting illegally in the 2012 presidential election and the 2014 Republican primary.
She was sentenced a year ago to eight years in prison, and to be deported afterwards.
Okay I'm sorry we were talking about how we can't impeach the sex-abusing human-rights-violator idiot narcissist in chief? Right, right. Yes I understand the Democratic Leadership is planning to meet with ... said person, next week on .. lessee here - Ah here we go: Infrastructure. Yes. That one doesn't seem to ever dissapoint does it.
posted by petebest at 9:38 AM on April 25, 2019 [15 favorites]
Also, your automatic reminder that Crystal Mason is serving five years in prison for voting in 2016. In Texas, but still. (NOT TEXASIST.)
After she was charged, Mason told the Fort Worth Star-Telegram that she did not even want to vote, but her mother had insisted she do so.
"You think I would jeopardise my freedom? You honestly think I would ever want to leave my babies again?" she said.
This is not the first case of a voter fraud conviction in Texas.
Rosa Maria Ortega, 37, an immigrant with a green card, was convicted of voting illegally in the 2012 presidential election and the 2014 Republican primary.
She was sentenced a year ago to eight years in prison, and to be deported afterwards.
Okay I'm sorry we were talking about how we can't impeach the sex-abusing human-rights-violator idiot narcissist in chief? Right, right. Yes I understand the Democratic Leadership is planning to meet with ... said person, next week on .. lessee here - Ah here we go: Infrastructure. Yes. That one doesn't seem to ever dissapoint does it.
posted by petebest at 9:38 AM on April 25, 2019 [15 favorites]
A state judge in Masassachusetts has just been indicted by a federal grand jury for helping a defendant wanted by ICE escape their clutches after they showed up in her courthouse last year. One of Newton District Court Judge Shelley Joseph's court officers was also indicted. Both were charged with conspiracy to obstruct justice, obstruction of justice, obstruction of a federal proceeding and perjury.
posted by adamg at 9:41 AM on April 25, 2019 [21 favorites]
posted by adamg at 9:41 AM on April 25, 2019 [21 favorites]
At a Twitter all-hands meeting on March 22, an employee asked a blunt question: Twitter has largely eradicated Islamic State propaganda off its platform. Why can’t it do the same for white supremacist content?
From Motherboard: Why Won’t Twitter Treat White Supremacy Like ISIS? Because It Would Mean Banning Some Republican Politicians Too.
posted by SteveInMaine at 9:46 AM on April 25, 2019 [55 favorites]
From Motherboard: Why Won’t Twitter Treat White Supremacy Like ISIS? Because It Would Mean Banning Some Republican Politicians Too.
posted by SteveInMaine at 9:46 AM on April 25, 2019 [55 favorites]
WSJ, Michael Cohen Denies Some Crimes in Tom Arnold Call: ‘It’s a Lie’ [video], in which Tom Arnold secretly recorded a phone call with Michael Cohen last month, and Cohen denies committing crimes he pleaded guilty to last fall, and I hate absolutely everyone with anything to do with this story.
The legal penalty for lying to Tom Arnold is just the embarrassment that you were talking to Tom Arnold.
posted by srboisvert at 9:46 AM on April 25, 2019 [19 favorites]
From Motherboard: Why Won’t Twitter Treat White Supremacy Like ISIS? Because It Would Mean Banning Some Republican Politicians Too.
posted by zachlipton at 9:49 AM on April 25, 2019 [86 favorites]
Twitter has not publicly explained why it has been able to so successfully eradicate ISIS while it continues to struggle with white nationalism. As a company, Twitter won’t say that it can’t treat white supremacy in the same way as it treated ISIS. But external experts Motherboard spoke to said that the measures taken against ISIS were so extreme that, if applied to white supremacy, there would certainly be backlash, because algorithms would obviously flag content that has been tweeted by prominent Republicans—or, at the very least, their supporters. So it’s no surprise, then, that employees at the company have realized that as well.Some days, society's children, whether they be human or algorithmic, ask us questions that see the world as it really is and not the polite fictions we maintain, questions like "how am I supposed to tell the difference between white supremacists and Republican politicians?," and we all just sit quietly for a moment, lost for words.
posted by zachlipton at 9:49 AM on April 25, 2019 [86 favorites]
vibrotronica: The Republicans won the Presidency, House, and Senate after dozens of Obamacare repeal votes.
I don't think the recent past has too much to teach Democrats, especially in the sense of "just mirror Republican hardball in full", because the two parties have entirely different playing fields. Democrats can win by bringing the masses to the polls, by fighting suppression, inspiring the base, demonstrating a serious fight against venality, and promoting popular policy ideas. And they should definitely learn a thing or two from what the GOP achieved with aggression and rule-bending. But they couldn't go full hackery because it just wouldn't work the same.
I was listening to an old episode of Vox's The Weeds, and they made the point that when the NRA or the pro-life figures discuss Trump, they describe him in larger-than-life terms, as the greatest champion of gun/fetal rights in history, despite the obvious nonsense of this (those are issues he simply doesn't care about, and to the extent he has any "real" views at all, they ossified in the 1980s, that guns are for scary criminals and abortions are for mistresses). By contrast, the trade unions and civil rights groups that endorsed Hillary did so with plenty of sincerity, but not "she's the best possible advocate period!" hyperbole. And if they had, there would be serious pushback even from Democrats, because we're not accustomed to the song and dance of bullshit (or at least not that variety).
Getting even a majority of American Democrats on board with impeachment will take some effort because they want to weigh the pros and cons first. That's frustrating and counterproductive against an enemy like ours, but it's the language people speak.
posted by InTheYear2017 at 10:11 AM on April 25, 2019 [18 favorites]
I don't think the recent past has too much to teach Democrats, especially in the sense of "just mirror Republican hardball in full", because the two parties have entirely different playing fields. Democrats can win by bringing the masses to the polls, by fighting suppression, inspiring the base, demonstrating a serious fight against venality, and promoting popular policy ideas. And they should definitely learn a thing or two from what the GOP achieved with aggression and rule-bending. But they couldn't go full hackery because it just wouldn't work the same.
I was listening to an old episode of Vox's The Weeds, and they made the point that when the NRA or the pro-life figures discuss Trump, they describe him in larger-than-life terms, as the greatest champion of gun/fetal rights in history, despite the obvious nonsense of this (those are issues he simply doesn't care about, and to the extent he has any "real" views at all, they ossified in the 1980s, that guns are for scary criminals and abortions are for mistresses). By contrast, the trade unions and civil rights groups that endorsed Hillary did so with plenty of sincerity, but not "she's the best possible advocate period!" hyperbole. And if they had, there would be serious pushback even from Democrats, because we're not accustomed to the song and dance of bullshit (or at least not that variety).
Getting even a majority of American Democrats on board with impeachment will take some effort because they want to weigh the pros and cons first. That's frustrating and counterproductive against an enemy like ours, but it's the language people speak.
posted by InTheYear2017 at 10:11 AM on April 25, 2019 [18 favorites]
because algorithms would obviously flag content that has been tweeted by prominent Republicans—or, at the very least, their supporters.
There are surely Twitter engineers who ran a simulation with the same model and ended up banning I-1 and/or Jack.
posted by holgate at 10:14 AM on April 25, 2019 [29 favorites]
There are surely Twitter engineers who ran a simulation with the same model and ended up banning I-1 and/or Jack.
posted by holgate at 10:14 AM on April 25, 2019 [29 favorites]
WaPo: North Korea issued $2 million bill for comatose Otto Warmbier’s care. Trump reportedly personally directed US envoys to agree to pay $2 million to secure Warmbier's release despite public statements to the contrary. It remains unknown if the funds were ever transferred from Treasury to North Korea.
posted by peeedro at 10:26 AM on April 25, 2019 [23 favorites]
posted by peeedro at 10:26 AM on April 25, 2019 [23 favorites]
Politico, DHS draft proposal would speed deportations.
The plan, under review, would apply expedited removal anywhere in the country to immigrants who can't prove they've been continuously present in the US for at least two years. The current rules apply it only to those arrested with 100 miles of the land border who have been in the US less than two weeks. This would take away the minimal due process protections that currently apply, and raises the obvious question of how someone is supposed to prove they've been here long enough to not get expedited removal without those protections.
posted by zachlipton at 10:49 AM on April 25, 2019 [9 favorites]
The plan, under review, would apply expedited removal anywhere in the country to immigrants who can't prove they've been continuously present in the US for at least two years. The current rules apply it only to those arrested with 100 miles of the land border who have been in the US less than two weeks. This would take away the minimal due process protections that currently apply, and raises the obvious question of how someone is supposed to prove they've been here long enough to not get expedited removal without those protections.
posted by zachlipton at 10:49 AM on April 25, 2019 [9 favorites]
What is the appropriate way to prepare for 18 months of Trump saying "If I did anything wrong, why wasn't I impeached?"
Make your case to the public in very simple, clear, and moral terms. I think about the Lincoln Douglass debates a lot. Lincoln was losing those debates until he reframed the question of whether of whether not new states should be able to decide to become slaveholding ones in clear moral terms.
The other piece of history I think about is the report given on Nixon. It was simple, clear, and neutral. This happened. Then this happened. Then this happened. Finally this happened. One clear fact following another leading to an inescapable conclusion. It must be that simple and spin proof. There should be a report like this for the people, for anyone and everyone to read for themselves in 10 minutes.
Interestingly, Lincoln did not argue that slavery was wrong because black people were naturally equal to whites. His case was something along the lines of "is it right that one man should work for bread and another man eat that bread? Is this not the same as a king's tyrannical rule?" We can learn a lesson here as well. However we frame our moral question, it needs to be one that Republicans will concede in the present day.
posted by xammerboy at 10:52 AM on April 25, 2019 [13 favorites]
Make your case to the public in very simple, clear, and moral terms. I think about the Lincoln Douglass debates a lot. Lincoln was losing those debates until he reframed the question of whether of whether not new states should be able to decide to become slaveholding ones in clear moral terms.
The other piece of history I think about is the report given on Nixon. It was simple, clear, and neutral. This happened. Then this happened. Then this happened. Finally this happened. One clear fact following another leading to an inescapable conclusion. It must be that simple and spin proof. There should be a report like this for the people, for anyone and everyone to read for themselves in 10 minutes.
Interestingly, Lincoln did not argue that slavery was wrong because black people were naturally equal to whites. His case was something along the lines of "is it right that one man should work for bread and another man eat that bread? Is this not the same as a king's tyrannical rule?" We can learn a lesson here as well. However we frame our moral question, it needs to be one that Republicans will concede in the present day.
posted by xammerboy at 10:52 AM on April 25, 2019 [13 favorites]
So we were talking about the Administrative Procedure Act yesterday? Today the OMB issued new guidance about agency use of scientific studies underlying their rules. [E&E news, may be paywalled].
Think about biological science, a lot of which is based on observation rather than experimentation. How do you "reproduce" bird sightings, if the industry actions have changed the habitat you're trying to protect?
posted by suelac at 10:54 AM on April 25, 2019 [27 favorites]
Critics said the proposal would preclude EPA from using key public health data because of privacy concerns or because the research was based on a specific event, like the aftereffects of a chemical spill, that cannot be ethically reproduced.Basically the plan is to make it too hard for the regulators to roll out environmental protections because they'll have to fight with the big pockets in industry about the science they're relying on. Until now, the regulators have generally been granted deference as experts, and have been able to use some data unavailable to the public/industry. Now the industries will overwhelm the agency staff with nitpicking, or will claim the science is unreproduceable and therefore cannot be used.
"They ignore the cost of doing this. The Government Accountability Office estimated to implement EPA's transparency rule would cost hundreds of millions of dollars," Rosenberg said.
He wondered who would be responsible for making sure the agencies would make the data public, where the data could be accessed and suggested the whole process would carry a hefty price tag.
"There is no indication from OMB how any of this will be done," said Rosenberg.
He called the guidance favorable to companies seeking to block public health and safety policies, suggesting industry groups could hire consultants to repeatedly ask for corrections.
Think about biological science, a lot of which is based on observation rather than experimentation. How do you "reproduce" bird sightings, if the industry actions have changed the habitat you're trying to protect?
posted by suelac at 10:54 AM on April 25, 2019 [27 favorites]
Oh yeah, and then when Trump says he wasn't impeached, and therefore no collusion, we point them to the people's case online to decide for themselves.
posted by xammerboy at 11:01 AM on April 25, 2019 [1 favorite]
posted by xammerboy at 11:01 AM on April 25, 2019 [1 favorite]
It wasn't that long ago that people of good will, Democratic and Republican alike, agreed that torture was a moral evil, not to mention obviously illegal. Then the incompetence and corruption of the George W. Bush/Dick Cheney regime caused them to torture prisoners (conceding their guilty knowledge by cloaking it in terms like "enhanced interrogation," which sounded better in the original German).
But confronted with the irrefutable facts and clear moral question, Republicans didn't concede that Bush and Cheney were depraved war criminals. Rather, they declared not only that torture was fine and dandy, but that Democrats were weak for opposing it.
posted by Gelatin at 11:03 AM on April 25, 2019 [21 favorites]
But confronted with the irrefutable facts and clear moral question, Republicans didn't concede that Bush and Cheney were depraved war criminals. Rather, they declared not only that torture was fine and dandy, but that Democrats were weak for opposing it.
posted by Gelatin at 11:03 AM on April 25, 2019 [21 favorites]
> "enhanced interrogation" ... sounded better in the original German
Wow. That link was eye-opening. It quotes this bit from Andrew Sullivan (there's a blast from the past):
posted by RedOrGreen at 11:13 AM on April 25, 2019 [44 favorites]
Wow. That link was eye-opening. It quotes this bit from Andrew Sullivan (there's a blast from the past):
The very phrase used by the president [Bush Jr.] to describe torture-that-isn’t-somehow-torture – “enhanced interrogation techniques” – is a term originally coined by the Nazis. The techniques are indistinguishable. The methods were clearly understood in 1948 as war-crimes. The punishment for them was death.I walked through the World War II memorial in DC the week after Charlottesville and Trump's "many fine people" comments. Where we've arrived as a country, in just a few years, is stunning.
posted by RedOrGreen at 11:13 AM on April 25, 2019 [44 favorites]
The legal penalty for lying to Tom Arnold is just the embarrassment that you were talking to Tom Arnold.
I know he's a famous punchline, but I'm not a fan of "beat up on Tom Arnold" jokes at all and don't think he deserves the Andy Dick treatment. I've been following him on Twitter for several years and as far as I've been able to tell he's a good egg who has been a welcome and vocal ally on gun control, and has not Milkshaked, to my knowledge.
I don't know what the implications are of the term "Iowa Democrat," but if he's a reasonable representative then it doesn't seem to be that bad.
posted by rhizome at 11:28 AM on April 25, 2019 [3 favorites]
I know he's a famous punchline, but I'm not a fan of "beat up on Tom Arnold" jokes at all and don't think he deserves the Andy Dick treatment. I've been following him on Twitter for several years and as far as I've been able to tell he's a good egg who has been a welcome and vocal ally on gun control, and has not Milkshaked, to my knowledge.
I don't know what the implications are of the term "Iowa Democrat," but if he's a reasonable representative then it doesn't seem to be that bad.
posted by rhizome at 11:28 AM on April 25, 2019 [3 favorites]
I walked through the World War II memorial in DC the week after Charlottesville and Trump's "many fine people" comments. Where we've arrived as a country, in just a few years, is stunning.
I believe in a lot of the aspirational things about America but don’t kid yourself: we’ve spent over two hundred and fifty years getting here.
posted by phearlez at 11:33 AM on April 25, 2019 [13 favorites]
I believe in a lot of the aspirational things about America but don’t kid yourself: we’ve spent over two hundred and fifty years getting here.
posted by phearlez at 11:33 AM on April 25, 2019 [13 favorites]
'Bring Your Kids to Work Day' didn't go so well for Sarah Huckabee Sanders (Marcus Gilmer, Mashable)
posted by ZeusHumms at 11:35 AM on April 25, 2019 [20 favorites]
White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders probably thought holding a mock press briefing on "Take Our Daughters and Sons to Work Day 2019" would go smoothly but, hoo boy, was she wrong.Ooops.
While Sanders was fine hosting a group of kids (mostly the children of the White House press corps), she hasn't hosted an actual press briefing for actual reporters in 45 days which is a new record.
posted by ZeusHumms at 11:35 AM on April 25, 2019 [20 favorites]
Torture becoming a norm may be an example of what happens when Democrats do not fully commit to their fight. Bush's lawyers worked around the clock mounting legal defenses to challenges that never came. There were no official investigations. No official hearings. No court challenges. The lesson to Republicans was clear. We can act with impunity. Democrats don't fight back.
However, I don't want to make it sound like fighting is without risk. There are risks to fighting and there are risks to not. When Lincoln argued against slavery, it was not clear at all that was a winning argument. In fact, Lincoln faced much more opposition than we do against Trump. Perhaps he decided he would rather fight for what was right and lose, then not.
If Democrats had fought fully back then and mounted the challenges Republicans expected, would Trump be acting as he is? Will we ever know if Republicans will change their behavior if challenged if we do not challenge him?
posted by xammerboy at 11:46 AM on April 25, 2019 [23 favorites]
However, I don't want to make it sound like fighting is without risk. There are risks to fighting and there are risks to not. When Lincoln argued against slavery, it was not clear at all that was a winning argument. In fact, Lincoln faced much more opposition than we do against Trump. Perhaps he decided he would rather fight for what was right and lose, then not.
If Democrats had fought fully back then and mounted the challenges Republicans expected, would Trump be acting as he is? Will we ever know if Republicans will change their behavior if challenged if we do not challenge him?
posted by xammerboy at 11:46 AM on April 25, 2019 [23 favorites]
Texas Monthly, Robert Moore, ‘I’m in Danger’: Migrant Parents Face Violence in Mexico Under New Trump Policy, in which the author sat in on 80-something court hearings to see how the new "Migrant Protection Protocol" policy is working. It's not.
The article is worth reading in full, but he fills in some more details on twitter:
The Atlantic, Olga Khazan, Some Immigrants Choose Between Food Stamps and a Green Card. The new public charge rule is only a proposal at this stage, but that doesn't mean it hasn't had an effect already, even for programs that aren't even a part of the proposed rule
The article is worth reading in full, but he fills in some more details on twitter:
A Honduran woman named Glenis was in immigration court today with 2 daughters, including a 4-year-old with Guillen-Barre. The girl, who weighs 20 pounds, can't walk and is nonverbal; mom has to carry her or push her in a stroller. Glenis' attorney, @ellewhyarrrgh, said she's been warned that she's in particular danger in Juarez because of her children. A doctor examined the 4-year-old and his assessment was "Go with God" if she has to remain in Mexico because of lack of treatment. The attorney asked DHS attorneys in court about humanitarian parole and it was unclear who she could make the request to because it's unclear who has custody of the family at the moment. Judge urged attorney to apply to both ICE and CBP.Several families did not appear for their hearing, and it's unclear whether they had even been allowed to enter the US for court. Many of those in court said that their shelter in Juarez told them that they'd lose their spot if they left to go to court, forcing them to choose between court and family. But yep, tell me we're building the wall to keep out gang members and not—*checks notes*—4-year-olds in need of urgent medical care with moms who voluntarily turned themselves in to apply for asylum.
The Atlantic, Olga Khazan, Some Immigrants Choose Between Food Stamps and a Green Card. The new public charge rule is only a proposal at this stage, but that doesn't mean it hasn't had an effect already, even for programs that aren't even a part of the proposed rule
“I don’t think I’m exaggerating by saying this affects nearly every single immigrant family that I see,” says Lanre Falusi, a pediatrician at Children’s National Health System in Washington, D.C. “I’ll see a mom with a newborn, and sometimes … the mom is having trouble affording formula. I talk about programs that they might be eligible for. More and more, I’m having new parents decline, saying, ‘I’m not gonna sign up.’”posted by zachlipton at 12:52 PM on April 25, 2019 [16 favorites]
According to the National Immigration Law Center, which summarized the impacts of the public-charge proposal in a recent fact sheet, health-care providers and insurers in some states have noticed sizable decreases in enrollment in food stamps and Medicaid. After a decade of increases, participation in the food-stamp program among immigrants fell by eight percentage points from 2017 to the first half of 2018, even though the employment rates among this group remained the same. Politico cited the National WIC Association, the advocacy arm of the government program that provides food to low-income children and mothers, in saying that “nearly two-thirds of WIC providers, from 18 different states, reported they have noticed a difference in immigrant WIC access in the wake of the news about potential changes in the public-charge rules.”
“When the office reaches out to [immigrants] to inform them that proposed changes to the public charge policy have not taken effect, they respond that it is too risky and their attorneys are advising them against receiving benefits,” said Kurt Larrick, the assistant director of the Arlington County Department of Human Services in Virginia, via email. About 200 families stopped receiving WIC benefits in the county from 2017 to 2018. WIC is not included in the public-charge proposal, but advocates told me that this drop is an indication that immigrant families are afraid to use any benefits at all, out of an overabundance of caution. Rodrigo Aguirre, a case manager with Catholic Charities, has seen the same effect with free and reduced-price school lunches, which are similarly not part of the current proposal.
For the It-was-obvious-but-here's-proof file: Omarosa Confirms the President Has a List of Crazy Policy Ideas He'll Leak to Distract From Bad Press
posted by bonehead at 1:01 PM on April 25, 2019 [24 favorites]
posted by bonehead at 1:01 PM on April 25, 2019 [24 favorites]
@mcpli: BREAKING: Federal court holds that portions of Michigan’s congressional, state house, and state senate maps are unconstitutional partisan gerrymanders. Ruling was unanimous
Here's the court's opinion: "Because we find that these constitutional violations will reoccur if future elections are held under the Enacted Plan, we HEREBY ENJOINthe use of the Challenged Districts in any future election."
posted by zachlipton at 1:03 PM on April 25, 2019 [44 favorites]
Here's the court's opinion: "Because we find that these constitutional violations will reoccur if future elections are held under the Enacted Plan, we HEREBY ENJOINthe use of the Challenged Districts in any future election."
posted by zachlipton at 1:03 PM on April 25, 2019 [44 favorites]
@mcpli: BREAKING: Federal court holds that portions of Michigan’s congressional, state house, and state senate maps are unconstitutional partisan gerrymanders. Ruling was unanimous
As I'm ranting over on PoliticalFilter Slack, this is fucking huge, because the court is saying "Give us a better map by August 1st or we draw a new one." What are the odds that a GOP Legislature and a Democratic Governor are going to agree on a map? And this also calls for special elections in all affected Senate districts, which could easily be the entire goddamn State Senate.
In 2018, the state legislature vote was overall like 57/43 Democratic, but Republicans held both houses. If the new map is any less gerrymandered, they are done.
Literally bobbing in my seat right now. This will be the biggest thing in Michigan politics since term limits were introduced in the '90s.
posted by Etrigan at 1:10 PM on April 25, 2019 [63 favorites]
As I'm ranting over on PoliticalFilter Slack, this is fucking huge, because the court is saying "Give us a better map by August 1st or we draw a new one." What are the odds that a GOP Legislature and a Democratic Governor are going to agree on a map? And this also calls for special elections in all affected Senate districts, which could easily be the entire goddamn State Senate.
In 2018, the state legislature vote was overall like 57/43 Democratic, but Republicans held both houses. If the new map is any less gerrymandered, they are done.
Literally bobbing in my seat right now. This will be the biggest thing in Michigan politics since term limits were introduced in the '90s.
posted by Etrigan at 1:10 PM on April 25, 2019 [63 favorites]
Is the Michigan decision in any way referable to the US Supreme Court, or is this it at its top level already? Asking for a Canadian. Well, me.
posted by Quindar Beep at 1:26 PM on April 25, 2019 [3 favorites]
posted by Quindar Beep at 1:26 PM on April 25, 2019 [3 favorites]
For the It-was-obvious-but-here's-proof file
My only concern is, how can we be sure that that wasn't from the "Omarosa-is-feeling-a-chill-from-not-being-the-center-of-attention file"?
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 1:28 PM on April 25, 2019 [8 favorites]
My only concern is, how can we be sure that that wasn't from the "Omarosa-is-feeling-a-chill-from-not-being-the-center-of-attention file"?
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 1:28 PM on April 25, 2019 [8 favorites]
As I'm ranting over on PoliticalFilter Slack, this is fucking huge, because the court is saying "Give us a better map by August 1st or we draw a new one." What are the odds that a GOP Legislature and a Democratic Governor are going to agree on a map? And this also calls for special elections in all affected Senate districts, which could easily be the entire goddamn State Senate.
I'll take a victory but boy howdy would I prefer some more non-demonominational theoretically-unbiased algorythmic scheme for drawing up districts rather than handing a decision over to the people who are fully steeped and integrated into The Machinery of each party as its currently composed. Hopefully that's just too cynical and the competing interests are strong enough that there's no way for them to cooperate on this and freeze out what seems like a rising wave of new progressives.
posted by phearlez at 1:28 PM on April 25, 2019 [1 favorite]
I'll take a victory but boy howdy would I prefer some more non-demonominational theoretically-unbiased algorythmic scheme for drawing up districts rather than handing a decision over to the people who are fully steeped and integrated into The Machinery of each party as its currently composed. Hopefully that's just too cynical and the competing interests are strong enough that there's no way for them to cooperate on this and freeze out what seems like a rising wave of new progressives.
posted by phearlez at 1:28 PM on April 25, 2019 [1 favorite]
More on the MI case from Rick Hasen. An SC stay seems likely.
posted by Chrysostom at 1:34 PM on April 25, 2019
posted by Chrysostom at 1:34 PM on April 25, 2019
I'll take a victory but boy howdy would I prefer some more non-demonominational theoretically-unbiased algorythmic scheme for drawing up districts
We already have that coming to Michigan after 2020 thanks to a ballot initiative. This just makes it happen earlier.
posted by Etrigan at 1:35 PM on April 25, 2019 [2 favorites]
We already have that coming to Michigan after 2020 thanks to a ballot initiative. This just makes it happen earlier.
posted by Etrigan at 1:35 PM on April 25, 2019 [2 favorites]
I think there's still at least a ray of hope for some kind of positive SCOTUS ruling, given the Maryland case. That said, the action is in a) initiatives and b) state constitutional rulings, a la Pennsylvania. The latter looks moderately likely in North Carolina.
posted by Chrysostom at 1:39 PM on April 25, 2019 [4 favorites]
posted by Chrysostom at 1:39 PM on April 25, 2019 [4 favorites]
Omarosa Confirms the President Has a List of Crazy Policy Ideas He'll Leak to Distract Press
Remember when a lot of Republicans were complaining that Trump announced he was getting rid of ObamaCare right on the heels of the great victory of the Mueller report, denying them their victory lap? A lot them said "I don't understand why he's doing this."
Yeah, why would you do that?
posted by xammerboy at 1:42 PM on April 25, 2019 [9 favorites]
Remember when a lot of Republicans were complaining that Trump announced he was getting rid of ObamaCare right on the heels of the great victory of the Mueller report, denying them their victory lap? A lot them said "I don't understand why he's doing this."
Yeah, why would you do that?
posted by xammerboy at 1:42 PM on April 25, 2019 [9 favorites]
The Atlantic, Olga Khazan, Some Immigrants Choose Between Food Stamps and a Green Card. The new public charge rule is only a proposal at this stage, but that doesn't mean it hasn't had an effect already, even for programs that aren't even a part of the proposed rule
As someone who worked as a public benefits navigator for five years I can directly attest to the truth of this statement. I and the others on my team did our best to be honest with people about the current situation, but the reality is that "well, legally you are absolutely entitled to this benefit right now, as someone who's a refugee, asylee, or been a green card holder for more than five years -- but we genuinely can't confirm that a future rule change might mean that the government will look back, not just to the date of the rule change but also to the benefits you've taken currently or in the past for the purposes of determining your likelihood of being a public charge".
That's... a risk many low-income refugees, asylees and legal permanent residents aren't willing to take. And so they go without medical care, and their kids go to bed hungry.
posted by tivalasvegas at 1:45 PM on April 25, 2019 [28 favorites]
As someone who worked as a public benefits navigator for five years I can directly attest to the truth of this statement. I and the others on my team did our best to be honest with people about the current situation, but the reality is that "well, legally you are absolutely entitled to this benefit right now, as someone who's a refugee, asylee, or been a green card holder for more than five years -- but we genuinely can't confirm that a future rule change might mean that the government will look back, not just to the date of the rule change but also to the benefits you've taken currently or in the past for the purposes of determining your likelihood of being a public charge".
That's... a risk many low-income refugees, asylees and legal permanent residents aren't willing to take. And so they go without medical care, and their kids go to bed hungry.
posted by tivalasvegas at 1:45 PM on April 25, 2019 [28 favorites]
What are the odds that a GOP Legislature and a Democratic Governor are going to agree on a map? And this also calls for special elections in all affected Senate districts, which could easily be the entire goddamn State Senate.
This is great. Legislative fights in places like Wisconsin and Virginia have tended to get more national attention for whatever reason, but Michigan Republicans are really. horrible. and have been really good at under-the-radar gerrymandering (and subsequently, of course, instituting horrifying policies).
I remember my shock the day that the home of the auto industry became a right-to-work state. But it also has two Democratic Senators and a Democratic governor and legalized marijuana last year -- it's not so much a red state as a deeply polarized state (see also Wisconsin, Iowa). Betsy DeVos, John Conyers: in conclusion, the upper Midwest is a land of contrasts.
Eclectablog is my go-to for the sane take on local MI politics: here's the post on today's decision.
posted by tivalasvegas at 1:57 PM on April 25, 2019 [8 favorites]
This is great. Legislative fights in places like Wisconsin and Virginia have tended to get more national attention for whatever reason, but Michigan Republicans are really. horrible. and have been really good at under-the-radar gerrymandering (and subsequently, of course, instituting horrifying policies).
I remember my shock the day that the home of the auto industry became a right-to-work state. But it also has two Democratic Senators and a Democratic governor and legalized marijuana last year -- it's not so much a red state as a deeply polarized state (see also Wisconsin, Iowa). Betsy DeVos, John Conyers: in conclusion, the upper Midwest is a land of contrasts.
Eclectablog is my go-to for the sane take on local MI politics: here's the post on today's decision.
posted by tivalasvegas at 1:57 PM on April 25, 2019 [8 favorites]
Oh, final fun Michigan fact: in 2014, Democrats won almost two percentage points more than Republicans did when you count up all votes for US House seats.
Republicans won 9 seats to the Democrats' 5.
posted by tivalasvegas at 2:01 PM on April 25, 2019 [26 favorites]
Republicans won 9 seats to the Democrats' 5.
posted by tivalasvegas at 2:01 PM on April 25, 2019 [26 favorites]
Doktor Zed: "The possible addition of a new criteria [for a presidential candidate to be on a ballot] established by a state would surely face court battle," Lynch wrote.
Learn from Team Trump: make the laws and rulings you want to happen, instead of doing what you think will survive a court appeal. (Of course, this cuts both ways, but Dems shouldn't let the GOP be the only ones to push norms like this.)
Speaking of changed norms: Visa Rejections for Tech Workers Spike Under Trump (Issie Lapowsky for Wired, April 25, 2019)
Learn from Team Trump: make the laws and rulings you want to happen, instead of doing what you think will survive a court appeal. (Of course, this cuts both ways, but Dems shouldn't let the GOP be the only ones to push norms like this.)
Speaking of changed norms: Visa Rejections for Tech Workers Spike Under Trump (Issie Lapowsky for Wired, April 25, 2019)
According to a recent analysis (PDF) by the National Foundation for American Policy, a nonprofit that studies immigration, the denial rate for applicants like Usha who are trying to extend their visas grew from 4 percent in 2016 to 12 percent in 2018; the rate climbed even higher, to 18 percent, through the first quarter of 2019. When it comes to new employment, meanwhile, USCIS has more than doubled the share of petitions it turns down, from 10 percent in 2016 to 24 percent in 2018. In the first quarter of 2019, the denial rate was 32 percent. This is despite a steady decrease (Money.CNN.com) in the total number of new applications under President Trump.And then there's this: The country isn’t ‘full’ — and Trump knows it (Washington Post Op-Ed by the Editorial Board, April 12, 2019)
ONLY A month before President Trump started declaring that the country is “full,” and therefore incapable of absorbing Central American refugees flocking to cross the southern border, he said (Whitehouse.gov) : “So we’re going to let a lot of people come in because we need workers. We have to have workers.”posted by filthy light thief at 2:25 PM on April 25, 2019 [13 favorites]
Mr. Trump was speaking about legal immigration, which his administration has tried to curtail along with the illegal variety. Still, his remarks to the executives on the American Workforce Policy Advisory Board, a group co-chaired by his daughter Ivanka and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, suggest the president knows his diagnosis that the country is full flies in the face of the facts — specifically, the economy’s severe and growing labor shortages, including for low-wage and blue-collar workers, across an array of industries and regions.
The impression of presidential cognitive dissonance was reinforced one day after Mr. Trump declared the country full, when his Department of Homeland Security announced it would nearly double (Washington Monthly) the 33,000 guest worker visas it had planned to issue for employees this summer. The additional 30,000 visas, most of which will be issued to Mexicans and Central Americans, will fill jobs at hotels, amusement parks and landscaping firms that struggle to find adequate seasonal labor.
And on the facebook front, at least one Western country is doing something about its continued violation of privacy laws: Privacy watchdog taking Facebook to court, says company breached privacy laws (CBC)
"Canadians are at risk because the protections offered by Facebook are essentially empty," said Privacy Commissioner Daniel Therrien after releasing a blistering report into the company's operations Thursday.posted by tivalasvegas at 2:32 PM on April 25, 2019 [9 favorites]
Therrien and his B.C. counterpart, Michael McEvoy, joined forces last spring to investigate the roles of Facebook and the Canadian company AggregateIQ in the scandal involving the British firm Cambridge Analytica.
Cambridge Analytica is accused of harvesting data of more than 50 million Facebook users worldwide to create social media strategies to support U.S. President Donald Trump's 2016 election campaign.
Are you all comfortable here? Because I have some horrifying news. Like a zombie that just will not give it a rest already, the debt ceiling is back! You might remember this from previous seasons as the bigger, uglier cousin to the budget fight, except that instead of a government shutdown, we get global economic catastrophe. Well.
WaPo: Trump administration pushes for quick action to raise debt limit
(For the record, I continue to think that the debt ceiling is idiotic, and when Congress votes for a spending level, it should be read that they automatically authorize borrowing to meet that spending level.)
posted by RedOrGreen at 2:32 PM on April 25, 2019 [18 favorites]
WaPo: Trump administration pushes for quick action to raise debt limit
Top White House officials are imploring key Republicans to move quickly and raise the debt ceiling. ... The requests have taken on new urgency because other budget discussions with Capitol Hill have broken down, leaving policymakers at a loss for ways to avoid a pileup of dangerous deadlines in September that could impact the stock market, labor market and economic growth. ... In 2011 and 2013, the government nearly breached a debt ceiling deadline because lawmakers and the Obama administration were locked in a tense standoff over other budget issues. At the time, President Trump cheered on GOP opposition to raising the debt ceiling, but he has largely backed down from that approach since his inauguration.In a huge surprise, the Trump tax cuts haven't produced the promised supercharged economy, and "the U.S. government is projected to spend close to $1 trillion more than it brings in through revenue this year". Apparently the shoe is on the other foot now, and Democrats want changes to spending levels.
(For the record, I continue to think that the debt ceiling is idiotic, and when Congress votes for a spending level, it should be read that they automatically authorize borrowing to meet that spending level.)
posted by RedOrGreen at 2:32 PM on April 25, 2019 [18 favorites]
Top White House officials are imploring key Republicans to move quickly and raise the debt ceiling
They can't get anything done that isn't a hustle.
posted by rhizome at 2:39 PM on April 25, 2019 [2 favorites]
They can't get anything done that isn't a hustle.
posted by rhizome at 2:39 PM on April 25, 2019 [2 favorites]
You have to think about electability (Alexandra Petri, WaPo)
Look at the candidate and ask yourself this question. (You, of course, will vote for them, and so will I!) But would an average voter, whom I am picturing in suspenders, maybe, with a hat that makes a statement with which you and I might not wholeheartedly agree, and maybe even a T-shirt that says “FBI: Female Body Inspector” on it — is this average voter going to vote for them?posted by Johnny Wallflower at 2:42 PM on April 25, 2019 [31 favorites]
He might be economically anxious, this voter, if you know what I mean. Let’s just say that if this were a movie, Sam Rockwell would play him. […]
I am very excited about all the candidates. I am not talking about me! I just want you to think about the democratically engaged monstrous cretin given to making sexist remarks in business settings who has spilled some red sauce on his shirtfront and is not wiping it, this troll, this baby, this jerk of whom I completely disapprove, whose hateful ideas chip away at my spirit a little more each day I contemplate them!
We should let him decide who the nominee is, that is all I am saying.
Wait I thought I posted this one just now but I can't find it...
And on the facebook front, at least one Western country is doing something about its continued violation of privacy laws
Ali Breland, Mother Jones: "Facebook Admits It Is Expecting a Multibillion-Dollar Fine"
And on the facebook front, at least one Western country is doing something about its continued violation of privacy laws
Ali Breland, Mother Jones: "Facebook Admits It Is Expecting a Multibillion-Dollar Fine"
Facebook is expecting to be hit with an unprecedented $3-$5 billion federal fine.posted by OnceUponATime at 3:01 PM on April 25, 2019 [12 favorites]
The revelation that the company anticipates such a massive fine, the result of a Federal Trade Commission investigation of the company’s privacy practices, came in an investor report released Wednesday. The fine would be the largest ever levied against a tech company by the FTC.
“The matter remains unresolved, and there can be no assurance as to the timing or the terms of any final outcome,” Facebook wrote in the quarterly earnings report where it disclosed the figure.
...
In 2018, Facebook faced renewed criticism over its privacy practices after Cambridge Analytica, a British political research firm, was revealed to have improperly obtained data on tens of millions of its users. Later that year in March, the FTC confirmed it had opened an investigation into Facebook’s data privacy practices.
Couple of other related links:
Arjun Bisen, Foreign Policy: "Disinformation Is Drowning Democracy"
BBC (Oct 2018): "Facebook fined £500,000 for Cambridge Analytica scandal"
David Pegg, The Guardian (Jan 2019): "Cambridge Analytica owner fined £15,000 for ignoring data request"
I think this is a good sign that we might eventually learn more.
posted by OnceUponATime at 3:06 PM on April 25, 2019 [7 favorites]
Arjun Bisen, Foreign Policy: "Disinformation Is Drowning Democracy"
BBC (Oct 2018): "Facebook fined £500,000 for Cambridge Analytica scandal"
David Pegg, The Guardian (Jan 2019): "Cambridge Analytica owner fined £15,000 for ignoring data request"
I think this is a good sign that we might eventually learn more.
posted by OnceUponATime at 3:06 PM on April 25, 2019 [7 favorites]
Man Accused of Phony Lawyer Act Was Co-Founder of Pro-Trump Campus Group
Always be grifting
posted by mbo at 3:08 PM on April 25, 2019 [6 favorites]
Always be grifting
posted by mbo at 3:08 PM on April 25, 2019 [6 favorites]
The Massachusetts state judge who was indicted today on federal obstruction of justice (and perjury) charges for allegedly helping a defendant slip out of her courtroom while an ICE agent waited in the court lobby has been suspended without pay because of the indictment by the Supreme Judicial Court, which oversees other courts in the state:
This Order is based solely on the fact that a sitting judge has been indicted for alleged misconduct in the performance of her judicial duties. It in no way reflects any opinion on the merits of the pending criminal case. The Code of Judicial Conduct prohibits all judges from making "any statement that might reasonably be expected to affect the outcome or impair the fairness of a matter pending or impending in any Massachusetts court." SJC Rule 3:09, Code of Judicial Conduct, Rule 2.10.Mass. AG Maura Healey, meanwhile, is outraged and says the matter belongs before a state judicial-conduct commission:
Today’s indictment is a radical and politically-motivated attack on our state and the independence of our courts. It is a bedrock principle of our constitutional system that federal prosecutors should not recklessly interfere with the operation of state courts and their administration of justice.posted by adamg at 3:08 PM on April 25, 2019 [16 favorites]
on the other side, the Senate is under no obligation to actually hold the impeachment trial
I used to think this too, but it's actually wrong -- the Senate rules state that they can't do anything before they've moved on impeachment once the House delivers its officers to present the trial.
posted by gerryblog at 3:18 PM on April 25, 2019 [20 favorites]
I used to think this too, but it's actually wrong -- the Senate rules state that they can't do anything before they've moved on impeachment once the House delivers its officers to present the trial.
posted by gerryblog at 3:18 PM on April 25, 2019 [20 favorites]
Well fuck, they should be sending impeachments daily to force nothing to get done in the Senate.
One count per day. ANd if they run out of counts, recycle. Double jeopardy doesn't apply to impeachment.
posted by ocschwar at 3:35 PM on April 25, 2019 [11 favorites]
Today’s indictment is a radical and politically-motivated attack on our state and the independence of our courts.
No shit. We're all familiar with the catastrophizing and the inevitable nanosecond deletions they bring but dig this big crux, yo. The Law. The Law. The Law is on fi-yo. We don't need Impeachment let our attempt at justice burn. These Trump appointments - which should have been the only argument needed to elect HRC and yet here we fuckin' are - are going to destroy all things gradually at first and then suddenly. Impeachment and the de-legitimization it brings however it does so, is our only correct course.
Democratic Leadership, please meet me at Camera 3.
Democratic Leadership - you want us to know you're aware and that you know the game. You want us to think you have a plan. Democratic Leadership please be advised that for 40 years you have had little to no plan against this Republican aggression. This is your call-out. The jig is most assuredly up. We are all aware of the Overton window, the faux-centrist pledges, and other sleight-of-hand doings and that Shall. Not. Pass. this time. I don't know where you keep the break glass in emergency thingy but if it wasn't for institutionalized torture (wait, what - you didn't do anything about that?? Y- ok this one first.) This is it. Get your everlovin' shit together and DO what you were elected to do in the first place. Do NOT lose to reality-tv lunatic fringe candidate Dontald Trump AGAIN. (2015 time travelers: HI! Hey look there were some.... problems with the 2016 election so it would be so super helpful if you could just not lose that ok! Great! Oh also Russian Intellegence is influencing the campaign for Trump with Facebook's direct knowledge and involvement, he's really no fooling caging children now and a(nother?) rapist is on the SCOTUS bench - funny story - Anthony Kennedy's son gave Trump millions in bad loans and he quit so .. yeah ... anyway then they started jailing judges and stonewalling investigations and things got super duper wonky but not in like a good way?)
posted by petebest at 3:44 PM on April 25, 2019 [18 favorites]
No shit. We're all familiar with the catastrophizing and the inevitable nanosecond deletions they bring but dig this big crux, yo. The Law. The Law. The Law is on fi-yo. We don't need Impeachment let our attempt at justice burn. These Trump appointments - which should have been the only argument needed to elect HRC and yet here we fuckin' are - are going to destroy all things gradually at first and then suddenly. Impeachment and the de-legitimization it brings however it does so, is our only correct course.
Democratic Leadership, please meet me at Camera 3.
Democratic Leadership - you want us to know you're aware and that you know the game. You want us to think you have a plan. Democratic Leadership please be advised that for 40 years you have had little to no plan against this Republican aggression. This is your call-out. The jig is most assuredly up. We are all aware of the Overton window, the faux-centrist pledges, and other sleight-of-hand doings and that Shall. Not. Pass. this time. I don't know where you keep the break glass in emergency thingy but if it wasn't for institutionalized torture (wait, what - you didn't do anything about that?? Y- ok this one first.) This is it. Get your everlovin' shit together and DO what you were elected to do in the first place. Do NOT lose to reality-tv lunatic fringe candidate Dontald Trump AGAIN. (2015 time travelers: HI! Hey look there were some.... problems with the 2016 election so it would be so super helpful if you could just not lose that ok! Great! Oh also Russian Intellegence is influencing the campaign for Trump with Facebook's direct knowledge and involvement, he's really no fooling caging children now and a(nother?) rapist is on the SCOTUS bench - funny story - Anthony Kennedy's son gave Trump millions in bad loans and he quit so .. yeah ... anyway then they started jailing judges and stonewalling investigations and things got super duper wonky but not in like a good way?)
posted by petebest at 3:44 PM on April 25, 2019 [18 favorites]
WaPo, Trump orders staff to prepare arms-control push with Russia and China
posted by zachlipton at 3:49 PM on April 25, 2019 [10 favorites]
President Trump has ordered his administration to prepare a push for new arms-control agreements with Russia and China after bristling at the cost of a 21st-century nuclear arms race, according to administration officials. The aim of the nascent effort, a senior administration official said, is to bring Russian nuclear weapons unregulated by treaties under new limits and persuade China to join an arms-control pact limiting or verifying its capabilities for the first time.New START expires in 2021. There's a very real fear that the administration fucks this up, on purpose or because they're incompetent or because multilateral arms control treaties are actually hard, and there's no deal left. But hey, Trump has learned that nuclear weapons are expensive; who could have known?
...
Some disarmament advocates worry that Trump’s more hawkish advisers are floating a broader arms-control discussion with Russia as a way to kill the New START accord. Those advocates express concern that the initiative will set an impossibly high standard for a new agreement, essentially creating a pretext for Trump to walk away from New START when Moscow does not agree to expanded limits.
posted by zachlipton at 3:49 PM on April 25, 2019 [10 favorites]
'Bring Your Kids to Work Day' didn't go so well for Sarah Huckabee Sanders
Oh, it only got better when Trump turned up to speak to the kids. Here's Daniel Dale's thread of the highlights:
posted by Doktor Zed at 4:54 PM on April 25, 2019 [28 favorites]
Oh, it only got better when Trump turned up to speak to the kids. Here's Daniel Dale's thread of the highlights:
—Speaking to children, Trump says, "It's officially called Take Our Daughters and Our Sons To Work Day, right?" (Children: "YEAH!") Trump: "That's the politically correct term, and we always have to be politically correct, right? So that's good."The best that can be said is that this was no Boy Scout Jamboree.
—Trump: "I even love the media today. I see these beautiful children, products of the media, and I actually like you much more than your parents."
—Trump calls photojournalists "talented," but says "I wish they could make me look just a little bit better. Sometimes I think they do it on purpose, actually. They give me pictures, my chin is pulled way in, I look terrible. But that's OK. They do that on purpose."
—Trump tells the kids that White House reporters are accurate "most of the time" and report "fairly and honestly." He also asks their kids whether it's "all the time" or just most. When the kids say "all the time," Trump says, "I agree. For purposes of this speech, I agree."
posted by Doktor Zed at 4:54 PM on April 25, 2019 [28 favorites]
@lomikriel: Federal judge orders Trump administration to identify potentially thousands more children it separated before the June 2018 ruling in 6 months. The government previously had argued it could take years.
Here's the ACLU press release and the court order.
Six months, er, still seems like an awfully long time to wait to identify separated families.
posted by zachlipton at 5:18 PM on April 25, 2019 [23 favorites]
Here's the ACLU press release and the court order.
Six months, er, still seems like an awfully long time to wait to identify separated families.
posted by zachlipton at 5:18 PM on April 25, 2019 [23 favorites]
Democrats can win by bringing the masses to the polls, by fighting suppression, inspiring the base, demonstrating a serious fight against venality, and promoting popular policy ideas. And they should definitely learn a thing or two from what the GOP achieved with aggression and rule-bending. But they couldn't go full hackery because it just wouldn't work the same.
We don't know this. We've never even come close to seeing it tried. Imagine what a Democratic Party consisting of 140 AOC's with her message discipline and instincts would look like. How far shes' moved the conversation in 4 months in office. If half the party was saying the same things as her. You literally can't. There's no parallel, so no one can say that that world wouldn't work. It's never been attempted, and actually the opposite, the party has consistently fought against that world being possible.
posted by T.D. Strange at 6:13 PM on April 25, 2019 [45 favorites]
We don't know this. We've never even come close to seeing it tried. Imagine what a Democratic Party consisting of 140 AOC's with her message discipline and instincts would look like. How far shes' moved the conversation in 4 months in office. If half the party was saying the same things as her. You literally can't. There's no parallel, so no one can say that that world wouldn't work. It's never been attempted, and actually the opposite, the party has consistently fought against that world being possible.
posted by T.D. Strange at 6:13 PM on April 25, 2019 [45 favorites]
the Senate rules state that they can't do anything before they've moved on impeachment once the House delivers its officers to present the trial.
Sure, they do now, but McConnell can nuclear option them to say whatever with a bare 50 votes. It would at least put them on record, though.
posted by BungaDunga at 6:18 PM on April 25, 2019 [4 favorites]
Sure, they do now, but McConnell can nuclear option them to say whatever with a bare 50 votes. It would at least put them on record, though.
posted by BungaDunga at 6:18 PM on April 25, 2019 [4 favorites]
If Democrats have any survival instinct left at all they should be able to make "voted to change the rules so as not to have to hold impeachment proceedings" look worse than "voted to acquit."
posted by contraption at 7:10 PM on April 25, 2019 [12 favorites]
posted by contraption at 7:10 PM on April 25, 2019 [12 favorites]
Truly insane stat. United States accounts for 41.7% of all health care spending on the planet! We spend more than all other highly developed economies combined.u
posted by The Whelk at 7:31 PM on April 25, 2019 [38 favorites]
posted by The Whelk at 7:31 PM on April 25, 2019 [38 favorites]
Congress Needs To Lock Up Non-Complying Witnesses (Martin Longman, Washington Monthly)
The basic constitutional crisis we have is that the executive branch is refusing to honor congressional subpoenas, and Congress certainly cannot compel the Department of Justice to act as their enforcement arm. That knocks one of Congress’s three options out from under them. They could go to the courts, but that is time-consuming. The fact that the White House wants to go to court indicates that they see stalling as a viable strategy for thwarting the will of Congress... Given that Congress doesn’t seem likely to vindicate its interests in a satisfactory manner through the first two options, that leaves the one that has lain dormant since 1935. They could, for example, have the Sergeant-At-Arms arrest Don McGahn and hold him over for trial in the House.posted by BungaDunga at 8:32 PM on April 25, 2019 [48 favorites]
Christopher Hasson, for those in need of a refresher, is the white supremacist Coast Guard officer who was arrested with a huge stash of weapons, a hit list with nicknames straight from Trump's enemies list, and a history of involvement with neo-nazi figures after he was caught making threatening searches on his work computer.
He was charged with some weapons violations and a drug possession count. The initial court documentation suggested they were planning to file a superseding indictment with domestic terrorism and conspiracy to commit murder charges. They haven't, and now appear to have informed the court that they don't intend to. Various credible news organizations are reporting that the judge ruled today that, since no further charges are coming, they are going to release him on bail till his trial on the minor charges.
The mind boggles. Is there absolutely nothing a white (non-Muslim) male can do to be charged with domestic terrorism? Is there some tiny chance they hope to follow him to some of his friends and arrest them too? Can any of our law-talking folks explain why the prosecutors would do this? Or rather, any explanation that does not involve them being compromised/racist/nazi/etc fellow travelers?
posted by bcd at 9:24 PM on April 25, 2019 [39 favorites]
He was charged with some weapons violations and a drug possession count. The initial court documentation suggested they were planning to file a superseding indictment with domestic terrorism and conspiracy to commit murder charges. They haven't, and now appear to have informed the court that they don't intend to. Various credible news organizations are reporting that the judge ruled today that, since no further charges are coming, they are going to release him on bail till his trial on the minor charges.
The mind boggles. Is there absolutely nothing a white (non-Muslim) male can do to be charged with domestic terrorism? Is there some tiny chance they hope to follow him to some of his friends and arrest them too? Can any of our law-talking folks explain why the prosecutors would do this? Or rather, any explanation that does not involve them being compromised/racist/nazi/etc fellow travelers?
posted by bcd at 9:24 PM on April 25, 2019 [39 favorites]
I suppose they could have bungled whatever parallel construction they were planning to use and don't have enough admissible evidence to charge him. Or did something else egregious that would make their evidence not admissible.
posted by BungaDunga at 9:32 PM on April 25, 2019 [2 favorites]
posted by BungaDunga at 9:32 PM on April 25, 2019 [2 favorites]
The fact that the initial investigation started because of searches he was making on his official Coast Guard computer seems like it shouldn't require parallel construction, if I understand things correctly? Surely there's no expectation of privacy there and anything caught in that filter would be admissible?
The "something else egregious" is surely possible, but would it have kept him from being charged if he'd been a PoC targeting famous Republicans? Or, just, say a black man selling loose cigarettes on the corner?
I'm quickly sliding into yelling-into-the-void territory here, and I know that belongs in another thread.
posted by bcd at 9:42 PM on April 25, 2019 [14 favorites]
The "something else egregious" is surely possible, but would it have kept him from being charged if he'd been a PoC targeting famous Republicans? Or, just, say a black man selling loose cigarettes on the corner?
I'm quickly sliding into yelling-into-the-void territory here, and I know that belongs in another thread.
posted by bcd at 9:42 PM on April 25, 2019 [14 favorites]
I’m pretty sure if Hasson’s list had consisted of Trump children and he had ranted about Hillary Clinton’s 2016 Democratic platform, we might have seen just how far white male privilege stretches with the Republican Party and their judicial lackeys.
Note: I in no way encourage violence against any enemy, domestic or foreign. Do not try this at home.
posted by skyscraper at 10:58 PM on April 25, 2019 [4 favorites]
Note: I in no way encourage violence against any enemy, domestic or foreign. Do not try this at home.
posted by skyscraper at 10:58 PM on April 25, 2019 [4 favorites]
There's a very real fear that the administration fucks this up, on purpose or because they're incompetent or because multilateral arms control treaties are actually hard, and there's no deal left.
What reasons does Russia have to negotiate? What leverage does the US have that Trump won't give away for free?
posted by PenDevil at 10:59 PM on April 25, 2019 [1 favorite]
What reasons does Russia have to negotiate? What leverage does the US have that Trump won't give away for free?
posted by PenDevil at 10:59 PM on April 25, 2019 [1 favorite]
Bernie Sanders Has a Black Woman Problem, and That's Going to Prove Impossible to Get Beyond By Stephen A. Crockett Jr./The Root
Bernie Sanders reminds me of my granddad, and I loved my granddad very much, so I've wondered why I don't love Bernie Sanders. But I guess that I know my granddad's bad sides too well. This is absolutely one of them. Also, my granddad was smarter than Bernie Sanders.
posted by mumimor at 12:24 AM on April 26, 2019 [23 favorites]
Bernie Sanders reminds me of my granddad, and I loved my granddad very much, so I've wondered why I don't love Bernie Sanders. But I guess that I know my granddad's bad sides too well. This is absolutely one of them. Also, my granddad was smarter than Bernie Sanders.
posted by mumimor at 12:24 AM on April 26, 2019 [23 favorites]
“EXECUTIVES ARE VERY WORRIED FOX & FRIENDS WILL BE NEXT”: AFTER TAKING OVER FOX, LACHLAN MURDOCH IS IN A TRUMP TRAP
When advertisers rebelled at outrage anchors like Jeanine Pirro and Tucker Carlson, Trump called Lachlan’s daddy, Rupert Murdoch, to keep them on the air. Inside the battle for the future of the network.
When advertisers rebelled at outrage anchors like Jeanine Pirro and Tucker Carlson, Trump called Lachlan’s daddy, Rupert Murdoch, to keep them on the air. Inside the battle for the future of the network.
Going forward, though, Lachlan is in a trap. He can't simply issue a directive to temper the pro-Trump coverage to win back advertisers and calm restive reporters, because he would risk antagonizing the network's most important viewer: Trump. That happened in March when Fox suspended Jeanine Pirro for delivering an offensive monologue questioning Democratic congresswoman Ilhan Omar's patriotism. Trump quickly criticized Fox and lashed out at Fox journalists, tweeting: “Were @FoxNews weekend anchors, @ArthelNeville and @LelandVittert, trained by CNN prior to their ratings collapse? In any event, that's where they should be working, along with their lowest rated anchor, Shepard Smith!” He implored Fox to “keep fighting for Tucker”—Media Matters had uncovered a series of offensive statements Tucker Carlson had made while calling in to Bubba the Love Sponge's radio show—“and fight hard for @JudgeJeanine.”
Inside Fox, staffers speculated Pirro would be fired, two sources told me, but Trump pre-empted such a move by calling Rupert Murdoch to complain about her suspension. Fox agreed to allow Pirro to come back on the air but cut her opening monologue, a venue for her most incendiary rhetoric. When Trump found out about that, he called Rupert again, a source said. A compromise was proposed: Pirro could return and deliver a shortened version of her opening statement. “Trump called Rupert, and Rupert put pressure on the executives,” a source briefed on the conversations told me. (The White House did not respond to a request for comment. A spokesperson for Fox News said the network's management never discussed canceling Pirro's show.)posted by scalefree at 1:12 AM on April 26, 2019 [27 favorites]
Krugman: Armpits, White Ghettos and Contempt
Who really despises the American heartland?
This is something I think a lot about -- not just about America, but about many places all over the world. Rural areas and small towns are being depleted by ultra-capitalist policies, not by Richard Florida writing stupid stuff. But Richard Florida does write stupid stuff, and neo-liberals do see rural decline as inevitable. We need a new take on heartlands, in America and elsewhere. (Look at Brexit, Alternative für Deutschland, the Gilets Jaunes, etc. And I've seen examples of this in the Middle East and Africa too.)
posted by mumimor at 3:43 AM on April 26, 2019 [9 favorites]
Who really despises the American heartland?
This is something I think a lot about -- not just about America, but about many places all over the world. Rural areas and small towns are being depleted by ultra-capitalist policies, not by Richard Florida writing stupid stuff. But Richard Florida does write stupid stuff, and neo-liberals do see rural decline as inevitable. We need a new take on heartlands, in America and elsewhere. (Look at Brexit, Alternative für Deutschland, the Gilets Jaunes, etc. And I've seen examples of this in the Middle East and Africa too.)
posted by mumimor at 3:43 AM on April 26, 2019 [9 favorites]
WaPo, Trump met with Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey -- and complained about his follower count
Meanwhile: Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey called Rep. Ilhan Omar after Trump’s tweet sparked a flood of death threats
posted by zombieflanders at 4:26 AM on April 26, 2019 [35 favorites]
Meanwhile: Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey called Rep. Ilhan Omar after Trump’s tweet sparked a flood of death threats
The previously unreported call focused on an incendiary video that Trump shared on April 12, which depicts Omar discussing the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks interspersed with footage of the Twin Towers burning. The clip did not include the full context of Omar’s remarks, which were taken from a public event on the broader issue of Islamophobia.Not that I was expecting much from the company who regularly bans targets of bigotry for publicly complaining about their harassers; but everything from the choice to go with an impersonal phone call instead of just going a couple blocks away to meet in person, to the obvious dismissal Jack treats Omar's very real concerns with is just a perfect illustration of how Dorsey and by extension his company will prioritize bigots over the marginalized people they target.
Omar pressed Dorsey to explain why Twitter didn’t remove Trump’s tweet outright, according to a person familiar with the conversation who spoke on condition of anonymity because the call was private. Dorsey said that the president’s tweet didn’t violate the company’s rules, a second person from Twitter confirmed.
Dorsey also pointed to the fact that the tweet and video already had been viewed and shared far beyond the site, one of the sources said. But the Twitter executive did tell Omar that the tech giant needed to do a better job generally in removing hate and harassment from the site, according to the two people familiar with the call.
posted by zombieflanders at 4:26 AM on April 26, 2019 [35 favorites]
Is there absolutely nothing a white (non-Muslim) male can do to be charged with domestic terrorism?
Domestic terrorism is real, but there actually aren't any federal statutes for addressing domestic terrorism.
That shouldn't prevent the media from labeling things terrorism--they certainly have no problem doing so if the perpetrator even just looked at a Qu'ran once--but from a legal standpoint charging someone with domestic terrorism is a non-starter.
posted by Anonymous at 5:31 AM on April 26, 2019
Domestic terrorism is real, but there actually aren't any federal statutes for addressing domestic terrorism.
That shouldn't prevent the media from labeling things terrorism--they certainly have no problem doing so if the perpetrator even just looked at a Qu'ran once--but from a legal standpoint charging someone with domestic terrorism is a non-starter.
posted by Anonymous at 5:31 AM on April 26, 2019
If I recall, the House doesn't actually have the power to order arrests of people.
It does! In limited circumstances. It's called inherent contempt. It was last used during the Teapot Dome scandal, but it's a power they still have.
posted by BungaDunga at 5:40 AM on April 26, 2019 [15 favorites]
It does! In limited circumstances. It's called inherent contempt. It was last used during the Teapot Dome scandal, but it's a power they still have.
posted by BungaDunga at 5:40 AM on April 26, 2019 [15 favorites]
Meanwhile, the president has doubled down on the claim that investigating him = overthrowing the govt:
posted by Barack Spinoza at 5:51 AM on April 26, 2019 [41 favorites]
President Donald Trump on Thursday called the FBI probe into his 2016 campaign and subsequent investigations into Russian election meddling “an attempted overthrow" of his administration.This is not what democracy looks like.
“This was a coup,” Trump told host Sean Hannity on Fox News’ “Hannity” in his first interview since the Mueller report's release. “This was an attempted overthrow of the United States government.”
posted by Barack Spinoza at 5:51 AM on April 26, 2019 [41 favorites]
“This was an attempted overthrow of the United States government.”
In which [checking notes]... your vice-president would then take your place, and everything else would remain exactly as before? This would be hilarious if so many people didn't lap it up as truth.
posted by Rykey at 6:07 AM on April 26, 2019 [11 favorites]
In which [checking notes]... your vice-president would then take your place, and everything else would remain exactly as before? This would be hilarious if so many people didn't lap it up as truth.
posted by Rykey at 6:07 AM on April 26, 2019 [11 favorites]
I hope he keeps his promise.
Gerry Connolly, chair of the House Oversight Committee:
Gerry Connolly, chair of the House Oversight Committee:
This is an assault on the legislative branch of our government. And it's an assault on the constitutional framework of our government and if it is allowed to stand, ... and if the subpoena is issued and you're told you must testify, we will back that up and we will use any and all power in our committee to make sure it is backed up.posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 6:21 AM on April 26, 2019 [42 favorites]
Whether that is a contempt citation or going to court and getting a -- that citation enforced, whether it is fines, whether it is possible incarceration. We will go to the max to enforce constitutional law.
we will use any and all power in our committee to make sure it is backed up
Great! When are you going to start? Now would be good.
posted by diogenes at 6:26 AM on April 26, 2019 [13 favorites]
Great! When are you going to start? Now would be good.
posted by diogenes at 6:26 AM on April 26, 2019 [13 favorites]
Navy SEALs Tried for Months to Report Superior for War Crimes and Were Told to “Let It Go” (DemocracyNow, transcript)
(CW: uh, war crimes) This is the climate we have today. This is what The Impeachment Question is about.
posted by petebest at 6:43 AM on April 26, 2019 [29 favorites]
(CW: uh, war crimes) This is the climate we have today. This is what The Impeachment Question is about.
posted by petebest at 6:43 AM on April 26, 2019 [29 favorites]
More Federal judges doing their jobs news: Federal Judge Blocks Texas Anti-BDS Law <Dallas Observer
"U.S. District Judge Robert Pitman ruled in favor of Bahia Amawi, a former speech pathologist with Pflugerville ISD, who recently sued the state over the law after she was fired from her job for supporting BDS.
“I was shocked because I didn't know what my position as a speech therapist helping kids improve their language in an elementary school had to do with economic harm to Israel and why the government was trying to be involved in restricting me in boycotting a certain entity,” Amawi told the Observer in December. “I felt like my rights were taken away and that I had no choice in what products I could purchase.”
posted by Harry Caul at 6:52 AM on April 26, 2019 [12 favorites]
"U.S. District Judge Robert Pitman ruled in favor of Bahia Amawi, a former speech pathologist with Pflugerville ISD, who recently sued the state over the law after she was fired from her job for supporting BDS.
“I was shocked because I didn't know what my position as a speech therapist helping kids improve their language in an elementary school had to do with economic harm to Israel and why the government was trying to be involved in restricting me in boycotting a certain entity,” Amawi told the Observer in December. “I felt like my rights were taken away and that I had no choice in what products I could purchase.”
posted by Harry Caul at 6:52 AM on April 26, 2019 [12 favorites]
New Mexico County Declares Local Emergency Over Abandoned Border Patrol Checkpoints (John Burnett for NPR, April 26, 2019)
posted by filthy light thief at 7:08 AM on April 26, 2019 [12 favorites]
Nowadays, traffic roars past orange cones that block the entrance to the checkpoint. Customs and Border Protection has closed all six checkpoints in the El Paso Sector — which covers West Texas and New Mexico. Checkpoints elsewhere along the southern border are operating normally.More news from New Mexico: Alleged Leader Of Border Militia Facing Federal Firearms Charges In New Mexico (Richard Gonzales for NPR, April 22, 2019)
That riles Couy Griffin. He wears a wide-brimmed cowboy hat, and owns a nearby barbecue cafe whose trademark is a giant replica of a six-gun. "Where we're at right now ... this Border Patrol checkpoint is closed down. It's in place to provide security. And now it's left abandoned," Griffin says, standing in the empty lanes of the inspection pavilion.
Griffin, chairman of the Otero County Board of Commissioners, was the force behind the surprise move last week when the county declared a state of emergency over the shuttered checkpoint.
"What I'm really hoping comes out of [this emergency declaration] is that our governor will recommission the National Guard which she pulled off of the border earlier this year," he says.
The alleged leader of an armed militia group that has intercepted and detained migrant families along the southern border in New Mexico was charged with federal firearms offenses on Monday.Of course he's a para-military cosplayer with a history of pretending to be police.
Larry Mitchell Hopkins, 69, of Flora Vista, N.M., appeared in federal court in Las Cruces after his arrest on Saturday on charges of illegally possessing firearms as a felon.
A criminal complaint filed by the FBI states that Hopkins, also known as Johnny Horton Jr., was in possession of nine firearms and ammunition in his northern New Mexico home in Nov. 2017. He had three prior felony convictions dating back to 1996, including impersonating a peace officer in the state of Oregon in 2006, according to a press release issued by the U.S. Attorney's office.
posted by filthy light thief at 7:08 AM on April 26, 2019 [12 favorites]
Mod note: Folks, if we need an AOC thread or another primary thread, someone needs to make it. We cannot sustain endless repeats of the same set of bickering in the catchall. Thanks.
posted by restless_nomad (staff) at 7:15 AM on April 26, 2019 [6 favorites]
posted by restless_nomad (staff) at 7:15 AM on April 26, 2019 [6 favorites]
Court Orders Administration To Identify Separated Migrant Children Within 6 Months (Matthew S. Schwartz for NPR, April 26, 2019)
Yesterday (Thursday, April 25, 2019), U.S. District Judge Dana Sabraw, nominated in 2003 by then-president George W. Bush, pushed against the government's dislike for the hard and fast deadline. "It is important for all government actors to have a time frame, a deadline," Sabraw said at a hearing in San Diego, The Associated Press reported. "You tend to stand on it." But it's not a final date -- "This deadline is subject to modification a showing of good cause," the judge wrote. (PDF)
Remember, the U.S. is tracking migrant girls' periods to stop them from getting abortions (Harper's Bazaar, April 2, 2019) and migrant youth go from a children's shelter to adult detention on their 18th birthday (NPR, February 22, 2019), so they're diligently tracking children at some level.
posted by filthy light thief at 7:15 AM on April 26, 2019 [17 favorites]
Yesterday (Thursday, April 25, 2019), U.S. District Judge Dana Sabraw, nominated in 2003 by then-president George W. Bush, pushed against the government's dislike for the hard and fast deadline. "It is important for all government actors to have a time frame, a deadline," Sabraw said at a hearing in San Diego, The Associated Press reported. "You tend to stand on it." But it's not a final date -- "This deadline is subject to modification a showing of good cause," the judge wrote. (PDF)
Remember, the U.S. is tracking migrant girls' periods to stop them from getting abortions (Harper's Bazaar, April 2, 2019) and migrant youth go from a children's shelter to adult detention on their 18th birthday (NPR, February 22, 2019), so they're diligently tracking children at some level.
posted by filthy light thief at 7:15 AM on April 26, 2019 [17 favorites]
“This was a coup,” Trump told host Sean Hannity on Fox News’ “Hannity” in his first interview since the Mueller report's release. “This was an attempted overthrow of the United States government.”
There was more, and worse, in Trump's phone-in interview with Hannity last night. Vox's Aaron Rupar posted highlights (w/video):
This morning, en route to his NRA convention appearance in Indianapolis—which will doubtless be its own kind of crazy—he told the press some only somewhat less unhinged things. For instance, when asked "How old is too old to be president?", he replied, "Well I just feel like a young man. I'm so young. I can't believe it. I'm the youngest person -- I am a young vibrant man. I look at Joe, I don't know about him." (@CSPAN)
He then switched to one of his old favorite dog whistles when he was asked about his "very fine people" remark after Charlottesville: "I've answered that question, and if you look at what I said, you will see that question was answered perfectly. And I was talking about people who went because they felt very strongly about the monument to Robert E. Lee, a great general, whether you like it or not. I've spoken to many generals here, right at the White House. Many people thought, of the generals, they think that he was maybe their favorite general. People we there protesting the taking down of the monument of Robert E. Lee. Everybody knows that."
posted by Doktor Zed at 7:45 AM on April 26, 2019 [8 favorites]
There was more, and worse, in Trump's phone-in interview with Hannity last night. Vox's Aaron Rupar posted highlights (w/video):
—Hannity and Trump are pushing conspiracy theories about the Obama-era Justice Department. "Really it's a coup," Trump says, before admitting that his (unfounded) claim about the Obama DOJ wiretapping him was based on "a little bit of a hunch."Trump evidently needed to air his paranoid grievances in a friendly setting after the criticism he's been facing since the redacted Mueller report was released, not to mention how George Conway got #DerangedDonald trending on Twitter all day yesterday (Newsweek).
—Trump claims Hillary Clinton sent "hundreds of thousands of text messages or emails" through "the Weiner server."
—Trump accuses Hillary Clinton of "destroying the lives of people that were on our campaign. She's destroyed their lives."
—TRUMP: "This was a coup. This wasn't stealing information from an office in the Watergate apartments. This was an attempted coup. Like a third world country. Inconceivable."
—TRUMP: "The attorney general said it better than anybody the other day when he was asked. 'Yes, I think they were spying on the Trump campaign.' You can't say it any better than that."
This morning, en route to his NRA convention appearance in Indianapolis—which will doubtless be its own kind of crazy—he told the press some only somewhat less unhinged things. For instance, when asked "How old is too old to be president?", he replied, "Well I just feel like a young man. I'm so young. I can't believe it. I'm the youngest person -- I am a young vibrant man. I look at Joe, I don't know about him." (@CSPAN)
He then switched to one of his old favorite dog whistles when he was asked about his "very fine people" remark after Charlottesville: "I've answered that question, and if you look at what I said, you will see that question was answered perfectly. And I was talking about people who went because they felt very strongly about the monument to Robert E. Lee, a great general, whether you like it or not. I've spoken to many generals here, right at the White House. Many people thought, of the generals, they think that he was maybe their favorite general. People we there protesting the taking down of the monument of Robert E. Lee. Everybody knows that."
posted by Doktor Zed at 7:45 AM on April 26, 2019 [8 favorites]
Pentagon prepares to expand military’s role at border by loosening rules prohibiting troops from interacting with migrants (WaPo)
The Defense Department is preparing to approve a request from the Department of Homeland Security to provide military lawyers, cooks and drivers to assist with handling a surge of migrants along the southern border.posted by Barack Spinoza at 7:52 AM on April 26, 2019 [4 favorites]
The move would require authorizing waivers for certain troops to a 2006 policy barring military personnel from coming into contact with migrants.
It's Not Cheating. Everybody Does It ("Will it use hacked materials again? Trump campaign will not say", (WaPo))
President Trump’s reelection campaign won’t say whether it would use stolen information from hacks or other breaches, setting up a clash with Democratic rivals who have pledged to forgo such tactics and prompting some worry in Trump’s own party.
Trump campaign representatives did not respond to several inquiries this week seeking its policy on purloined material, nor did White House officials. Their silence has fueled concerns about the integrity of the 2020 election, which escalated after Trump’s personal attorney suggested that using stolen items might be appropriate.
Let's fully understand this: Republicans Are Going To Steal The 2020 Election. Again. As it happens, the Washington Post unhelpfully doesn't mention that directly. But taking headlines at face value is so 1990.
posted by petebest at 7:54 AM on April 26, 2019 [18 favorites]
President Trump’s reelection campaign won’t say whether it would use stolen information from hacks or other breaches, setting up a clash with Democratic rivals who have pledged to forgo such tactics and prompting some worry in Trump’s own party.
Trump campaign representatives did not respond to several inquiries this week seeking its policy on purloined material, nor did White House officials. Their silence has fueled concerns about the integrity of the 2020 election, which escalated after Trump’s personal attorney suggested that using stolen items might be appropriate.
Let's fully understand this: Republicans Are Going To Steal The 2020 Election. Again. As it happens, the Washington Post unhelpfully doesn't mention that directly. But taking headlines at face value is so 1990.
posted by petebest at 7:54 AM on April 26, 2019 [18 favorites]
"This was a coup. This wasn't stealing information from an office in the Watergate apartments. This was an attempted coup. Like a third world country. Inconceivable."
I like how he low-key opines that Watergate was NBD
posted by tivalasvegas at 7:56 AM on April 26, 2019 [32 favorites]
I like how he low-key opines that Watergate was NBD
posted by tivalasvegas at 7:56 AM on April 26, 2019 [32 favorites]
Trump’s latest ‘coup’ table-pounding follows a classic Fox News feedback loop (WaPo):
The trajectory here is straightforward. Republican lawmakers raise a question. Fox News reports on it, adding comment from a pro-Trump lawmaker that presents a worst-case scenario. Hannity loops in an outside, partisan voice and presents the worst-case scenario to Trump. Trump reacts hyperbolically. The hyperbole is then added back to the straight news story. Trump and his supporters gain a new argument about how unfairly the FBI was treating him, with a Fox News story to point to as evidence.posted by peeedro at 7:57 AM on April 26, 2019 [20 favorites]
That's the important thing about how all of this works. Fox News and conservative media outlets have built an extensive scaffolding around the idea that the FBI investigation into Trump was biased and flawed, constructing new points on old ones with which it assumes viewers or readers are already familiar.
It's almost a shame Mueller wasn't more aggressive in his prosecutorial decisions. He was literally as cautious as any prosecutor in their right mind could possibly be, and he's being called a deep state coup plotter. He was certainly acting in defense of the DoJ, rule of law, and the nation's institutions generally... and yet, I wish he'd just come out and said the President committed crimes.
posted by BungaDunga at 8:14 AM on April 26, 2019 [17 favorites]
posted by BungaDunga at 8:14 AM on April 26, 2019 [17 favorites]
Schneier on Security: Towards an Information Operations Kill Chain
Cyberattacks don't magically happen; they involve a series of steps. And far from being helpless, defenders can disrupt the attack at any of those steps. This framing has led to something called the "cybersecurity kill chain": a way of thinking about cyber defense in terms of disrupting the attacker's process.posted by M-x shell at 8:15 AM on April 26, 2019 [15 favorites]
On a similar note, it's time to conceptualize the "information operations kill chain." Information attacks against democracies, whether they're attempts to polarize political processes or to increase mistrust in social institutions, also involve a series of steps. And enumerating those steps will clarify possibilities for defense.
turns it to his own personal investigative wing of government
Now that a Trump-appointed US Attorney has charged a state judge for daring to not cooperate with ICE, I think we're already there.
posted by BungaDunga at 8:16 AM on April 26, 2019 [17 favorites]
Now that a Trump-appointed US Attorney has charged a state judge for daring to not cooperate with ICE, I think we're already there.
posted by BungaDunga at 8:16 AM on April 26, 2019 [17 favorites]
Benjamin Wittes, Lawfare (May 24, 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 was the piece that turned me on to the Lawfare crew, who certainly have their own biases but have provided some of the best-informed commentary on this whole sordid saga)
posted by BungaDunga at 8:23 AM on April 26, 2019 [18 favorites]
(this was the piece that turned me on to the Lawfare crew, who certainly have their own biases but have provided some of the best-informed commentary on this whole sordid saga)
posted by BungaDunga at 8:23 AM on April 26, 2019 [18 favorites]
of course we can't say there are any "crimes" because how can they be crimes since we have that policy?
The logic is "you can't accuse someone of crimes and then not give them a chance to clear their names at trial." Since Trump can't be tried (what's to stop him from just ordering prosecutors to drop charges and firing them if they don't?) he can't be accused.
The only place Trump can be tried in in Congress, a co-qual branch of government which he does not control.
Mueller did his job, which is to find the facts.
And in the end only the senate or the voters can remove Trump from office.
Blaming anyone else, whether it's House Democrats (who have already said they woukd impeach him if there were enough bipartisan support for a chance of removal) or Mueller or the media or some abstract concept, is blaming the wrong people.
We need 20 Senate Republicans or 270 electoral votes. Until we got those, Trump remains.
posted by OnceUponATime at 9:32 AM on April 26, 2019 [16 favorites]
The logic is "you can't accuse someone of crimes and then not give them a chance to clear their names at trial." Since Trump can't be tried (what's to stop him from just ordering prosecutors to drop charges and firing them if they don't?) he can't be accused.
The only place Trump can be tried in in Congress, a co-qual branch of government which he does not control.
Mueller did his job, which is to find the facts.
And in the end only the senate or the voters can remove Trump from office.
Blaming anyone else, whether it's House Democrats (who have already said they woukd impeach him if there were enough bipartisan support for a chance of removal) or Mueller or the media or some abstract concept, is blaming the wrong people.
We need 20 Senate Republicans or 270 electoral votes. Until we got those, Trump remains.
posted by OnceUponATime at 9:32 AM on April 26, 2019 [16 favorites]
Glenn Thrush, NYT: "As Democrats Agonize, G.O.P. Is at Peace With Doing Nothing on Mueller’s Findings"
And they protect him still, because he is their useful idiot too.
posted by OnceUponATime at 9:55 AM on April 26, 2019 [55 favorites]
[N]o Republican, not even Mr. Romney, a political brand-name who does not face his state’s voters until 2022, has pressed for even a cursory inquiry into the findings by the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, that the president pressured senior officials, including the former White House counsel Donald F. McGahn II and the former attorney general Jeff Sessions, to scuttle his investigation. Where Democrats see a road map to impeachment, Republicans see a dead end.Senate Republicans are the problem. I am shocked and appalled at the extent to which they will put party before country. I would never have believed they were capapble of this, if you had told me a few years ago. I guess my expectations were unrealistic. But we can't have such low expectations for them that we allow this behavior to pass uncommented as we rage at Robert Mueller or Nancy Pelosi or CNN. This is on Mitch McConnell and his friends. Because the Constitution says it is on them. And they refuse to do their patriotic duty. I am angrier now at McConnell than I am at Donald "I'm EVERYBODY'S useful idiot!" Trump himself. McConnell and his caucus are the only reason he wasn't removed within six months of taking office. McConnell is also the reason we weren't publicly talking about this stuff DURING the 2016 campaign.
“I consider this to be, basically, the end of the road,” said Senator Mike Lee, Republican of Utah, who once tried to thwart Mr. Trump’s presidential nomination and now serves on the Senate Judiciary Committee, which has the authority to investigate Mr. Mueller’s findings.
...
“While the report documents a number of actions taken by the president or his associates that were inappropriate, the special counsel reached no conclusion on obstruction of justice,” Mr. Portman said in a statement. ["Because that's actually my job", he did not say -ouat]
...
The chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Lindsey Graham, a close Trump ally, said he had no plans to investigate — and has even suggested that if he pursues a new inquiry it would be to focus on allegations that federal law enforcement agencies conducted surveillance of Mr. Trump’s presidential campaign in 2016.
...
Senator Cory Gardner of Colorado, perhaps the most vulnerable Republican up for re-election next year, told Politico, “Look, it’s clear there were no merit badges earned at the White House for behavior.” He added, “You have to focus on the heart of this conclusion, which is there is no collusion, no cooperation. That’s where the focus ought to be.”
...
Privately, Mr. McConnell has told colleagues that he is eager to get the mess behind him, and that nothing he has seen so far in the unredacted 448-page version of the report released last week leads him to believe there is any reason to pursue a new investigation.
...
Senator Joni Ernst, Republican of Iowa who is up for re-election next year, mused aloud this week about the possibility that the federal government had been “spying on political opponents,”
And they protect him still, because he is their useful idiot too.
posted by OnceUponATime at 9:55 AM on April 26, 2019 [55 favorites]
Mueller Prosecutors: Trump Did Obstruct Justice, Murray Waas, New York Review of Books:
"Prosecutors working for Special Counsel Robert Mueller concluded last year that they had sufficient evidence to seek criminal charges against President Donald Trump for obstruction of justice over the president’s alleged pressuring of then FBI Director James Comey in February 2017 to shut down an FBI investigation of the president’s then national security adviser, Michael Flynn.posted by AwkwardPause at 10:04 AM on April 26, 2019 [40 favorites]
Privately, the two prosecutors, who were then employed in the special counsel’s office, told other Justice Department officials that had it not been for the unique nature of the case—the investigation of a sitting president of the United States, and one who tried to use the powers of his office to thwart and even close down the special counsel’s investigation—they would have advocated that he face federal criminal charges. I learned of the conclusions of the two former Mueller prosecutors not by any leak, either from them personally or from the office of special counsel. Rather, the two prosecutors disclosed this information in then-confidential conversations with two other federal law enforcement officials, who subsequently recounted what they were told to me."
Bill Kristol
Lindsey Graham explains that a president stonewalling Congressional oversight is an impeachable offense.
VIDEO
posted by chris24 at 10:28 AM on April 26, 2019 [25 favorites]
Lindsey Graham explains that a president stonewalling Congressional oversight is an impeachable offense.
VIDEO
posted by chris24 at 10:28 AM on April 26, 2019 [25 favorites]
Vanity Fair: “Trump’s Furious With Don”: Inside The President’s Mar-A-Lago Meltdown—The president is raging against his former staff and wants to sue Don McGahn—but staff think he and his lawyers blew it. “You didn’t have to send me in there,” said one witness.
Yesterday, Trump went on the offensive against McGahn and tweeted, "As has been incorrectly reported by the Fake News Media, I never told then White House Counsel Don McGahn to fire Robert Mueller, even though I had the legal right to do so. If I wanted to fire Mueller, I didn’t need McGahn to do it, I could have done it myself."
WaPo's Josh Dawsey fires back: "Trump is calling the media "fake" here for reporting the conclusions of a government document that was based on an interview with his own lawyer."
CNN Marshall Cohen: "This is why Trump could never testify in-person to Mueller. He is denying that he ordered McGahn to fire Mueller, even though he did it. Trump can lie on Twitter without consequences, but it would’ve been a crime to lie to investigators." (c.f. CNN Fact Check)
UTX law prof/CNN commentator Steve Vladeck: "What’s more likely? That Don McGahn lied in a situation in which lying would be a felony (and would subject him to ethical sanctions), or that @realDonaldTrump, who never sat down with Mueller for an interview, is lying now? (This is a rhetorical question.)"
And this morning, Trump again returned to the issue of McGahn's testimony, per @CSPAN (w/video): President Trump: "I never told Don McGahn to fire Mueller. If I wanted to fire Mueller, I would have done it myself. It's very simple. I had the right to. Frankly, whether I did or he did, we had the absolute right to fire Mueller. In the meantime, I didn't do it. I’m a student of history. I see what you get when you fire people and it's not good. But there would have been nothing wrong with firing him. Legally I had absolute right to fire him, but I never told Don McGahn to fire Mueller."
Right now, Trump's throwing rancid red meat to his crowds of NRA supporters, pandering to them in order to distract us from this.
posted by Doktor Zed at 10:36 AM on April 26, 2019 [27 favorites]
Trump is lashing out at former West Wing officials whom he blames for providing the lion’s share of damaging information in Mueller’s 448-page report. The former officials Trump has vented about, sources told me, are a group known as “the notetakers” that includes former White House counsel Don McGahn, McGahn’s deputy Annie Donaldson, and staff secretary Rob Porter. “The thing that pisses him off is the note-taking,” a former West Wing official interviewed by Mueller told me. “Trump thinks they could have cooperated with Mueller without all the note-taking.”Slate argues that Trump has every reason to be worried about the former White House counsel: The White House Will Fight McGahn Subpoena Because His Public Testimony Could Be a Knockout Blow
Of all Trump’s former staff members, McGahn is receiving the brunt of Trump’s post-Mueller rage. McGahn reportedly spoke to prosecutors for 30 hours during at least three voluntary interviews. He was cited 157 times in the report—more than any witness—and provided vivid examples of Trump’s efforts to obstruct justice, while presenting himself as an ethical actor, a circumstance that’s always been galling for the president. “Trump’s furious with Don,” a source close to the White House, said. According to the source, Trump wants his lawyer Rudy Giuliani to file a personal lawsuit against McGahn for making defamatory statements in the Mueller report.
Yesterday, Trump went on the offensive against McGahn and tweeted, "As has been incorrectly reported by the Fake News Media, I never told then White House Counsel Don McGahn to fire Robert Mueller, even though I had the legal right to do so. If I wanted to fire Mueller, I didn’t need McGahn to do it, I could have done it myself."
WaPo's Josh Dawsey fires back: "Trump is calling the media "fake" here for reporting the conclusions of a government document that was based on an interview with his own lawyer."
CNN Marshall Cohen: "This is why Trump could never testify in-person to Mueller. He is denying that he ordered McGahn to fire Mueller, even though he did it. Trump can lie on Twitter without consequences, but it would’ve been a crime to lie to investigators." (c.f. CNN Fact Check)
UTX law prof/CNN commentator Steve Vladeck: "What’s more likely? That Don McGahn lied in a situation in which lying would be a felony (and would subject him to ethical sanctions), or that @realDonaldTrump, who never sat down with Mueller for an interview, is lying now? (This is a rhetorical question.)"
And this morning, Trump again returned to the issue of McGahn's testimony, per @CSPAN (w/video): President Trump: "I never told Don McGahn to fire Mueller. If I wanted to fire Mueller, I would have done it myself. It's very simple. I had the right to. Frankly, whether I did or he did, we had the absolute right to fire Mueller. In the meantime, I didn't do it. I’m a student of history. I see what you get when you fire people and it's not good. But there would have been nothing wrong with firing him. Legally I had absolute right to fire him, but I never told Don McGahn to fire Mueller."
Right now, Trump's throwing rancid red meat to his crowds of NRA supporters, pandering to them in order to distract us from this.
posted by Doktor Zed at 10:36 AM on April 26, 2019 [27 favorites]
I’m a student of history. I see what you get when you fire people and it's not good.
Dude. You became a famous reality tv star based around the act of firing people on a weekly basis. You literally made “Your fired” a motto. And you rode the fame of that fake persona all the way into the most powerful political position in the country.
I mean.
posted by darkstar at 10:42 AM on April 26, 2019 [23 favorites]
Dude. You became a famous reality tv star based around the act of firing people on a weekly basis. You literally made “Your fired” a motto. And you rode the fame of that fake persona all the way into the most powerful political position in the country.
I mean.
posted by darkstar at 10:42 AM on April 26, 2019 [23 favorites]
Blaming anyone else, whether it's House Democrats (who have already said they woukd impeach him if there were enough bipartisan support for a chance of removal) or Mueller or the media or some abstract concept, is blaming the wrong people.
In the first place, what's with the "if there were bipartisan support" piece? Are they unaware of who the Republicans are? Of course they're never going to have bipartisan support. Trump has shot many people in the face and they're still rah-rahing around him. So that's either a lie or outrageous stupidity on the House Democrats' part.
In the second place, I doubt that they would do so even with that support. I doubt it. They've been so ridiculously timid that I can't imagine them doing it under any circumstances ever. Hey, Democratic Leadership, prove me wrong! Please.
posted by petebest at 10:46 AM on April 26, 2019 [2 favorites]
In the first place, what's with the "if there were bipartisan support" piece? Are they unaware of who the Republicans are? Of course they're never going to have bipartisan support. Trump has shot many people in the face and they're still rah-rahing around him. So that's either a lie or outrageous stupidity on the House Democrats' part.
In the second place, I doubt that they would do so even with that support. I doubt it. They've been so ridiculously timid that I can't imagine them doing it under any circumstances ever. Hey, Democratic Leadership, prove me wrong! Please.
posted by petebest at 10:46 AM on April 26, 2019 [2 favorites]
Trump: 'I am a young, vibrant man' (Katie Galioto, Politico)
posted by ZeusHumms at 10:47 AM on April 26, 2019 [16 favorites]
President Donald Trump on Friday called himself “a young, vibrant man,” taking a dig at Democratic presidential candidates Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders, who eclipse him in age by a few years.I always thought that Trump was dead inside.
“I think that I just feel like a young man,” Trump told reporters on the White House lawn. “I'm so young. I can't believe it, I'm the youngest person.”
The 72-year-old president has said he anticipates taking on one of the two Democratic front-runners in the 2020 general election — Biden, who is 76, or Sanders, who is 77.
“They are all making me look young both in terms of age and, I think, in terms of energy,” Trump said to reporters. “I think you people know that better than anybody.”
posted by ZeusHumms at 10:47 AM on April 26, 2019 [16 favorites]
In the second place, I doubt that they would do so even with that support. I doubt it. They've been so ridiculously timid that I can't imagine them doing it under any circumstances ever.
I agree - most of us have lived our entire adult lives with the Democratic Party being relentlessly dunked on by the Republicans. Truly the Washington Generals of politics.
That said, I think the train has sailed on impeachment at this point and they can't really be blamed for not going through with it now. The Mueller report was forty million news cycles ago. The average American remembers two things about the Mueller report: It was released, and Donald Trump faced no consequences. The opportunity passed.
posted by FakeFreyja at 11:10 AM on April 26, 2019 [3 favorites]
I agree - most of us have lived our entire adult lives with the Democratic Party being relentlessly dunked on by the Republicans. Truly the Washington Generals of politics.
That said, I think the train has sailed on impeachment at this point and they can't really be blamed for not going through with it now. The Mueller report was forty million news cycles ago. The average American remembers two things about the Mueller report: It was released, and Donald Trump faced no consequences. The opportunity passed.
posted by FakeFreyja at 11:10 AM on April 26, 2019 [3 favorites]
“I'm so young. I can't believe it, I'm the youngest person.”
(VIDEO)
posted by The Whelk at 11:14 AM on April 26, 2019 [2 favorites]
(VIDEO)
posted by The Whelk at 11:14 AM on April 26, 2019 [2 favorites]
No, the opportunity has in no way passed. We're just getting started. It's pretty shocking how many people think this shit happens in a day, or even a week or a month.
posted by wierdo at 11:15 AM on April 26, 2019 [59 favorites]
posted by wierdo at 11:15 AM on April 26, 2019 [59 favorites]
Does getting impeached and then acquitted in the senate count as "facing consequences"? Or does it count as "facing no consequences"? Or does it count as "being proven innocent"? I mean in most people's minds?
posted by OnceUponATime at 11:28 AM on April 26, 2019 [4 favorites]
posted by OnceUponATime at 11:28 AM on April 26, 2019 [4 favorites]
Trump’s new defense of his Charlottesville comments is incredibly false (Jane Coaston, Vox)
The 2017 ‘Unite the Right’ rally was organized by and intended for white supremacists and white nationalists.
posted by Barack Spinoza at 11:39 AM on April 26, 2019 [12 favorites]
The 2017 ‘Unite the Right’ rally was organized by and intended for white supremacists and white nationalists.
posted by Barack Spinoza at 11:39 AM on April 26, 2019 [12 favorites]
No, the opportunity has in no way passed. We're just getting started. It's pretty shocking how many people think this shit happens in a day, or even a week or a month.
The last time the issue of impeachment came up, yes, it took one month to get a formal impeachment inquiry off the ground. But the messaging was there on day one after the Starr report was released.
posted by FakeFreyja at 11:44 AM on April 26, 2019
The last time the issue of impeachment came up, yes, it took one month to get a formal impeachment inquiry off the ground. But the messaging was there on day one after the Starr report was released.
posted by FakeFreyja at 11:44 AM on April 26, 2019
FakeFreyja: The Mueller report was forty million news cycles ago. The average American remembers two things about the Mueller report: It was released, and Donald Trump faced no consequences. The opportunity passed.
I disagree, because I think less news-engaged people experience time at something closer to a 1:1 rate. Democrats could initiate a process officially labeled "impeachment hearings" in a month from now, and the average American wouldn't say "What? That's old news, the horses left the barn already." Plus, if material outside the Mueller report is incorporated, it can't be too difficult to explain that there's probable guilt in additional crimes.
posted by InTheYear2017 at 11:49 AM on April 26, 2019 [4 favorites]
I disagree, because I think less news-engaged people experience time at something closer to a 1:1 rate. Democrats could initiate a process officially labeled "impeachment hearings" in a month from now, and the average American wouldn't say "What? That's old news, the horses left the barn already." Plus, if material outside the Mueller report is incorporated, it can't be too difficult to explain that there's probable guilt in additional crimes.
posted by InTheYear2017 at 11:49 AM on April 26, 2019 [4 favorites]
The moment hasn't passed, but getting there would require a sustained effort from Democrats, exactly like what happened in Watergate. Public hearings, on TV for a year straight. Experienced questioners pursuing a real oversight role, not a bunch of 2020 hopefuls hijacking the camera. We've so far seen no indication that this Democratic Party is capable of coordinating a sustained effort building to an impeachment inquiry, or that they even want to. The moment hasn't passed, Democrats are not really working to create it in the first place.
posted by T.D. Strange at 11:50 AM on April 26, 2019 [10 favorites]
posted by T.D. Strange at 11:50 AM on April 26, 2019 [10 favorites]
But the messaging was there on day one after the Starr report was released. Which was four years after House committee investigations re:Whitewater had begun into Clinton. Starr even admitted he had begun drafting an impeachment referral over a year before, in 97.
posted by Harry Caul at 11:54 AM on April 26, 2019 [2 favorites]
posted by Harry Caul at 11:54 AM on April 26, 2019 [2 favorites]
I'm sorry, I stand corrected. Let me restate with correct information: The messaging was there on day -1423.
posted by FakeFreyja at 12:02 PM on April 26, 2019 [1 favorite]
posted by FakeFreyja at 12:02 PM on April 26, 2019 [1 favorite]
Trump administration puts offshore drilling expansion in Arctic, Atlantic on ice
Interior secretary also faces opposition from 17 governors.
Interior secretary also faces opposition from 17 governors.
The plan to open up Arctic and Atlantic waters to offshore oil drilling hit a snag in late March, when a federal judge in Alaska ruled that the Trump administration could not open up federal waters to oil and gas extraction after the Obama administration closed those waters. The Obama administration relied on a 1953 law called the "Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act" (OCSLA) to close the waters to drilling. That law allows sitting presidents to close waters, but it says nothing about the president's power to re-open waters. Originally, Congress opened the federal waters in question to lease sales, so the thought is that Congressional approval would be required again to reverse former President Obama's closures.posted by XMLicious at 12:02 PM on April 26, 2019 [13 favorites]
With a politically divided Congress, the Trump administration would have an uphill battle to re-open previously closed waters in a way that would be consistent with the court's ruling.
The last time the issue of impeachment came up, yes, it took one month to get a formal impeachment inquiry off the ground. But the messaging was there on day one after the Starr report was released.
Yeah, it was was an obviously bullshit process rushed through for partisan reasons and one reason it failed in the Senate and with the public was because of this.
posted by chris24 at 12:03 PM on April 26, 2019 [6 favorites]
Yeah, it was was an obviously bullshit process rushed through for partisan reasons and one reason it failed in the Senate and with the public was because of this.
posted by chris24 at 12:03 PM on April 26, 2019 [6 favorites]
Transactional Trumpism, John Quiggin - "Why were so few traditional Republicans repelled by Trump to the extent that they would vote for Clinton, or else abstain. And why does Trump continue to attract such strong Republican support.
One answer is what might be called “transactional Trumpism“. This is the idea that a large group of Republicans dislike Trump’s racism and misogyny, but support him because of his success in delivering a traditional Republican agenda. The problem I have with this explanation is: what success?"
posted by the man of twists and turns at 12:15 PM on April 26, 2019 [15 favorites]
One answer is what might be called “transactional Trumpism“. This is the idea that a large group of Republicans dislike Trump’s racism and misogyny, but support him because of his success in delivering a traditional Republican agenda. The problem I have with this explanation is: what success?"
posted by the man of twists and turns at 12:15 PM on April 26, 2019 [15 favorites]
Know what you call someone who’s okay with Nazism for the tax cuts?
Nazi.
posted by chris24 at 12:22 PM on April 26, 2019 [60 favorites]
Nazi.
posted by chris24 at 12:22 PM on April 26, 2019 [60 favorites]
Trump Pulls Out of Arms Treaty During Speech at NRA Convention (NYT)
The list of UN countries that voted against the Arms Trade Treaty is short: Iran, North Korea, and Syria.
posted by box at 12:24 PM on April 26, 2019 [16 favorites]
The list of UN countries that voted against the Arms Trade Treaty is short: Iran, North Korea, and Syria.
posted by box at 12:24 PM on April 26, 2019 [16 favorites]
Good news from Kansas! Kansas Supreme Court rules state constitution protects abortion rights.
posted by Melismata at 12:40 PM on April 26, 2019 [27 favorites]
posted by Melismata at 12:40 PM on April 26, 2019 [27 favorites]
Trump administration puts offshore drilling expansion in Arctic, Atlantic on ice
In conversations with oil industry folks concerning Arctic operations, this was largely performative by Trump. I think there was interest in industry in looking at additional near-shore leases on the North Slope, but generally, the oil companies are backing away from high cost and high risk operations right now. There was little to no interest expressed for example, in Canadian Beaufort leases past 2015, and I've been told that even the Sakhalin fields are no longer considered an internal priority with a couple of the majors.
This is driven by two factors: falling demand and cheap fracking for NG and oil in the continental US. The US is currently nearly oversupplied by tight oil/gas plays, which has kept prices lower than many want. Falling demand has been caused mostly by conservation so far, but it is increasingly looking like alternative & renewables will eat even more of the oil companies' pie. So long term looks shakier.
Which doesn't mean that regulatory opening the offshore or the ANWR is a good idea at all. Indeed the NA caribou herds are under extreme existential threat, and it's not clear if they will survive at all. All were in decline in last year's data. This is largely O&G related, but mining and climate change aren't helping.
But still, this likely was not a priority for the industry, even from the extremists like the Koch Bros. Just more wind and talk signifying nothing.
posted by bonehead at 12:44 PM on April 26, 2019 [12 favorites]
In conversations with oil industry folks concerning Arctic operations, this was largely performative by Trump. I think there was interest in industry in looking at additional near-shore leases on the North Slope, but generally, the oil companies are backing away from high cost and high risk operations right now. There was little to no interest expressed for example, in Canadian Beaufort leases past 2015, and I've been told that even the Sakhalin fields are no longer considered an internal priority with a couple of the majors.
This is driven by two factors: falling demand and cheap fracking for NG and oil in the continental US. The US is currently nearly oversupplied by tight oil/gas plays, which has kept prices lower than many want. Falling demand has been caused mostly by conservation so far, but it is increasingly looking like alternative & renewables will eat even more of the oil companies' pie. So long term looks shakier.
Which doesn't mean that regulatory opening the offshore or the ANWR is a good idea at all. Indeed the NA caribou herds are under extreme existential threat, and it's not clear if they will survive at all. All were in decline in last year's data. This is largely O&G related, but mining and climate change aren't helping.
But still, this likely was not a priority for the industry, even from the extremists like the Koch Bros. Just more wind and talk signifying nothing.
posted by bonehead at 12:44 PM on April 26, 2019 [12 favorites]
The problem I have with this explanation is: what success?"
Trashing the capabilities and staff of the federal government and stuffing the judiciary with lifetime appointments of activist judges are two of the biggest victories that the conservatives wanted. Damaging our international relations helps turn the "we're in this on our own" narrative into a self fulfilling prophecy and the tax cuts for the rich is icing on the cake.
It's going to take a long time for things like the state department to recover, if it ever does. And pretty much every qualified person in my rather desirable area of IT has vowed never to work for the government directly and to raise their rates substantially to cover future shutdowns.
posted by Candleman at 12:52 PM on April 26, 2019 [22 favorites]
Trashing the capabilities and staff of the federal government and stuffing the judiciary with lifetime appointments of activist judges are two of the biggest victories that the conservatives wanted. Damaging our international relations helps turn the "we're in this on our own" narrative into a self fulfilling prophecy and the tax cuts for the rich is icing on the cake.
It's going to take a long time for things like the state department to recover, if it ever does. And pretty much every qualified person in my rather desirable area of IT has vowed never to work for the government directly and to raise their rates substantially to cover future shutdowns.
posted by Candleman at 12:52 PM on April 26, 2019 [22 favorites]
Nate Silver updates his candidate tier rankings over at 538 based on the polling:
posted by Justinian at 1:01 PM on April 26, 2019 [2 favorites]
1 a Biden b Harris, Sanders, Buttigieg 2 a Warren, O’Rourke b Booker, Klobuchar, Abrams* 3 a Castro, Gillibrand, Inslee, Yang b Bennet*, Hickenlooper, Ryan, Bullock*Sorry for the font, pasting it is easier than typing out and formatting it.
posted by Justinian at 1:01 PM on April 26, 2019 [2 favorites]
Burhanistan: Sigh, most Americans seem to want lumpy oatmeal hurled in their faces.
Not most, just a plurality. The difference is nontrivial, I think.
posted by InTheYear2017 at 1:14 PM on April 26, 2019
Not most, just a plurality. The difference is nontrivial, I think.
posted by InTheYear2017 at 1:14 PM on April 26, 2019
WaPo, ‘I can land the plane’: How Rosenstein tried to mollify Trump, protect Mueller and save his job
Another example. NYT, Rosenstein Assails Obama Administration, Comey and Journalists in Defending Handling of Russia Inquiry
Rod J. Rosenstein, again, was in danger of losing his job. The New York Times had just reported that — in the heated days after James B. Comey was fired as FBI director — the deputy attorney general had suggested wearing a wire to surreptitiously record President Trump. Now Trump, traveling in New York, was on the phone, eager for an explanation.I really hate all these assholes, but there's a special place in my heart for hating what Rod Rosenstein has done.
Rosenstein — who, by one account, had gotten teary-eyed just before the call in a meeting with Trump’s chief of staff — sought to defuse the volatile situation and assure the president he was on his team, according to people familiar with matter. He criticized the Times report, published in late September, and blamed it on former deputy FBI director Andrew McCabe, whose recollections formed its basis. Then he talked about special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s investigation of Russia’s interference in the 2016 election and told the president he would make sure Trump was treated fairly, people familiar with the conversation said.
“I give the investigation credibility,” Rosenstein said, in the words of one administration official offering their own characterization of the call. “I can land the plane.”
Another example. NYT, Rosenstein Assails Obama Administration, Comey and Journalists in Defending Handling of Russia Inquiry
“The previous administration chose not to publicize the full story about Russian computer hackers and social media trolls, and how they relate to a broader strategy to undermine America,” Mr. Rosenstein said. He left unmentioned that Republican congressional leaders urged former President Barack Obama to keep quiet about the Kremlin’s operation during the presidential race.posted by zachlipton at 1:15 PM on April 26, 2019 [22 favorites]
“The previous administration chose not to publicize the full story about Russian computer hackers and social media trolls, and how they relate to a broader strategy to undermine America,” Mr. Rosenstein said.
Ugh. That clears up any lingering doubt about whether or not Rosenstein was ever acting in good faith. (You really can't go wrong with always assuming that Republicans aren't acting in good faith.)
posted by diogenes at 1:20 PM on April 26, 2019 [9 favorites]
Ugh. That clears up any lingering doubt about whether or not Rosenstein was ever acting in good faith. (You really can't go wrong with always assuming that Republicans aren't acting in good faith.)
posted by diogenes at 1:20 PM on April 26, 2019 [9 favorites]
“The previous administration chose not to publicize the full story about Russian computer hackers and social media trolls, and how they relate to a broader strategy to undermine America,” Mr. Rosenstein said.
Actually I'm kind of upset about this too, in retrospect. Obama made this decision because McConnell wouldn't go along, and Obama wanted to avoid even the appearance of politicization of law enforcement. Which is understandable, but even at the time, and especially in hindsight, I think the risk of Trump winning was the bigger risk to worry about. And of course once he did win, he politicized law enforcement anyway.
I imagine someone in Rosenstein's position was pretty upset about being told to keep his mouth shut about this.
I think this was probably the biggest mistake of Obama's presidency, though if Hillary had won (and she almost did) it would not have seemed like a mistake at all.
posted by OnceUponATime at 1:39 PM on April 26, 2019 [8 favorites]
Actually I'm kind of upset about this too, in retrospect. Obama made this decision because McConnell wouldn't go along, and Obama wanted to avoid even the appearance of politicization of law enforcement. Which is understandable, but even at the time, and especially in hindsight, I think the risk of Trump winning was the bigger risk to worry about. And of course once he did win, he politicized law enforcement anyway.
I imagine someone in Rosenstein's position was pretty upset about being told to keep his mouth shut about this.
I think this was probably the biggest mistake of Obama's presidency, though if Hillary had won (and she almost did) it would not have seemed like a mistake at all.
posted by OnceUponATime at 1:39 PM on April 26, 2019 [8 favorites]
I imagine someone in Rosenstein's position was pretty upset about being told to keep his mouth shut about this.
Hmm, he was so upset that Obama didn't publicize Russia's interference in the election that he spent the following two years working to help Trump deny and hide Russia's interference in the election. Checks out.
posted by diogenes at 1:58 PM on April 26, 2019 [12 favorites]
Hmm, he was so upset that Obama didn't publicize Russia's interference in the election that he spent the following two years working to help Trump deny and hide Russia's interference in the election. Checks out.
posted by diogenes at 1:58 PM on April 26, 2019 [12 favorites]
WaPo, ‘I can land the plane’: How Rosenstein tried to mollify Trump, protect Mueller and save his job
This is probably the kindest assessment in the WaPo article: “I think Rod’s intentions were largely in the right place, but he was weak too many times when the country needed him to be strong,” said Matthew Miller, a Justice Department spokesman during the Obama administration. “He didn’t have to allow the attorney general to use his name in his letter and the press conference, but he has too often been willing to sacrifice his reputation to please people above him.” (Miller's franker on Twitter, however: "Unbelievable and unacceptable. The DAG should not be talking to Trump about this investigation under any circumstances, let alone making assurances while pleading for his job.")
What interests me about the WaPo piece is that Josh Dawsey and Matt Zapotosky share the byline, both D.C. access journalists but with their own sources in establishment Washington and Trumpist camps, respectively. Each side has its reasons for shivving Rosenstein in the aftermath of the redacted Mueller report's release, and Rosenstein's clearly decided his best immediate odds of survival lie with Trump's camp (e.g. Slate's Dalia Lithwick: Rod Rosenstein Has Adopted Trumpian Talking Points). Of course, with Jeffrey Rosen waiting to take over soon, the clock on Rosenstein's utility for them is ticking.
U Alabama law prof and former US Attorney Joyce Alene looks at what has to happen next: "Prosecutors understand the importance of acting ethically & also avoiding even the appearance of impropriety so the public has confidence in its integrity. Questions about Rosenstein’s loyalty only exacerbate concerns about the Mueller Report. The only way to resolve questions about whether Rosenstein was pledging to land the plane on Trump’s airstrip will be open, public hearings that give Congress & the public full access to information about what took place." So now the Dems must subpoena Rosenstein along with Barr and Mueller.
Remember what Comey told Ben Wittes: "'Rod is a survivor,' he said. And you don’t get to survive that long across administrations without making compromises. 'So I have concerns.'"
posted by Doktor Zed at 2:05 PM on April 26, 2019 [16 favorites]
This is probably the kindest assessment in the WaPo article: “I think Rod’s intentions were largely in the right place, but he was weak too many times when the country needed him to be strong,” said Matthew Miller, a Justice Department spokesman during the Obama administration. “He didn’t have to allow the attorney general to use his name in his letter and the press conference, but he has too often been willing to sacrifice his reputation to please people above him.” (Miller's franker on Twitter, however: "Unbelievable and unacceptable. The DAG should not be talking to Trump about this investigation under any circumstances, let alone making assurances while pleading for his job.")
What interests me about the WaPo piece is that Josh Dawsey and Matt Zapotosky share the byline, both D.C. access journalists but with their own sources in establishment Washington and Trumpist camps, respectively. Each side has its reasons for shivving Rosenstein in the aftermath of the redacted Mueller report's release, and Rosenstein's clearly decided his best immediate odds of survival lie with Trump's camp (e.g. Slate's Dalia Lithwick: Rod Rosenstein Has Adopted Trumpian Talking Points). Of course, with Jeffrey Rosen waiting to take over soon, the clock on Rosenstein's utility for them is ticking.
U Alabama law prof and former US Attorney Joyce Alene looks at what has to happen next: "Prosecutors understand the importance of acting ethically & also avoiding even the appearance of impropriety so the public has confidence in its integrity. Questions about Rosenstein’s loyalty only exacerbate concerns about the Mueller Report. The only way to resolve questions about whether Rosenstein was pledging to land the plane on Trump’s airstrip will be open, public hearings that give Congress & the public full access to information about what took place." So now the Dems must subpoena Rosenstein along with Barr and Mueller.
Remember what Comey told Ben Wittes: "'Rod is a survivor,' he said. And you don’t get to survive that long across administrations without making compromises. 'So I have concerns.'"
posted by Doktor Zed at 2:05 PM on April 26, 2019 [16 favorites]
I think this was probably the biggest mistake of Obama's presidency, though if Hillary had won (and she almost did) it would not have seemed like a mistake at all.
And if he said something unilaterally and Hillary won, Trump would have claimed it was stolen, a partisan coup like now and never conceded. And an R Congress would be investigating Clinton, Obama, the FBI, etc.
posted by chris24 at 2:22 PM on April 26, 2019 [8 favorites]
And if he said something unilaterally and Hillary won, Trump would have claimed it was stolen, a partisan coup like now and never conceded. And an R Congress would be investigating Clinton, Obama, the FBI, etc.
posted by chris24 at 2:22 PM on April 26, 2019 [8 favorites]
And would’ve had the excuse they needed to not confirm a Hillary SC nominee.
posted by chris24 at 2:25 PM on April 26, 2019 [4 favorites]
posted by chris24 at 2:25 PM on April 26, 2019 [4 favorites]
Trump taxes Gold Star children at rate of 37 per cent.
posted by sardonyx at 2:34 PM on April 26, 2019 [16 favorites]
posted by sardonyx at 2:34 PM on April 26, 2019 [16 favorites]
he spent the following two years working to help Trump deny and hide Russia's interference in the election.
I don't think he did. He appointed Mueller, protected the investigation, and possibly wanted to wear a wire while talking to Trump and explore the possibility of the 25th amendment with the cabinet. At other times, he said what he had to say publicly to keep from getting fired, while carefully avoiding any actual lies. I dunno. Not sure if there was really a better path open to him. Get fired and let Trump appoint Matt Whitaker to replace him?
posted by OnceUponATime at 2:37 PM on April 26, 2019 [7 favorites]
I don't think he did. He appointed Mueller, protected the investigation, and possibly wanted to wear a wire while talking to Trump and explore the possibility of the 25th amendment with the cabinet. At other times, he said what he had to say publicly to keep from getting fired, while carefully avoiding any actual lies. I dunno. Not sure if there was really a better path open to him. Get fired and let Trump appoint Matt Whitaker to replace him?
posted by OnceUponATime at 2:37 PM on April 26, 2019 [7 favorites]
This seems like another example where Rosenstein says something that sounds like agreeing with Trump and makes Trump happy ("It's Obama's fault!") but which is actually true, when you think about it. (It probably was a mistake for Obama to keep so quiet about the election meddling.)
Just like when Rosenstein criticized Comey in a way that Trump could use as justification for the firing, but all his criticisms were actually legit (Comey's not supposed to give derogatory info on someone not getting indicted, because they can't then defend themselves at trial...) Or like when he said it was ridiculous to think Barr was lying about the report's conclusions. And Barr was not actually lying about the conclusions, just about what they meant.
posted by OnceUponATime at 2:41 PM on April 26, 2019 [4 favorites]
Just like when Rosenstein criticized Comey in a way that Trump could use as justification for the firing, but all his criticisms were actually legit (Comey's not supposed to give derogatory info on someone not getting indicted, because they can't then defend themselves at trial...) Or like when he said it was ridiculous to think Barr was lying about the report's conclusions. And Barr was not actually lying about the conclusions, just about what they meant.
posted by OnceUponATime at 2:41 PM on April 26, 2019 [4 favorites]
I don't think he did.
"Land the plane" wasn't a metaphor for ensuring that Trump was held accountable for his role in obstructing the investigation into Russia's interference.
posted by diogenes at 2:53 PM on April 26, 2019 [6 favorites]
"Land the plane" wasn't a metaphor for ensuring that Trump was held accountable for his role in obstructing the investigation into Russia's interference.
posted by diogenes at 2:53 PM on April 26, 2019 [6 favorites]
I think you're giving Rosenstein way too much credit. Here's his speech:
Anyway Slate, Dahlia Lithwick, Rod Rosenstein Has Adopted Trumpian Talking Points, in which the author points out that Andrew Napolitano on Fox News was discussing Trump's criminal behavior at the same time Rosenstein used his speech to attack the press. And some more bad faith:
Some critical decisions about the Russia investigation were made before I got there. The previous Administration chose not to publicize the full story about Russian computer hackers and social media trolls, and how they relate to a broader strategy to undermine America. The FBI disclosed classified evidence about the investigation to ranking legislators and their staffers. Someone selectively leaked details to the news media. The FBI Director announced at a congressional hearing that there was a counterintelligence investigation that might result in criminal charges. Then the former FBI Director alleged that the President pressured him to close the investigation, and the President denied that the conversation occurred.The FBI disclosed evidence to Congress about the investigation because Chuck Grassley refused to confirm Rod Rosenstein until he got more information about the investigation. On the one hand, Rosenstein attacks Obama for not saying more publicly, and then a sentence later, Rosenstein attacks everyone for not keeping their mouths shut. Obama's decisions aren't the point here; the entire thing is just bad faith.
So that happened.
Anyway Slate, Dahlia Lithwick, Rod Rosenstein Has Adopted Trumpian Talking Points, in which the author points out that Andrew Napolitano on Fox News was discussing Trump's criminal behavior at the same time Rosenstein used his speech to attack the press. And some more bad faith:
It was a few days too early to be a bit at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner, but on the same night Trump himself was telling Hannity that he had no intention of allowing anyone in his administration to comply with lawful congressional subpoenas, Rod Rosenstein was holding Trump out as the man well suited to define law and order for the rest of us.posted by zachlipton at 3:00 PM on April 26, 2019 [17 favorites]
...
he didn’t mention that when Kirstjen Nielsen, former head of the Department of Homeland Security, attempted to discuss potential Russian interference in the 2020 election, she was advised to stop raising it with the president. In other words, Obama’s to blame for letting it happen, but we can’t even remind Trump that it is likely to happen again. Because we all perform for an audience of one.
Trump's currently hosting Shinzo Abe, so that means he's fulminating about the Mueller report at their joint presser, Bloomberg's Jennifer Jacobs reports:
posted by Doktor Zed at 3:00 PM on April 26, 2019 [7 favorites]
Trump said he’s eager to look into how “ridiculous $35 million” Mueller probe started.n.b. Last night Hannity led his show with another attack on Peter Strzok and Lisa Page for their texts.
“Most of you know the answer to it anyway. The fair press, the good press, really the people that know what they're doing, or the people that are indeed fair, they know the answer to it.”
“What took place over last two years and really before that, in all fairness to Robert Mueller, things happened long before he even started and what took place is a disgrace to our country,” Trump said in Oval w Japan’s Abe.[…]
Look at “all of the things you've been seeing with the insurance policy statement from 2 agents that are now gone. If you look at many of the elements of intrigue and frankly we're going to be seeing a lot over the next couple of weeks, things that a lot of people haven't seen.”
posted by Doktor Zed at 3:00 PM on April 26, 2019 [7 favorites]
Probably just a weird coincidence Barr used the same weird metaphor Rosenstein used
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 4:03 PM on April 26, 2019 [7 favorites]
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 4:03 PM on April 26, 2019 [7 favorites]
Retired federal judge and current Harvard Law professor Nancy Gertner writes about the arrest of a Massachusetts state judge for helping a man even the assistant district attorney on the case was not sure was the right guy: US Attorney Lelling’s abuse of power:
Criminal prosecution is a step you take last, not first, especially here, given the extraordinarily chilling effect this prosecution will have on judicial independence and state sovereignty.posted by adamg at 4:21 PM on April 26, 2019 [18 favorites]
New WaPo/ABC Poll: Majority of Americans oppose impeaching Trump, though most say he lied to U.S. public Here are some of its findings:
posted by Doktor Zed at 4:35 PM on April 26, 2019 [15 favorites]
Q: Do you approve or disapprove of the way Donald Trump is handling his job as president? Do you approve/disapprove strongly or somewhat?
— Approve: 39% Disapprove: 54% No Opinion: 7%
Q: As you may know, Special Counsel Robert Mueller has completed his investigation of possible collusion between Trump's 2016 presidential campaign and Russia. Do you feel that Mueller's report is or is not fair and even-handed?
— Yes: 51% No: 21% No Opinion: 28%
Q: From what you've heard or read about it, do you think the Mueller investigation cleared Trump of all wrongdoing, or did it not clear him of all wrongdoing?
— Cleared: 31% Did Not Clear: 53% No Opinion: 16%
Q: Based on what you know, do you think Congress should or should not begin impeachment proceedings that could lead to Trump being removed from office? Do you feel that way strongly or somewhat?
— Should Begin Impeachment: 37% Should Not: 56% No Opinion: 7%posted by Doktor Zed at 4:35 PM on April 26, 2019 [15 favorites]
Remember what Comey told Ben Wittes: "'Rod is a survivor,' he said. And you don’t get to survive that long across administrations without making compromises. 'So I have concerns.'"
I'm going to make a prediction that one of the compromises is the phrase, "the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities," which is a weirdly legalistic, overly specific exoneration that doesn't reflect the main thrust of the report—especially if you take Roger Stone into account—yet is copy-and-pasted several times. My guess is that didn't come from Mueller or his prosecutors.
posted by Dr. Send at 5:03 PM on April 26, 2019 [9 favorites]
I'm going to make a prediction that one of the compromises is the phrase, "the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities," which is a weirdly legalistic, overly specific exoneration that doesn't reflect the main thrust of the report—especially if you take Roger Stone into account—yet is copy-and-pasted several times. My guess is that didn't come from Mueller or his prosecutors.
posted by Dr. Send at 5:03 PM on April 26, 2019 [9 favorites]
Mueller did his job, which is to find the facts.
No lawyer, politician, or reporter described Mueller's job this way. Mueller was at the very least to render impartial judgement as to whether or not the president committed crimes. It was expected he would find out a lot more information than what was public domain. The Mueller report is crafted to protect the DOJ's reputation as politically impartial, but that's not their job. Their job is to protect the United States and render justice.
What if Mueller really had turned out to be a profile in courage and simply stated that, yes, in his team's opinion the president should be impeached? There were a lot of people that sat out on deciding whether or not the president was committing crimes. They left that decision to an impartial team of investigators. They did not expect a 400 page report of dense legalese 2 years later concluding that decision was up to them.
Serious Republicans with integrity who we can count on to do their job will not save us from Trump. Comey. Flynn. Barr. These aren't men who are good at their jobs. These are men who are good at protecting their jobs.
posted by xammerboy at 5:22 PM on April 26, 2019 [10 favorites]
No lawyer, politician, or reporter described Mueller's job this way. Mueller was at the very least to render impartial judgement as to whether or not the president committed crimes. It was expected he would find out a lot more information than what was public domain. The Mueller report is crafted to protect the DOJ's reputation as politically impartial, but that's not their job. Their job is to protect the United States and render justice.
What if Mueller really had turned out to be a profile in courage and simply stated that, yes, in his team's opinion the president should be impeached? There were a lot of people that sat out on deciding whether or not the president was committing crimes. They left that decision to an impartial team of investigators. They did not expect a 400 page report of dense legalese 2 years later concluding that decision was up to them.
Serious Republicans with integrity who we can count on to do their job will not save us from Trump. Comey. Flynn. Barr. These aren't men who are good at their jobs. These are men who are good at protecting their jobs.
posted by xammerboy at 5:22 PM on April 26, 2019 [10 favorites]
Comey and Flynn both got fired.
posted by kirkaracha at 6:31 PM on April 26, 2019 [5 favorites]
posted by kirkaracha at 6:31 PM on April 26, 2019 [5 favorites]
NYT, F.B.I. Warns of Russian Interference in 2020 Race and Boosts Counterintelligence Operations
posted by zachlipton at 6:47 PM on April 26, 2019 [27 favorites]
The F.B.I. director warned anew on Friday about Russia’s continued meddling in American elections, calling it a “significant counterintelligence threat.” The bureau has shifted additional agents and analysts to shore up defenses against foreign interference, according to a senior F.B.I. official.Oh.
...
“We recognize that our adversaries are going to keep adapting and upping their game,” Christopher A. Wray, the F.B.I. director, said Friday in a speech in Washington, citing the presence of Russian intelligence officers in the United States and the Kremlin’s record of malign influence operations.
“So we are very much viewing 2018 as just kind of a dress rehearsal for the big show in 2020,” he said.
posted by zachlipton at 6:47 PM on April 26, 2019 [27 favorites]
House Intel hires former Russian mob prosecutor to lead Trump probes
The House Intelligence Committee has hired a seasoned former Southern District of New York federal prosecutor with experience going after Russian organized crime to lead its myriad investigations into President Donald Trump.
Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) announced on Tuesday that Daniel Goldman joined the committee last month as senior adviser and director of investigations. Goldman, who was second-in-command at SDNY’s organized crime unit, has prosecuted the Russian mob and has secured convictions for racketeering, murder and money laundering, including against the Genovese crime family.posted by scalefree at 7:08 PM on April 26, 2019 [50 favorites]
So that's a good sign.
posted by scalefree at 7:09 PM on April 26, 2019 [3 favorites]
posted by scalefree at 7:09 PM on April 26, 2019 [3 favorites]
Without a consistent game plan from Democratic Leadership, then Schiff, Cummings, Waters, and anyone else with ... heheheh. "Consistent game plan!" Bwah! ahhh. sorry. *cough* sorry, okay I got this. *cough* *ahem*
Schiff, Cummings, Waters, and anyone else with Committees to bear are going to be swimming against the tide on all public fronts and that's just going to be a drag on them. If the messaging continues to be "nah" on Impeachment, these committee investigations will essentially be "we're really taking this seriously now part II" and our DNC candidate will have f* all to say about impeachment other than "oooh we're really gonna follow up after we win" which is a) not great and b) not going to happen anyway.
Anyone who's ever been a fan of the sportsball who's watched the coaches bork up the game plan knows this feeling. We need to see some keywords being pumped out, pronto. Let's see some passion for for the law for g-dsake this is a slam-f'ing-dunk they're just throwing away.
I know it's not the hyucking thread, but this situation with the Dems so reminds me of this Simpsons quote:
Accountant: Let me get this straight. You took all the money you made franchising your name, and bet it *against* the Harlem Globetrotters?
Krusty the Clown: Ohhhh I thought the Generals were due! [TV shows a Globetrotter spinning the ball as Generals watch] He spinning the ball on his finger! Just take it! Take the ball! [the Globetrotter kicks it into the net behind him] That game was fixed. They were using a freakin' ladder, for God's sakes.
posted by petebest at 7:39 PM on April 26, 2019 [8 favorites]
Schiff, Cummings, Waters, and anyone else with Committees to bear are going to be swimming against the tide on all public fronts and that's just going to be a drag on them. If the messaging continues to be "nah" on Impeachment, these committee investigations will essentially be "we're really taking this seriously now part II" and our DNC candidate will have f* all to say about impeachment other than "oooh we're really gonna follow up after we win" which is a) not great and b) not going to happen anyway.
Anyone who's ever been a fan of the sportsball who's watched the coaches bork up the game plan knows this feeling. We need to see some keywords being pumped out, pronto. Let's see some passion for for the law for g-dsake this is a slam-f'ing-dunk they're just throwing away.
I know it's not the hyucking thread, but this situation with the Dems so reminds me of this Simpsons quote:
Accountant: Let me get this straight. You took all the money you made franchising your name, and bet it *against* the Harlem Globetrotters?
Krusty the Clown: Ohhhh I thought the Generals were due! [TV shows a Globetrotter spinning the ball as Generals watch] He spinning the ball on his finger! Just take it! Take the ball! [the Globetrotter kicks it into the net behind him] That game was fixed. They were using a freakin' ladder, for God's sakes.
posted by petebest at 7:39 PM on April 26, 2019 [8 favorites]
I wonder what it's like to have the kind of career where they wait a month before announcing you've been hired.
posted by rhizome at 7:55 PM on April 26, 2019 [3 favorites]
posted by rhizome at 7:55 PM on April 26, 2019 [3 favorites]
The Goldman hire was public information more than a month ago; the announcement may have just been a way to get into the news or signal that yes, we aren't just sitting on our hands over here.
posted by a snickering nuthatch at 8:26 PM on April 26, 2019 [4 favorites]
posted by a snickering nuthatch at 8:26 PM on April 26, 2019 [4 favorites]
it is bureaucratese, tending toward vernacular readability although still quite dry. that said, i think vernacular prose or bureaucratese, when describing prosecutorial decisions, the elements of crimes and finer points of scienter, is not wrongly called legalese. (i finished reading vol.i today.)
posted by 20 year lurk at 9:16 PM on April 26, 2019 [3 favorites]
posted by 20 year lurk at 9:16 PM on April 26, 2019 [3 favorites]
Maria Butina, Russian who conspired to infiltrate conservative U.S. political groups, sentenced to 18 months
Russia slams US for admitted Russian agent Maria Butina's 18-month prison sentence
posted by MrVisible at 9:23 PM on April 26, 2019 [8 favorites]
Russia slams US for admitted Russian agent Maria Butina's 18-month prison sentence
posted by MrVisible at 9:23 PM on April 26, 2019 [8 favorites]
Hopefully, the people behind the NRA will be brought up on conspiracy and espionage charges for working with Butina. Time to put the PATRIOT Act to good use, for once, and file some money laundering charges, as well. Where are Trump and the GOP getting their dark money?
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 9:55 PM on April 26, 2019 [11 favorites]
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 9:55 PM on April 26, 2019 [11 favorites]
xammerboy, have you read the report?
Yes, bureaucratese is much closer to what I meant.
posted by xammerboy at 9:58 PM on April 26, 2019 [1 favorite]
Yes, bureaucratese is much closer to what I meant.
posted by xammerboy at 9:58 PM on April 26, 2019 [1 favorite]
I noticed a funny thing about the Butina headlines yesterday: An oddly large number of them (at the time) retained the word "alleged," despite the guilty plea and mountain of evidence. CNN included, mind.
It's shit like that which gives people false impressions. It would really be nice if the news orgs could slow their roll by 60 seconds or so and stop with the misleading headlines. I know we're stuck with the trolly clickbaity shit, but maybe at least get them factually accurate, eh?
posted by wierdo at 12:53 AM on April 27, 2019 [22 favorites]
It's shit like that which gives people false impressions. It would really be nice if the news orgs could slow their roll by 60 seconds or so and stop with the misleading headlines. I know we're stuck with the trolly clickbaity shit, but maybe at least get them factually accurate, eh?
posted by wierdo at 12:53 AM on April 27, 2019 [22 favorites]
Prison is torture, voting is self-defense
posted by The Whelk at 3:11 AM on April 27, 2019 [7 favorites]
posted by The Whelk at 3:11 AM on April 27, 2019 [7 favorites]
"On every measure that should matter, though—jobs, incomes, economic growth—studies reveal that corporate-tax incentives do little to nothing." The Nation
One fun detail, the more tax incentives a place gives out to corporations the more likely they’re going to have lawmakers brought in on corruption charges.
Funny that.
posted by The Whelk at 4:57 AM on April 27, 2019 [40 favorites]
One fun detail, the more tax incentives a place gives out to corporations the more likely they’re going to have lawmakers brought in on corruption charges.
Funny that.
posted by The Whelk at 4:57 AM on April 27, 2019 [40 favorites]
wierdo: I noticed a funny thing about the Butina headlines yesterday: An oddly large number of them (at the time) retained the word "alleged," despite the guilty plea and mountain of evidence. CNN included, mind.
It's shit like that which gives people false impressions. It would really be nice if the news orgs could slow their roll by 60 seconds or so and stop with the misleading headlines. I know we're stuck with the trolly clickbaity shit, but maybe at least get them factually accurate, eh?
It's also more clickbaity, in the bare sense of attracting more clicks, to outright call someone a spy! So not doing so is primarily a good example of the success of right-wing ref-working. Nobody even has to complain, news just anticipates the squeaky wheels.
posted by InTheYear2017 at 5:23 AM on April 27, 2019 [5 favorites]
It's shit like that which gives people false impressions. It would really be nice if the news orgs could slow their roll by 60 seconds or so and stop with the misleading headlines. I know we're stuck with the trolly clickbaity shit, but maybe at least get them factually accurate, eh?
It's also more clickbaity, in the bare sense of attracting more clicks, to outright call someone a spy! So not doing so is primarily a good example of the success of right-wing ref-working. Nobody even has to complain, news just anticipates the squeaky wheels.
posted by InTheYear2017 at 5:23 AM on April 27, 2019 [5 favorites]
Should Begin Impeachment: 37% Should Not: 56% No Opinion: 7%
Support for removing Nixon from office was 19% at the beginning of the Watergate hearings. It was 38% after the Saturday Night Massacre. It was 48% after the Supreme Court ruled he had to release the tapes. It was 57% when he resigned.
The job of hearings and of congressional leadership is to make the case for impeachment. To change minds. And a part of the disconnect between how many think he’s guilty and how many support impeachment is D leadership not acting like he deserves impeachment. They’re leading people to this dichotomy rather than what they should be doing.
posted by chris24 at 6:43 AM on April 27, 2019 [86 favorites]
Support for removing Nixon from office was 19% at the beginning of the Watergate hearings. It was 38% after the Saturday Night Massacre. It was 48% after the Supreme Court ruled he had to release the tapes. It was 57% when he resigned.
The job of hearings and of congressional leadership is to make the case for impeachment. To change minds. And a part of the disconnect between how many think he’s guilty and how many support impeachment is D leadership not acting like he deserves impeachment. They’re leading people to this dichotomy rather than what they should be doing.
posted by chris24 at 6:43 AM on April 27, 2019 [86 favorites]
But not let’s piss off this popular president!
Ryan Struyk (CNN)
Average presidential approval ratings through this point in term via ABC/Post and Gallup polling:
Kennedy 73%
W Bush 71%
HW Bush 70%
Johnson 69%
Eisenhower 67%
Nixon 58%
Truman 56%
Obama 55%
Reagan 55%
Carter 52%
Clinton 51%
Ford 47%
Trump 38%
posted by chris24 at 7:16 AM on April 27, 2019 [16 favorites]
Ryan Struyk (CNN)
Average presidential approval ratings through this point in term via ABC/Post and Gallup polling:
Kennedy 73%
W Bush 71%
HW Bush 70%
Johnson 69%
Eisenhower 67%
Nixon 58%
Truman 56%
Obama 55%
Reagan 55%
Carter 52%
Clinton 51%
Ford 47%
Trump 38%
posted by chris24 at 7:16 AM on April 27, 2019 [16 favorites]
Hopefully, the people behind the NRA will be brought up on conspiracy and espionage charges for working with Butina.
I wouldn't be surprised if she got this sentence just to make her look worse, as a perpetrator against those poor NRA rubes who didn't do anything wrong (or at least they didn't intend to).
posted by rhizome at 7:42 AM on April 27, 2019
I wouldn't be surprised if she got this sentence just to make her look worse, as a perpetrator against those poor NRA rubes who didn't do anything wrong (or at least they didn't intend to).
posted by rhizome at 7:42 AM on April 27, 2019
Good night, sweet prince
Oliver North Will Not Seek Reelection as NRA President Amid Investigation
In a surprising move, National Rifle Association officials announced Saturday morning that Oliver North has resigned as president, as infighting and controversy have taken hold at the gun rights group’s annual meeting.
In a letter read by the group’s vice president to kick off the gathering, North said that he will not seek reelection as NRA president, and went on to attack the NRA law firm that filed a lawsuit against its leading ad firm. “There is a clear crisis” at the NRA regarding financial allegations, he said in the Saturday letter. The NRA’s CEO Wayne LaPierre received a standing ovation at the beginning of the members meeting. He was seated next to Oliver North’s empty chair and placard.
posted by Rust Moranis at 8:03 AM on April 27, 2019 [7 favorites]
Oliver North Will Not Seek Reelection as NRA President Amid Investigation
In a surprising move, National Rifle Association officials announced Saturday morning that Oliver North has resigned as president, as infighting and controversy have taken hold at the gun rights group’s annual meeting.
In a letter read by the group’s vice president to kick off the gathering, North said that he will not seek reelection as NRA president, and went on to attack the NRA law firm that filed a lawsuit against its leading ad firm. “There is a clear crisis” at the NRA regarding financial allegations, he said in the Saturday letter. The NRA’s CEO Wayne LaPierre received a standing ovation at the beginning of the members meeting. He was seated next to Oliver North’s empty chair and placard.
posted by Rust Moranis at 8:03 AM on April 27, 2019 [7 favorites]
Greg Sargent: If Trump chokes off all oversight, while escalating pressure on DOJ to prosecute his critics, it will create an increasingly unstable situation. In sum: Trump may end up forcing Dems to choose between total confrontation and total capitulation.
posted by T.D. Strange at 8:12 AM on April 27, 2019 [21 favorites]
As new questions on Trump’s corruption emerge, his lawless threats escalate Meanwhile, Trump is defying oversight on many other fronts, vowing to refuse “all” subpoenas and rejecting efforts to get his tax returns. As I’ve noted, launching an impeachment inquiry could strengthen the Democrats’ legal hand in compelling cooperation. So Trump may end up forcing Democrats to choose between an inquiry and basically letting Trump neuter them amid endless court battles over one subpoena after another.Let's ask a retired white guy in an Ohio diner.
...
If Democrats let Trump neuter them, even as Trump escalates his pressure on the Justice Department to investigate his political critics — that is, even as Trump adds to the case for an impeachment inquiry — continuing on the current course will represent something close to total capitulation to Trump’s lawlessness.
If the only alternative is total confrontation, which will Democrats choose?
posted by T.D. Strange at 8:12 AM on April 27, 2019 [21 favorites]
Lara Trump Says Migrants Definitely Among the 'Worst Things' to Ever Happen in Germany
posted by Joe in Australia at 8:26 AM on April 27, 2019 [7 favorites]
posted by Joe in Australia at 8:26 AM on April 27, 2019 [7 favorites]
Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) announced on Tuesday that Daniel Goldman joined the committee last month as senior adviser and director of investigations. Goldman, who was second-in-command at SDNY’s organized crime unit, has prosecuted the Russian mob and has secured convictions for racketeering, murder and money laundering, including against the Genovese crime family.
You know who else was an United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York? Rudy Giuliani. Tiny Fucking World.
posted by srboisvert at 8:42 AM on April 27, 2019 [2 favorites]
You know who else was an United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York? Rudy Giuliani. Tiny Fucking World.
posted by srboisvert at 8:42 AM on April 27, 2019 [2 favorites]
Quick note:
There are at least 44 elections between 5/4 and 5/7. Run for something has a list of candidates that have looking to serve to mend these issues we often complain about in here.
For those who are looking in hindsight and saying, "Yeah, Rs got elected to a lot of low level stuff and kept moving up" this is a first step to get Ds, Is, DSAs, put in those spots and do the exact same thing.
There are a dozen candidates in Texas alone. Texas used to be solid blue. We can flip it back.
posted by a non mouse, a cow herd at 8:54 AM on April 27, 2019 [30 favorites]
There are at least 44 elections between 5/4 and 5/7. Run for something has a list of candidates that have looking to serve to mend these issues we often complain about in here.
For those who are looking in hindsight and saying, "Yeah, Rs got elected to a lot of low level stuff and kept moving up" this is a first step to get Ds, Is, DSAs, put in those spots and do the exact same thing.
There are a dozen candidates in Texas alone. Texas used to be solid blue. We can flip it back.
posted by a non mouse, a cow herd at 8:54 AM on April 27, 2019 [30 favorites]
Yesterday, Elijah Cummings plans to schedule a contempt vote for Carl Kline for defying subpoena to testify on security clearances.
Team Trump is folding in the face of the contempt vote…
CNN: GOP's Jordan Asks White House to Let Ex-Official Testify To Avoid 'Unnecessary Conflict' On Security Clearances “"To avoid unnecessary conflict between Congress and the Executive Branch and to de-escalate Chairman Cummings' orchestrated interbranch confrontation, I write to ask whether Mr. Kline would agree to appear for a voluntary transcribed interview with committee staff," Jordan wrote, offering next Tuesday or Wednesday as options.” (Here's his letter.)
Politico: White House OKs Testimony — With Limits — From Ex-Security Clearance Chief "The White House indicated late Friday it would make former security clearance boss Carl Kline available to interview with the House Oversight Committee on May 1, but only if his testimony is limited to "policies and practices" of the security clearance process, a restriction that Democrats have previously complained is too narrow." (Screenshot of letter) n.b. That's the same date for which William Barr is scheduled to testify before the Senate judiciary committee.
As for the overhanging impeachment issue, the Daily Beast reports: Trump’s Stonewalling Pushes House Democrats Towards Impeachment—“Trump’s opacity is moving some members into the impeachment camp,” one Democratic lawmaker tells The Daily Beast. “Translation: it’s always the cover-up that gets ‘em.”
posted by Doktor Zed at 9:13 AM on April 27, 2019 [5 favorites]
Team Trump is folding in the face of the contempt vote…
CNN: GOP's Jordan Asks White House to Let Ex-Official Testify To Avoid 'Unnecessary Conflict' On Security Clearances “"To avoid unnecessary conflict between Congress and the Executive Branch and to de-escalate Chairman Cummings' orchestrated interbranch confrontation, I write to ask whether Mr. Kline would agree to appear for a voluntary transcribed interview with committee staff," Jordan wrote, offering next Tuesday or Wednesday as options.” (Here's his letter.)
Politico: White House OKs Testimony — With Limits — From Ex-Security Clearance Chief "The White House indicated late Friday it would make former security clearance boss Carl Kline available to interview with the House Oversight Committee on May 1, but only if his testimony is limited to "policies and practices" of the security clearance process, a restriction that Democrats have previously complained is too narrow." (Screenshot of letter) n.b. That's the same date for which William Barr is scheduled to testify before the Senate judiciary committee.
As for the overhanging impeachment issue, the Daily Beast reports: Trump’s Stonewalling Pushes House Democrats Towards Impeachment—“Trump’s opacity is moving some members into the impeachment camp,” one Democratic lawmaker tells The Daily Beast. “Translation: it’s always the cover-up that gets ‘em.”
“I think the combination of the chilling depictions in the Mueller Report and Trump’s opacity is moving some members into the impeachment camp,” said one Democratic lawmaker. “Translation: it’s always the cover-up that gets ‘em.”Meanwhile, Fox News covers Adam Schiff's appearance on Bill Maher's Real Time last night: Schiff Hedges On Trump Impeachment, Says Instead, 'Vote His A-- Out Of Office'
And a senior Democratic aide told The Daily Beast that the temperature within the conference has gone up since Trump said point-blank that the White House fights all congressional subpoenas.[…]
The obstruction outlined in the Mueller Report, said Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD), a member of the House Judiciary Committee, has “leapt off the page” in the last week with Trump’s refusal of lawmakers’ request.
“I have a hunch,” said Raskin, “that he is moving the whole caucus closer to seeing impeachable offenses.”[…]
“If the president is successful in stopping us from collecting evidence, then we have a judgment to make: Can we discharge our constitutional responsibility in the face of that, or is that in and of itself sufficient obstruction of Congress?” said Rep. David Cicilline, a Rhode Island Democrat and member of House Leadership. “That was the third article of the Nixon impeachment. I don’t know that we’re there yet.”
posted by Doktor Zed at 9:13 AM on April 27, 2019 [5 favorites]
Adam Schiff's appearance on Bill Maher's Real Time last night: Schiff Hedges On Trump Impeachment, Says Instead, 'Vote His A-- Out Of Office'
Primary.
posted by Rust Moranis at 9:20 AM on April 27, 2019 [4 favorites]
Primary.
posted by Rust Moranis at 9:20 AM on April 27, 2019 [4 favorites]
Adam Schiff's appearance on Bill Maher's Real Time last night: Schiff Hedges On Trump Impeachment, Says Instead, 'Vote His A-- Out Of Office'
We’re going to have to vote his ass out of office because R senators are craven Nazis. We need to impeach to help show why he needs to go and to show history his crimes.
posted by chris24 at 9:26 AM on April 27, 2019 [6 favorites]
We’re going to have to vote his ass out of office because R senators are craven Nazis. We need to impeach to help show why he needs to go and to show history his crimes.
posted by chris24 at 9:26 AM on April 27, 2019 [6 favorites]
Adam Schiff's appearance on Bill Maher's Real Time last night: Schiff Hedges On Trump Impeachment, Says Instead, 'Vote His A-- Out Of Office'
Primary.
Adam Schiff is now insufficiently pure here?
posted by Barack Spinoza at 9:27 AM on April 27, 2019 [35 favorites]
Primary.
Adam Schiff is now insufficiently pure here?
posted by Barack Spinoza at 9:27 AM on April 27, 2019 [35 favorites]
Adam Schiff is now insufficiently pure here?
I don't care how much of a hero of the Resistance he is, going on Maher's garbage show and advocating a purely electoral solution to subverted presidential elections is a primariable offense.
posted by Rust Moranis at 9:30 AM on April 27, 2019 [24 favorites]
I don't care how much of a hero of the Resistance he is, going on Maher's garbage show and advocating a purely electoral solution to subverted presidential elections is a primariable offense.
posted by Rust Moranis at 9:30 AM on April 27, 2019 [24 favorites]
Lara Trump Says Migrants Definitely Among the 'Worst Things' to Ever Happen in Germany
Some next-level dog-whistling in that interview. With her 'downfall' comments and Donald's 'great general' material, they just might have the neo-Nazi vote locked up.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 9:32 AM on April 27, 2019 [7 favorites]
Some next-level dog-whistling in that interview. With her 'downfall' comments and Donald's 'great general' material, they just might have the neo-Nazi vote locked up.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 9:32 AM on April 27, 2019 [7 favorites]
I don't care how much of a hero of the Resistance he is, going on Maher's garbage show and advocating a purely electoral solution to subverted presidential elections is a primariable offense.
It's a Fox News article, so the headline is misleading. The fuller context is in two pull quotes:
posted by Room 101 at 9:40 AM on April 27, 2019 [31 favorites]
It's a Fox News article, so the headline is misleading. The fuller context is in two pull quotes:
“I do think [Mueller] laid out what we needed to see, which is that the Russians were engaged in a systemic effort to interfere in our election, that the Trump campaign welcomed it, embraced it, built it into their plan, made full use of it, lied about it, covered it up and then obstructed the investigation into it,” Schiff said.
“”I’m not there yet on impeachment. I may get there. He may get me there,” Schiff said. “At the end of the day, Bill, there's only one way to deal with this problem, whether we impeach him or not. And that is to vote his a-- out of office.”So for my money, that's not Schiff "hedging", it's him acknowledging that the Senate won't convict.
posted by Room 101 at 9:40 AM on April 27, 2019 [31 favorites]
"Texas used to be solid blue. We can flip it back."
One political party pretending that the Southern Strategy never happened is already too many.
posted by Selena777 at 9:46 AM on April 27, 2019 [10 favorites]
One political party pretending that the Southern Strategy never happened is already too many.
posted by Selena777 at 9:46 AM on April 27, 2019 [10 favorites]
The federal Court of Appeals for the First Circuit (which covers New England - and Puerto Rico for some reason) ruled on this NRA weekend that the right to own guns is not absolute and so Massachusetts can continue to ban the sale of many assault weapons and large-capacity magazines. The court concluded that even in the Heller decision, the Supreme Court ruled the point of its interpretation of the Second Amendment was primarily the right of Americans to self protection and that the weapons in question are being used only for mass murder, not self protection.
In fact, when asked directly, not one of the plaintiffs or their six experts could identify even a single example of the use of an assault weapon for home self-defense, nor could they identify even a single example of a self-defense episode in which ten or more shots were fired. Viewed as a whole, the record suggests that wielding the proscribed weapons for self-defense within the home is tantamount to using a sledgehammer to crack open the shell of a peanut. Thus, we conclude that the Act does not heavily burden the core Second Amendment right of self-defense within the home.posted by adamg at 9:51 AM on April 27, 2019 [46 favorites]
Adam Schiff is now insufficiently pure here?
He wouldn't be human, or at least a politician, if he weren't feeling some heat from Team Trump's concerted efforts against him. Just this morning, Ronna Romney McDaniel again demanded he resign from the House Intel Committee. (Recently, I've also encountered YouTube/Google AdSense ads demanding his resignation, but I haven't bothered to see who's underwriting them.)
It's a Fox News article, so the headline is misleading.
Sorry, I should not have assumed that a caveat lector was implicit when quoting Fox News. I'm trying to monitor how the other side is reporting events and talking to their audience. While I do think Schiff is hedging, Fox is spinning his statements for their own purposes, pushing the "Dems giving up on impeachment" line as the new "Dems in disarray". That said, Schiff providing them with ammunition by going on Maher's crappy centrist-contrarian show does him no favors.
In any case, Schiff's contact information is on his site for constituents to "call, fax or drop by for a visit" (D.C. tel. (202) 225-4176 / Fax: (202) 225-5828; Burbank tel. (818) 450-2900 & (323) 315-5555 / Fax (818) 450-2928). If his statement "I’m not there yet on impeachment" is insufficient, he needs to hear it right now, not in the 2020 primaries.
posted by Doktor Zed at 10:01 AM on April 27, 2019 [6 favorites]
He wouldn't be human, or at least a politician, if he weren't feeling some heat from Team Trump's concerted efforts against him. Just this morning, Ronna Romney McDaniel again demanded he resign from the House Intel Committee. (Recently, I've also encountered YouTube/Google AdSense ads demanding his resignation, but I haven't bothered to see who's underwriting them.)
It's a Fox News article, so the headline is misleading.
Sorry, I should not have assumed that a caveat lector was implicit when quoting Fox News. I'm trying to monitor how the other side is reporting events and talking to their audience. While I do think Schiff is hedging, Fox is spinning his statements for their own purposes, pushing the "Dems giving up on impeachment" line as the new "Dems in disarray". That said, Schiff providing them with ammunition by going on Maher's crappy centrist-contrarian show does him no favors.
In any case, Schiff's contact information is on his site for constituents to "call, fax or drop by for a visit" (D.C. tel. (202) 225-4176 / Fax: (202) 225-5828; Burbank tel. (818) 450-2900 & (323) 315-5555 / Fax (818) 450-2928). If his statement "I’m not there yet on impeachment" is insufficient, he needs to hear it right now, not in the 2020 primaries.
posted by Doktor Zed at 10:01 AM on April 27, 2019 [6 favorites]
I'm fine hearing Schiff say he's not there yet, but what he didn't say is how he plans to get there. His job isn't to be convinced, it's to do the convincing. His job is to be the one to get the American people there. He should be the one leading the charge on public hearings, I want to hear his plan for that. Is he going to subpoena every person named in the Mueller report for several days of public testimony strategically timed over the next year? Why hasn't he started yet? We need to see Democrats in charge of these committees rolling out a coordinated strategy to keep the Mueller report on TV every night for the next 600 days just like EMAILS. They're not.
If you're making an electoral argument, you better be doing the electoral legwork too.
posted by T.D. Strange at 10:27 AM on April 27, 2019 [27 favorites]
If you're making an electoral argument, you better be doing the electoral legwork too.
posted by T.D. Strange at 10:27 AM on April 27, 2019 [27 favorites]
Yes, that First Circuit decision applies all across those states. Other states in that Circuit that have similar laws — if they do — would have those be safe from a 2d Amendment challenge. The ruling does not affect other States or Circuits.
posted by kerf at 10:56 AM on April 27, 2019 [2 favorites]
posted by kerf at 10:56 AM on April 27, 2019 [2 favorites]
As one of Schiff's constituents I can tell you that we aren't gonna primary him. That isn't to say no-one should contact his office or pressure him to be more forceful on impeachment. Just... we're not gonna primary him, he's our guy.
posted by Justinian at 11:23 AM on April 27, 2019 [22 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 11:23 AM on April 27, 2019 [22 favorites]
Whatever one thinks of Schiff's position on impeachment, his response seems typical of senior-level Dem officials, highlighting the lack of a coordinated plan of action to respond to the Mueller report.
Not having a clear strategy about what to do about stonewalling subsequent investigations suggests that they also do not know how to respond to an administration and political party that have behaved above the law since inauguration day, other than trying to work it out as they go along.
Dems do seem somewhat unprepared, despite having reasonable time to prepare. Saying that Trump is "unfit" to be president is an obvious truth that does little to fundamentally move the bar forwards to the end result of removal from office. The country is in a bad situation to have one party beholden to an autocrat and the other party-of-last-resort taking its time on recognizing the problem at hand.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 11:50 AM on April 27, 2019 [12 favorites]
Not having a clear strategy about what to do about stonewalling subsequent investigations suggests that they also do not know how to respond to an administration and political party that have behaved above the law since inauguration day, other than trying to work it out as they go along.
Dems do seem somewhat unprepared, despite having reasonable time to prepare. Saying that Trump is "unfit" to be president is an obvious truth that does little to fundamentally move the bar forwards to the end result of removal from office. The country is in a bad situation to have one party beholden to an autocrat and the other party-of-last-resort taking its time on recognizing the problem at hand.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 11:50 AM on April 27, 2019 [12 favorites]
The reason you won't hear the leadership calling for impeachment, especially in the Senate, right this second is strategic. There is a subset of the public, many of whom are in the media, who would regard a process where the conclusion was foregone in the sense that opinion in Congress were spoken about as fully formed before the evidence is in as illegitimate.
They are trying (harder than they ought to, IMO) to ensure that only the true crazies refuse to accept the result of the process. Not giving them the "their minds were made up from the beginning" line of attack is a part of that strategy.
If they actually start slow rolling things or don't change their tune as the evidence officiallycontinues to pile up in the form of financial records, testimony before Congress, and such, I'll be calling for their heads. So far, however, they have been proceeding in a way that moves the ball forward while allowing the greatest possible chance for success in the coming court battles by giving ample opportunity for people to comply with Congress' subpoenas. Unless we're getting into autumn without any visible progress, I'm not going to say they're doing it wrong.
With the report spurring the drumbeat of impeachment into unexpected quarters, I suspect that I won't need to complain, but we'll see..
posted by wierdo at 12:22 PM on April 27, 2019 [34 favorites]
They are trying (harder than they ought to, IMO) to ensure that only the true crazies refuse to accept the result of the process. Not giving them the "their minds were made up from the beginning" line of attack is a part of that strategy.
If they actually start slow rolling things or don't change their tune as the evidence officiallycontinues to pile up in the form of financial records, testimony before Congress, and such, I'll be calling for their heads. So far, however, they have been proceeding in a way that moves the ball forward while allowing the greatest possible chance for success in the coming court battles by giving ample opportunity for people to comply with Congress' subpoenas. Unless we're getting into autumn without any visible progress, I'm not going to say they're doing it wrong.
With the report spurring the drumbeat of impeachment into unexpected quarters, I suspect that I won't need to complain, but we'll see..
posted by wierdo at 12:22 PM on April 27, 2019 [34 favorites]
There is a subset of the public, many of whom are in the media, who would regard a process where the conclusion was foregone in the sense that opinion in Congress were spoken about as fully formed before the evidence is in as illegitimate.
But it is. It's in. There was a whole investigation and everything. Pretending that the redacted report doesn't include enough evidence to justify immediate impeachment is just doing Trump's work for him.
posted by contraption at 2:01 PM on April 27, 2019 [17 favorites]
But it is. It's in. There was a whole investigation and everything. Pretending that the redacted report doesn't include enough evidence to justify immediate impeachment is just doing Trump's work for him.
posted by contraption at 2:01 PM on April 27, 2019 [17 favorites]
There is a subset of the public, many of whom are in the media, who would regard a process where the conclusion was foregone in the sense that opinion in Congress were spoken about as fully formed before the evidence is in as illegitimate.
But it is. It's in. There was a whole investigation and everything. Pretending that the redacted report doesn't include enough evidence to justify immediate impeachment is just doing Trump's work for him.
These exact same people didn't impeach Bush and didn't prosecute his administration for his crimes afterwards, using exactly the same language and reasoning they are using now. Where does this confidence that this is all part of a plan coming from?
posted by gerryblog at 3:08 PM on April 27, 2019 [11 favorites]
But it is. It's in. There was a whole investigation and everything. Pretending that the redacted report doesn't include enough evidence to justify immediate impeachment is just doing Trump's work for him.
These exact same people didn't impeach Bush and didn't prosecute his administration for his crimes afterwards, using exactly the same language and reasoning they are using now. Where does this confidence that this is all part of a plan coming from?
posted by gerryblog at 3:08 PM on April 27, 2019 [11 favorites]
1 dead, 3 injured in shooting at San Diego synagogue during Passover celebration
It is six months to the day of the tree of life synagogue shooting
posted by The Whelk at 3:22 PM on April 27, 2019 [5 favorites]
It is six months to the day of the tree of life synagogue shooting
posted by The Whelk at 3:22 PM on April 27, 2019 [5 favorites]
Mod note: Let's wait on posting further about the San Diego synagogue attack until we have more information and the connection to Trump is spelled out more clearly.
posted by Eyebrows McGee (staff) at 3:36 PM on April 27, 2019 [3 favorites]
posted by Eyebrows McGee (staff) at 3:36 PM on April 27, 2019 [3 favorites]
NYT: Stung by Trump’s Trade Wars, Wisconsin’s Milk Farmers Face Extinction
posted by Doktor Zed at 3:39 PM on April 27, 2019 [12 favorites]
The fate of Wisconsin’s farmers is a high-stakes political predicament for Mr. Trump, who narrowly won the pivotal swing state in 2016 and hopes to keep it red in 2020. On Saturday, Mr. Trump will travel to Green Bay, Wis., for a campaign rally where he is expected to trumpet his trade policies, like the revised North American Free Trade Agreement, which is supposed to bolster American dairy exports to Canada.[…]Tonight’s Green Bay rally will likely be a roadtest of Trump 2020, so it will be interesting to see if he can stick to his script or if he’ll go off on tangents about Mueller, Hilary, etc.
But Mr. Trump’s trade approach has pushed many of Wisconsin’s already struggling dairy farmers to the edge. Milk prices have fallen nearly 40 percent over the past five years, the byproduct of economic and technological forces that have made milk easier to produce and state policies that ramped up production and sent prices tumbling.
That has coincided with Mr. Trump’s sweeping tariffs on foreign steel and aluminum, which were intended to help American manufacturers but have set off retaliatory tariffs from Mexico, Canada, Europe and China on American dairy products. Most painful for Wisconsin’s dairy farmers has been a 25 percent tariff that Mexico placed on American cheese, which is made with a significant volume of the state’s milk production.
posted by Doktor Zed at 3:39 PM on April 27, 2019 [12 favorites]
GOP congressman blames nazi synagogue shooting on Ilhan Omar
The first of many, I'm sure. The question now is whether the accusations will only come from the GOP this time.
posted by Rust Moranis at 5:42 PM on April 27, 2019 [10 favorites]
The first of many, I'm sure. The question now is whether the accusations will only come from the GOP this time.
posted by Rust Moranis at 5:42 PM on April 27, 2019 [10 favorites]
The shooter is also taking credit for the mosque arson a week ago, so how that will square with these witless wonders, I couldn't tell you.
posted by Iris Gambol at 5:52 PM on April 27, 2019 [11 favorites]
posted by Iris Gambol at 5:52 PM on April 27, 2019 [11 favorites]
Yesterday Trump defended the Nazis at Charlottesville as very fine people again. Today, one of their kind attacked a synagogue and posted a manifesto with the same ‘Jews will not replace us’ bullshit as they were chanting.
This isn’t Omar’s fault, it’s Trump’s.
posted by chris24 at 5:52 PM on April 27, 2019 [47 favorites]
This isn’t Omar’s fault, it’s Trump’s.
posted by chris24 at 5:52 PM on April 27, 2019 [47 favorites]
Sorry, seeing source didn't link:
NBC 7 San Diego: According to a manifesto, published online shortly after 10 a.m. PST on Saturday, Earnest also takes responsibility for an Escondido Mosque arson a month prior. During that incident, Earnest spray-painted messages referencing the New Zealand mosque shooting.
posted by Iris Gambol at 5:57 PM on April 27, 2019 [1 favorite]
NBC 7 San Diego: According to a manifesto, published online shortly after 10 a.m. PST on Saturday, Earnest also takes responsibility for an Escondido Mosque arson a month prior. During that incident, Earnest spray-painted messages referencing the New Zealand mosque shooting.
posted by Iris Gambol at 5:57 PM on April 27, 2019 [1 favorite]
Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Joel Rubin went on Fox News today to talk about the synagogue shooting. Amazing how quickly they need to cut to commercial when you start talking about Trump and Charlottesville...
posted by pjenks at 6:00 PM on April 27, 2019 [8 favorites]
posted by pjenks at 6:00 PM on April 27, 2019 [8 favorites]
NYT: To Trump, ‘Leakers Are Traitors and Cowards,’ and He Wants to Find Them
“[T]he president’s daily private schedule is now shared on SharePoint, a Microsoft product that allows an administrator to monitor who has viewed the document. Based on how often people view the schedule, and when its contents become public, the White House has narrowed down its search for the schedule “leaker” to three potential culprits, a person familiar with the matter said.”
@nycsouthpaw: “This seems to indicate the leak investigators themselves are leaking.”
posted by Doktor Zed at 6:31 PM on April 27, 2019 [19 favorites]
“[T]he president’s daily private schedule is now shared on SharePoint, a Microsoft product that allows an administrator to monitor who has viewed the document. Based on how often people view the schedule, and when its contents become public, the White House has narrowed down its search for the schedule “leaker” to three potential culprits, a person familiar with the matter said.”
@nycsouthpaw: “This seems to indicate the leak investigators themselves are leaking.”
posted by Doktor Zed at 6:31 PM on April 27, 2019 [19 favorites]
Ignore The Poway Synagogue Shooter’s Manifesto: Pay Attention To 8chan’s /pol/ Board (Bellingcat, content warnings all over the place) this is not trolling, this has never been trolling, this is a radicalizing right wing terror group with numerous acts of murder to its claim, includes former and active duty military and LEO, and has fellow travelers in the major media and white hues.
This is the thing the Chan and discord watchers warned us about after Charlottesville, that they would go dark, break up, ave a lot of decentralized “lone wolf” attacks - it’s happening now, it’s been happening, it feels a lot like the dire warnings about Al Queda we got in like 2003 about seemingly random car attacks on crowds and in malls. Except these are actually happening and a good enough percentage of people in power are fine with it,
posted by The Whelk at 7:00 PM on April 27, 2019 [57 favorites]
This is the thing the Chan and discord watchers warned us about after Charlottesville, that they would go dark, break up, ave a lot of decentralized “lone wolf” attacks - it’s happening now, it’s been happening, it feels a lot like the dire warnings about Al Queda we got in like 2003 about seemingly random car attacks on crowds and in malls. Except these are actually happening and a good enough percentage of people in power are fine with it,
posted by The Whelk at 7:00 PM on April 27, 2019 [57 favorites]
“Holy hell. Trump just told the crowd at his Wisconsin rally that after women give birth, the baby is "wrapped in a blanket" and then "the mother and the doctor decide whether to execute the baby." @RVAWonk
posted by The Whelk at 7:42 PM on April 27, 2019 [24 favorites]
posted by The Whelk at 7:42 PM on April 27, 2019 [24 favorites]
"The baby is born. The mother meets with the doctor. They take care of the baby. They wrap the baby beautifully. And then the doctor and the mother determine whether or not they will execute the baby."
Yesterday he was defending the Charlottesville white supremacists, today there was a shooting at a synagogue, and tonight he's trying to get people riled up over abortions. The man is completely fucking deranged.
posted by homunculus at 8:20 PM on April 27, 2019 [54 favorites]
Yesterday he was defending the Charlottesville white supremacists, today there was a shooting at a synagogue, and tonight he's trying to get people riled up over abortions. The man is completely fucking deranged.
posted by homunculus at 8:20 PM on April 27, 2019 [54 favorites]
It's still 19 months from the election, he's got a long way to go.
posted by T.D. Strange at 8:29 PM on April 27, 2019 [7 favorites]
posted by T.D. Strange at 8:29 PM on April 27, 2019 [7 favorites]
The shooter is also taking credit for the mosque arson a week ago
Um, no. The shooter took responsibility. There is no credit for an attack.
posted by NotLost at 9:46 PM on April 27, 2019 [11 favorites]
Um, no. The shooter took responsibility. There is no credit for an attack.
posted by NotLost at 9:46 PM on April 27, 2019 [11 favorites]
"and then the doctor and the mother determine whether...."
how does that bald-faced falsity not read as insulting or mocking to people who are actually honestly, knowingly engaged in a struggle to end abortion? yes, i have met such people and presume there are others. i am dubious that president horrorshow's much touted unmovable base includes too many such people, who both know what abortion is and oppose it; i don't doubt it includes the bulk of the propagandists and activists who must wonder why they didn't think of that. but if there are any such people in that rally audience, i don't see how it wouldn't alienate them by making light of a very serious thing to which they've devoted significant attention/effort and that doesn't need to be exaggerated to be recognized (by them &, obviously, all pious folk) as wrong.
posted by 20 year lurk at 10:09 PM on April 27, 2019 [5 favorites]
how does that bald-faced falsity not read as insulting or mocking to people who are actually honestly, knowingly engaged in a struggle to end abortion? yes, i have met such people and presume there are others. i am dubious that president horrorshow's much touted unmovable base includes too many such people, who both know what abortion is and oppose it; i don't doubt it includes the bulk of the propagandists and activists who must wonder why they didn't think of that. but if there are any such people in that rally audience, i don't see how it wouldn't alienate them by making light of a very serious thing to which they've devoted significant attention/effort and that doesn't need to be exaggerated to be recognized (by them &, obviously, all pious folk) as wrong.
posted by 20 year lurk at 10:09 PM on April 27, 2019 [5 favorites]
NotLost is correct. My apologies.
posted by Iris Gambol at 10:35 PM on April 27, 2019 [2 favorites]
posted by Iris Gambol at 10:35 PM on April 27, 2019 [2 favorites]
Accusing Democrats of being baby killers has been the rallying cry for decades now. Some of them believe it to be literally true. Some of them believe it to be the underlying moral truth.
I don't know if you've ever argued with a Republican about late term abortions, or even early abortion, but no matter how you present the facts and context, they still believe it's the equivalent of killing a healthy newborn for no reason.
Immigrants are killers. Poor people are lazy. Liberals kill babies. Muslims are terrorists. Trump tells them their psychological fears as reality.
posted by xammerboy at 1:21 AM on April 28, 2019 [23 favorites]
I don't know if you've ever argued with a Republican about late term abortions, or even early abortion, but no matter how you present the facts and context, they still believe it's the equivalent of killing a healthy newborn for no reason.
Immigrants are killers. Poor people are lazy. Liberals kill babies. Muslims are terrorists. Trump tells them their psychological fears as reality.
posted by xammerboy at 1:21 AM on April 28, 2019 [23 favorites]
This particular myth ("wrap them in a blanket...") stems from Gov. Northam's comments that in the case of an infant born alive after an attempted late-pregnancy abortion “The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired.” (You and I know he was talking about infants with fatal conditions, because fatal conditions are anecdotallly often the reason that late abortions are attempted at all.)
But of course many pro-lifers* do not know this, because right wing media did not report that context or Northam's later clarifications.
Northam was being asked about the subject because of a bill that passed the Virginia Legislature, sponsored by Kathy Tran. "When a Republican lawmaker asked during the hearing whether the bill would allow for an abortion to occur when a woman is in labor and about to give birth, Tran said yes. But on Thursday, Tran, a mother of four, corrected herself. "I should have said: 'Clearly, no, because infanticide is not allowed in Virginia, and what would have happened in that moment would be a live birth.' " (Again, the later clarification did not get much play in conservative media, and those who heard it did not believe it was sincere.)
Finally, Ben Sasse sponsored a bill in the US Senate called the "Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act". Democrats fillibustered it. "would have required doctors to provide the same care for a baby born alive after a failed attempt at abortion as they would for any child of the same gestational age. After providing appropriate care, they would be required to ensure that the baby “is immediately transported and admitted to a hospital.”
Doctors who failed to comply with the requirements would face a fine and up to five years in prison."
You and I know that Democrats voted agaonst this because they believe end ofblife care for an infant who is likely dying anyway is an agonizing decision which should be left up to the family and the doctors involved. That some "treatments" are almost a form of torture which pointlessly and cruelly prolong suffering ans offer no hope of a real recovery. That swnsing doctors or mothers to prison for not being willing to inflict that on a dying infant is wrong.
But to pro-lifers*, this was a ridiculous vote. How could Democrats say that a newborn infant could be denied care just because its mother doesn't want it? It must be that we really are in favor of even infanticide, if having an infant will inconvenience the mother.
(The main difference, of course, is that Republicans are picturing healthy newborns, and Democrats are picturing newborns with terminal conditions. The latter image rests on the assumption that late pregnancy abortions are nearly always performed for reasons of fetal abnormality or condition incompatible with life. If anyone can find data to indicate what percentage of late pregancy abortions are for this reason I would appreciate being armed with such data! I haven't been able to find a study. I agree that it seems extremely unlikely to me that a woman would go through 9 months of pregnancy only to abort at the end due to inconvenince. It does not, howver, seem unlikely to right wingers.)
For them this series of events was and remains a major narrative. They are as outraged by Gov. Northam's comments as we are about Trump's Charlottesville comments. They think between his comments, Del. Tran's comments, and the filibuster of Sasse's bill, Democrats have finally decided to "say the quiet parts loud" and admit we support infanticide. This WILL be a major narrative of the coming election.
*I know some people on MeFi don't like the term "Pro-life" but I know quite a few "pro-lifers" and am not onboard with demonizing them, even though I disagree. I believe in calling people what they call themselves.
posted by OnceUponATime at 5:28 AM on April 28, 2019 [34 favorites]
But of course many pro-lifers* do not know this, because right wing media did not report that context or Northam's later clarifications.
Northam was being asked about the subject because of a bill that passed the Virginia Legislature, sponsored by Kathy Tran. "When a Republican lawmaker asked during the hearing whether the bill would allow for an abortion to occur when a woman is in labor and about to give birth, Tran said yes. But on Thursday, Tran, a mother of four, corrected herself. "I should have said: 'Clearly, no, because infanticide is not allowed in Virginia, and what would have happened in that moment would be a live birth.' " (Again, the later clarification did not get much play in conservative media, and those who heard it did not believe it was sincere.)
Finally, Ben Sasse sponsored a bill in the US Senate called the "Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act". Democrats fillibustered it. "would have required doctors to provide the same care for a baby born alive after a failed attempt at abortion as they would for any child of the same gestational age. After providing appropriate care, they would be required to ensure that the baby “is immediately transported and admitted to a hospital.”
Doctors who failed to comply with the requirements would face a fine and up to five years in prison."
You and I know that Democrats voted agaonst this because they believe end ofblife care for an infant who is likely dying anyway is an agonizing decision which should be left up to the family and the doctors involved. That some "treatments" are almost a form of torture which pointlessly and cruelly prolong suffering ans offer no hope of a real recovery. That swnsing doctors or mothers to prison for not being willing to inflict that on a dying infant is wrong.
But to pro-lifers*, this was a ridiculous vote. How could Democrats say that a newborn infant could be denied care just because its mother doesn't want it? It must be that we really are in favor of even infanticide, if having an infant will inconvenience the mother.
(The main difference, of course, is that Republicans are picturing healthy newborns, and Democrats are picturing newborns with terminal conditions. The latter image rests on the assumption that late pregnancy abortions are nearly always performed for reasons of fetal abnormality or condition incompatible with life. If anyone can find data to indicate what percentage of late pregancy abortions are for this reason I would appreciate being armed with such data! I haven't been able to find a study. I agree that it seems extremely unlikely to me that a woman would go through 9 months of pregnancy only to abort at the end due to inconvenince. It does not, howver, seem unlikely to right wingers.)
For them this series of events was and remains a major narrative. They are as outraged by Gov. Northam's comments as we are about Trump's Charlottesville comments. They think between his comments, Del. Tran's comments, and the filibuster of Sasse's bill, Democrats have finally decided to "say the quiet parts loud" and admit we support infanticide. This WILL be a major narrative of the coming election.
*I know some people on MeFi don't like the term "Pro-life" but I know quite a few "pro-lifers" and am not onboard with demonizing them, even though I disagree. I believe in calling people what they call themselves.
posted by OnceUponATime at 5:28 AM on April 28, 2019 [34 favorites]
See, the thing is they've been calling us babykillers already for years. All that is just their latest excuse to escalate to openly violent rhetoric.
And Ben "the media still calls me moderate" Sasse knew that perfectly well. His bill was designed to set up this line from Trump tonight from the beginning.
Trump, Sasse, all those nice pro-lifers you know, they all know exactly what they're doing. That some small set of radicals will hear that and act on it. They're counting on it. That's the entire point.
posted by T.D. Strange at 6:48 AM on April 28, 2019 [18 favorites]
And Ben "the media still calls me moderate" Sasse knew that perfectly well. His bill was designed to set up this line from Trump tonight from the beginning.
Trump, Sasse, all those nice pro-lifers you know, they all know exactly what they're doing. That some small set of radicals will hear that and act on it. They're counting on it. That's the entire point.
posted by T.D. Strange at 6:48 AM on April 28, 2019 [18 favorites]
then "the mother and the doctor decide whether to execute the baby."
This isn't the first time Trump has peddled this particularly obscene lie at his rallies. He's doubtlessly satisfied with the reactions it draws from his supporters and his critics, so he'll keep using it, amping up his rhetoric, as long as he can.
Here's how Wisconsin Public Radio covered Trump's rally…selectively: Trump Touts Economy, Chides Opponents At Green Bay Rally
They did not cover, however, his repeating his baby-execution lie, his referring to the FBI and DOJ leaders he's purged from government as "scum", or his bragging about relocating undocumented immigrants to sanctuary cities ("That was actually my sick idea."), or his tossing word salad about his prescription drug pricing plan (w/videos via Vox's Aaron Rupar).
Unfortunately, Trump fact-check extraordinaire Daniel Dale took last night off to watch a Raptors game, so it's impossible to find anyone in the US mainstream media who will cover (and call out) not only Trump's substantial lies about economics, politics, etc., but also his free-floating bullshit.
posted by Doktor Zed at 6:54 AM on April 28, 2019 [17 favorites]
This isn't the first time Trump has peddled this particularly obscene lie at his rallies. He's doubtlessly satisfied with the reactions it draws from his supporters and his critics, so he'll keep using it, amping up his rhetoric, as long as he can.
Here's how Wisconsin Public Radio covered Trump's rally…selectively: Trump Touts Economy, Chides Opponents At Green Bay Rally
During his remarks, Trump touted his record on the economy, citing figures showing a first-quarter jump in the country's gross domestic product and low unemployment.They also brought up some of his attacks on Democrats (“"Sleepy Joe (Biden)"; "Crazy Bernie (Sanders)"; and then he used a derisive term for Elizabeth Warren, calling her "Pocahontas."”):
On the subject of immigration, Trump promised to have 400 miles of wall built on the U.S.-Mexican border "by the end of next year."
He had some comments targeted at Wisconsin voters, including a pledge he made last month for the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative. He mentioned military contracts for state-based companies like Marinette Marine and the Oshkosh Corp.
Trump said Democrats want a $100 trillion "government takeover of the U.S. economy, known as the 'Green New Deal.'" While proponents of the Green New Deal proposal see it as an economic stimulus package based on eco-friendly initiatives, the president doesn't see it that way.Incidentally, they also note that Trump brought Sarah Huckabee Sanders onstage with him so she could trash the White House Correspondence Dinner (tacitly bestowing his seal of approval on her after the Mueller report revealed her lying to Federal investigators).
"We are going to rip down every building in Manhattan and build a new building in its place," he said.
He said the Democratic Party should change its name to "the radical left Democrat party."
"(They) would drive our nation into economic and financial ruin very quickly," he said.
Then, as another apparent attempt to appeal to Wisconsin voters, he added, “And they will take your guns away, too by the way."
They did not cover, however, his repeating his baby-execution lie, his referring to the FBI and DOJ leaders he's purged from government as "scum", or his bragging about relocating undocumented immigrants to sanctuary cities ("That was actually my sick idea."), or his tossing word salad about his prescription drug pricing plan (w/videos via Vox's Aaron Rupar).
Unfortunately, Trump fact-check extraordinaire Daniel Dale took last night off to watch a Raptors game, so it's impossible to find anyone in the US mainstream media who will cover (and call out) not only Trump's substantial lies about economics, politics, etc., but also his free-floating bullshit.
posted by Doktor Zed at 6:54 AM on April 28, 2019 [17 favorites]
It's nice to see the Courts rejecting "dumb-ass Republican 'logic'" so clearly in a footnote.
p9 of the ruling linked above...
p9 of the ruling linked above...
2 Although the present plaintiffs attempt to characterize the Act as an "absolute prohibition" on an entire class of firearms, that characterization is inapt. The Act applies only to a set of enumerated semiautomatic assault weapons, to semiautomatic assault weapons with particular features, and to magazines of a specific capacity. Seen in this light, the plaintiffs' "absolute prohibition" argument is circular: essentially, it amounts to a suggestion that whatever group of weapons a regulation prohibits may be deemed a "class." By this logic — which we squarely reject — virtually any regulation could be considered an "absolute prohibition" of a class of weapons.posted by mikelieman at 7:10 AM on April 28, 2019 [13 favorites]
On Saturday, Mr. Trump will travel to Green Bay, Wis., for a campaign rally where he is expected to trumpet his trade policies, like the revised North American Free Trade Agreement, which is supposed to bolster American dairy exports to Canada.[…]Canada will never buy enough dairy products to save small farms in the US. The real problem is that there’s so much surplus milk that it’s selling for less than the cost of production. Because it’s so perishable you can’t just put it up in a silo like you can corn or soybeans, about the best you can do is make cheese and store that. The only real hope might be for farmers to work together to manage the overall supply of milk on the market, but I don’t think that will happen. And when these farms go out of business there’re ripple effects throughout rural communities as implement dealers, service and repair folks, feed mills, etc., lose their customers, and people lose their jobs. The fragility of of the Trump economy won’t help those folks.
posted by wintermind at 7:11 AM on April 28, 2019 [17 favorites]
HuffPo's Matt Fuller's also noticed the selective coverage Trump receives of his rallies:
posted by Doktor Zed at 7:44 AM on April 28, 2019 [37 favorites]
Watching local cable news, and their take on Trump’s rally was he hit “familiar themes” and said he might work with Democrats on prescription drug prices. No mention of the massive lies he told about killing babies or his sanctuary city plan. This isn’t responsible coverage.Daniel Dale expands on this:
When Trump tells blatant lies or admits potentially illegal conspiracies, it doesn’t even get mentioned on local news. That’s a failure.
This omission, in both local and national news, is the reason I started listing his lies in 2016. And it persists. Most of the rally coverage is still “Trump speaks to big excited crowd, insults X and Y, talks policy Z.” “Trump says 24 untrue things” goes entirely unmentioned.Dale has the advantage of his previous experience covering ur-Trumpian former Toronto mayor Rob Ford, but US media refuses to learn from this example (maybe they're hoping Trump's health will fail similarly).
Here are some very typical examples from last night: [screenshots of CBS News ("Trump energies supporters in Wisconsin for reelection bid: ‘You took back your country’"), USA Today ("Trump takes swings at media in rally during White House correspondents dinner"), The Hill ("Trump rails against political elites on Washington media's big night")]
And of course it’s worth reporting on Trump’s new policy comments, new disparaging of people, whatever. But surely there is room somewhere in these stories to report on the incessant lying, and it almost never happens.
To me, the frequency and brazenness of the dishonesty is usually the most notable thing about the speech. Others can reasonably disagree. Regardless, it’s odd that such a prominent feature is frequently not mentioned at all, let alone made the headline.
posted by Doktor Zed at 7:44 AM on April 28, 2019 [37 favorites]
He said the sanctuary city scheme was his idea because the "Stephen Miller, master of puppets" coverage is getting to him. The media should hammer on about it because it is news and perhaps it could dislodge him and avert the possibility of war games at the border.
posted by Selena777 at 8:07 AM on April 28, 2019 [9 favorites]
posted by Selena777 at 8:07 AM on April 28, 2019 [9 favorites]
G. Elliott Morris (Economist)
When you hear people say that incumbent presidents usually win re-election, keep these numbers in mind... Avg approval until May of 3rd year, from Gallup and ABC:
W Bush: 71% (y)
HW Bush: 70 (n)
Nixon: 58 (y)
Obama: 55 (y)
Reagan: 55 (y)
Carter: 52 (n)
Clinton: 51 (y)
Trump: 38
posted by chris24 at 8:08 AM on April 28, 2019 [7 favorites]
When you hear people say that incumbent presidents usually win re-election, keep these numbers in mind... Avg approval until May of 3rd year, from Gallup and ABC:
W Bush: 71% (y)
HW Bush: 70 (n)
Nixon: 58 (y)
Obama: 55 (y)
Reagan: 55 (y)
Carter: 52 (n)
Clinton: 51 (y)
Trump: 38
posted by chris24 at 8:08 AM on April 28, 2019 [7 favorites]
Trump: 38
25% of eligible voters voted for Trump in 2016.
posted by Rust Moranis at 8:19 AM on April 28, 2019 [5 favorites]
25% of eligible voters voted for Trump in 2016.
posted by Rust Moranis at 8:19 AM on April 28, 2019 [5 favorites]
>Trump: 38
25% of eligible voters voted for Trump in 2016.
Uhh, it was my understanding there would be no math. What does this mean? It feels like a non-sequitur.
posted by rhizome at 8:26 AM on April 28, 2019 [1 favorite]
25% of eligible voters voted for Trump in 2016.
Uhh, it was my understanding there would be no math. What does this mean? It feels like a non-sequitur.
posted by rhizome at 8:26 AM on April 28, 2019 [1 favorite]
Uhh, it was my understanding there would be no math. What does this mean? It feels like a non-sequitur.
Framing an approval rating 13% higher than the votes needed to re-elect him as bad news for his re-election chances is in fact a non-sequitur.
posted by Rust Moranis at 8:29 AM on April 28, 2019 [3 favorites]
Framing an approval rating 13% higher than the votes needed to re-elect him as bad news for his re-election chances is in fact a non-sequitur.
posted by Rust Moranis at 8:29 AM on April 28, 2019 [3 favorites]
True. It would, however, require that roughly two-thirds of his on-the-record supporters who are eligible to vote, actually do so. Which is admittedly a steep climb.
Left unaddressed is what percentage of people are saying they disapprove of Trump because he’s not crazy enough, and would certainly vote for him over any Dem candidate. Or, those Trump supporters who say they disapprove of him as a face-saving gesture, but will still pull the lever for him once in the privacy of the voting booth.
posted by darkstar at 8:39 AM on April 28, 2019 [3 favorites]
Left unaddressed is what percentage of people are saying they disapprove of Trump because he’s not crazy enough, and would certainly vote for him over any Dem candidate. Or, those Trump supporters who say they disapprove of him as a face-saving gesture, but will still pull the lever for him once in the privacy of the voting booth.
posted by darkstar at 8:39 AM on April 28, 2019 [3 favorites]
On 538's president's approval rating roundup, the Harris X poll of registered voters has shown Trump registering between 45% and 47% approval in the past two weeks (which 538 believes is overestimating his rating by 4%). Two weeks ago, Fox News polled him at 45%/51% approval/disapproval among registered voters, and the newest Rasmussen pegged him at 49% among likely voters. The WaPo/ABC and Morning Consult polls, where Trump performs the worst, are only among adults.
posted by Doktor Zed at 8:47 AM on April 28, 2019 [3 favorites]
posted by Doktor Zed at 8:47 AM on April 28, 2019 [3 favorites]
Constitutional Hardball and Congress’s Oversight Authority
If the pattern of statements and actions by the executive branch over the past week are a harbinger of a sharp turn to such a maximalist resistance strategy, then the country is truly at an important constitutional moment that has the potential to shape the relationship between the branches in significant ways for the foreseeable future.Barr's appearance at House hearing still up in the air because of dispute with Democrats
In this sense, the decision to adopt a strategy of resisting oversight across the board would be a form of constitutional hardball. That is, it would be taking an uncompromising approach in the pursuit of partisan ends that may not violate express constitutional commands but certainly flouts longstanding conventions and norms about how constitutional processes should operate—conventions and norms that officials have, in the past, regularly followed out of a sense of obligation. These tactics, then, are not just political hardball. Rather, as Joseph Fishkin and David E. Pozen describe it, such tactics “put pressure on the ‘norms of good institutional citizenship’ that help to structure and ‘sustain the constitutional system.’”
House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler told CNN on Sunday morning that Barr would not "dictate the format of the Judiciary Committee."posted by T.D. Strange at 8:52 AM on April 28, 2019 [15 favorites]
"The witness is not going to tell the committee how to conduct its hearing, period," Nadler, a New York Democrat, said.
Asked what he would do if Barr doesn't comply, Nadler said: "Then we will have to subpoena him, and we will have to use whatever means we can to enforce the subpoena."
Or, those Trump supporters who say they disapprove of him as a face-saving gesture, but will still pull the lever for him once in the privacy of the voting booth.
I’ve seen survey experiments done where they try and estimate how many people are who hide their support for trump, and is very very small.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 10:18 AM on April 28, 2019 [3 favorites]
I’ve seen survey experiments done where they try and estimate how many people are who hide their support for trump, and is very very small.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 10:18 AM on April 28, 2019 [3 favorites]
On 538's president's approval rating roundup, the Harris X poll of registered voters has shown Trump registering between 45% and 47% approval in the past two weeks (which 538 believes is overestimating his rating by 4%). Two weeks ago, Fox News polled him at 45%/51% approval/disapproval among registered voters, and the newest Rasmussen pegged him at 49% among likely voters. The WaPo/ABC and Morning Consult polls, where Trump performs the worst, are only among adults.
I hesitate to bring this up, but here goes. Every semester in Statistics, I do a linear regression problem that compares the approval rating of a president up for re-election at the time of the election, and margin of victory. Then, I use the regression equation to answer the question "How low could the approval rating of a President be for him or her to still be re-elected? The answer comes out to be a little over 44%. Much lower than students (and I) expect. Those numbers quoted above are re-election numbers based on the most naive linear regression methods possible. Of course, they have a long time to move downwards, but they are still troublingly high...
posted by wittgenstein at 10:30 AM on April 28, 2019 [17 favorites]
I hesitate to bring this up, but here goes. Every semester in Statistics, I do a linear regression problem that compares the approval rating of a president up for re-election at the time of the election, and margin of victory. Then, I use the regression equation to answer the question "How low could the approval rating of a President be for him or her to still be re-elected? The answer comes out to be a little over 44%. Much lower than students (and I) expect. Those numbers quoted above are re-election numbers based on the most naive linear regression methods possible. Of course, they have a long time to move downwards, but they are still troublingly high...
posted by wittgenstein at 10:30 AM on April 28, 2019 [17 favorites]
Barr's appearance at House hearing still up in the air because of dispute with Democrats
"A spokesperson for the House Judiciary Committee Republicans... said ... 'What actual precedent is there for our committee making such demands of a sitting attorney general as part of our oversight duties? The attorney general isn't a fact witness, and this committee's investigations — as Democrat leadership reminds us daily — don't constitute impeachment...'"
If only there was some way to get past this particular sticking point!
posted by diogenes at 10:37 AM on April 28, 2019 [4 favorites]
"A spokesperson for the House Judiciary Committee Republicans... said ... 'What actual precedent is there for our committee making such demands of a sitting attorney general as part of our oversight duties? The attorney general isn't a fact witness, and this committee's investigations — as Democrat leadership reminds us daily — don't constitute impeachment...'"
If only there was some way to get past this particular sticking point!
posted by diogenes at 10:37 AM on April 28, 2019 [4 favorites]
America first, China last: Trump’s strange new order of economic nationalism
The U.S. President’s trade policy isn’t a coherent response to globalization in the 21st century, but a scrambled mess of ideas recycled from the 20th
posted by hugbucket at 10:44 AM on April 28, 2019 [1 favorite]
The U.S. President’s trade policy isn’t a coherent response to globalization in the 21st century, but a scrambled mess of ideas recycled from the 20th
posted by hugbucket at 10:44 AM on April 28, 2019 [1 favorite]
I thought I was numb to the lies that he spews out, but nope, Trump talking about a mother and a doctor deciding to execute babies actually enraged me. As an antidote, here's Dr. Jen Gunter (OB/GYN)
How to respond to a question about “late-term abortion,” a procedure that doesn’t exist
... Inaccurate terminology about abortion isn’t just malignant lay talk meant to hamper what doctors can offer, it has another purpose — to invent definitions meant to color how people view abortion and sway public opinion with lies.... late-term being falsely applied to abortion conjures up the image of an abortion either after the due date (meaning after 40 weeks or even 41 weeks) or shortly before.
I’m an OB/GYN and infanticide is not part of abortion care. Here’s why.
Whether a birth is recorded as “live” in situations of extreme prematurity or fetal anomalies — the kind of situations we are talking about — is not cut and dried. For example, when my son Aidan was born at 22 1/2 weeks I was asked if I wanted his birth to be considered a live birth?... I mean he lived 3 minutes or so, but he could never live a life. What a live birth got me was a birth certificate. I said yes, but in retrospect I wished I hadn’t. A live birth meant he was now a hospital patient and so I was charged $600 for the care he received — a blanket and a nurse holding him.... It was super special fighting that bill with collections when my other two boys were in the neonatal intensive care unit struggling to not die. So awesome the forced birth advocates are involved in helping women like me when we are literally penalized for having a live birth.
posted by spamandkimchi at 11:04 AM on April 28, 2019 [60 favorites]
How to respond to a question about “late-term abortion,” a procedure that doesn’t exist
... Inaccurate terminology about abortion isn’t just malignant lay talk meant to hamper what doctors can offer, it has another purpose — to invent definitions meant to color how people view abortion and sway public opinion with lies.... late-term being falsely applied to abortion conjures up the image of an abortion either after the due date (meaning after 40 weeks or even 41 weeks) or shortly before.
I’m an OB/GYN and infanticide is not part of abortion care. Here’s why.
Whether a birth is recorded as “live” in situations of extreme prematurity or fetal anomalies — the kind of situations we are talking about — is not cut and dried. For example, when my son Aidan was born at 22 1/2 weeks I was asked if I wanted his birth to be considered a live birth?... I mean he lived 3 minutes or so, but he could never live a life. What a live birth got me was a birth certificate. I said yes, but in retrospect I wished I hadn’t. A live birth meant he was now a hospital patient and so I was charged $600 for the care he received — a blanket and a nurse holding him.... It was super special fighting that bill with collections when my other two boys were in the neonatal intensive care unit struggling to not die. So awesome the forced birth advocates are involved in helping women like me when we are literally penalized for having a live birth.
posted by spamandkimchi at 11:04 AM on April 28, 2019 [60 favorites]
A pair of contrasting tweets about the Trump administration's negotiations with North Korea from Vox's Aaron Rupar (w/video):
Last night in Green Bay: "TRUMP: "The other day our great hostage negotiator made the statement that Trump is the greatest hostage negotiator this country has ever had... I put it out. Why not? You know, a lot of time if you are not going to brag about it, no one else is. You might as well do it."
This morning on Fox Sunday News:
posted by Doktor Zed at 11:16 AM on April 28, 2019 [37 favorites]
Last night in Green Bay: "TRUMP: "The other day our great hostage negotiator made the statement that Trump is the greatest hostage negotiator this country has ever had... I put it out. Why not? You know, a lot of time if you are not going to brag about it, no one else is. You might as well do it."
This morning on Fox Sunday News:
Wow -- John Bolton confirms US govt signed doc pledging to pay North Korea millions for Otto Warmbier's medical expenses, but says they never paid.It's almost as though Trump's SOP when it comes to paying bills/honoring contracts is now US government policy.
"So we signed a document fully intending not to honor it?" Chris Wallace asks.
"I don't know the circumstances," Bolton replies.
posted by Doktor Zed at 11:16 AM on April 28, 2019 [37 favorites]
Seriously, though, it doesn't seem like a coincidence that Team Trump ("two people familiar with the situation") dumped the Otto Warmbier story into the news cycle to distract from the headlines after the Putin-Kim Jong Un summit in Vladivostock that same day, e.g.:
CNN: Kim Jong Un Accuses US of Acting In 'Bad Faith' (NK state media warned, “Kim Jong Un said that the situation on the Korean Peninsula and the region is now at a standstill, and has reached a critical point where it may return to its original state, as the US took a unilateral attitude in bad faith at the recent second DPRK-US summit talks.”)
Al Jazeera: Putin: Russia Wants to Resolve North Korea's Nuclear Standoff: (In an interview with China's official People's Daily, published on Thursday, Putin lashed out at "countries claiming sole global leadership". "They carelessly trample on the norms and principles of international law, resort to blackmail, sanctions and pressure, and try to force their values and dubious ideals on entire countries and populations," said Putin, who is heading to China after the talks for another summit.)
NBC: Vladimir Putin Is a Better Match For Kim Jong Un Than Donald Trump Ever Was (Putin might have said, “I’ve got what’s left of Trump under control. He is in no position to start a war with you or tighten sanctions any further. With the announcement of his new Iran oil boycott, he has alienated the countries that might have signed on to any new sanctions against you. And with the second Russia-China oil pipeline going onstream, it’s even less of a threat than it might have been.”)
Reuters: North Korean leader warns of return to tension; Trump thanks Putin (Trump said Friday, “I appreciated President Putin’s statement yesterday. He wants to see it done also. I think there’s a lot of excitement for getting a deal done with North Korea.”)
posted by Doktor Zed at 11:21 AM on April 28, 2019 [4 favorites]
CNN: Kim Jong Un Accuses US of Acting In 'Bad Faith' (NK state media warned, “Kim Jong Un said that the situation on the Korean Peninsula and the region is now at a standstill, and has reached a critical point where it may return to its original state, as the US took a unilateral attitude in bad faith at the recent second DPRK-US summit talks.”)
Al Jazeera: Putin: Russia Wants to Resolve North Korea's Nuclear Standoff: (In an interview with China's official People's Daily, published on Thursday, Putin lashed out at "countries claiming sole global leadership". "They carelessly trample on the norms and principles of international law, resort to blackmail, sanctions and pressure, and try to force their values and dubious ideals on entire countries and populations," said Putin, who is heading to China after the talks for another summit.)
NBC: Vladimir Putin Is a Better Match For Kim Jong Un Than Donald Trump Ever Was (Putin might have said, “I’ve got what’s left of Trump under control. He is in no position to start a war with you or tighten sanctions any further. With the announcement of his new Iran oil boycott, he has alienated the countries that might have signed on to any new sanctions against you. And with the second Russia-China oil pipeline going onstream, it’s even less of a threat than it might have been.”)
Reuters: North Korean leader warns of return to tension; Trump thanks Putin (Trump said Friday, “I appreciated President Putin’s statement yesterday. He wants to see it done also. I think there’s a lot of excitement for getting a deal done with North Korea.”)
posted by Doktor Zed at 11:21 AM on April 28, 2019 [4 favorites]
T.D. Strange quoted Nadler above:
posted by bcd at 1:29 PM on April 28, 2019 [14 favorites]
"The witness is not going to tell the committee how to conduct its hearing, period," Nadler, a New York Democrat, said. Asked what he would do if Barr doesn't comply, Nadler said: "Then we will have to subpoena him, and we will have to use whatever means we can to enforce the subpoena."Makes me wonder of that "whatever means we can" is a reference to actually using the 'inherent contempt' provision. That would be a good thing in my books - proof they are taking this as seriously as it needs to be taken.
posted by bcd at 1:29 PM on April 28, 2019 [14 favorites]
darkstar: Or, those Trump supporters who say they disapprove of him as a face-saving gesture, but will still pull the lever for him once in the privacy of the voting booth.
I feel like anyone who is conflicted (between a sense of support for Trump and a sense of embarassment about it) is likelier to resolve that against him rather than in favor, even if, back in 2016, they took the gamble and voted red. Back then, they could tell themselves it would start out tough but he would win over the country -- that's legitimately what many of his supporters expected to happen. Now anyone with second thoughts or internal anguish has to ask themselves if they really want to put up with another four years of it. If your blood courses with Fox News and vinegar, then that's exactly what you want, but otherwise? Nah.
I think someone on these threads once said that an upside to Obama, for many Americans of all stripes, was that you didn't have to keep dealing with his administration, whether to confront or defend it -- if you weren't a dedicated nerd or ideologue, he mostly kept politics nice and boring. (Also, an implicit promise Republicans were making in 2016 is that if Hillary won, they'd give us all the daily headache of investigations and emails and Benghazis, whether or not you personally care about that stuff. Which is another upside, I think, to promoting impeachment now!)
posted by InTheYear2017 at 2:19 PM on April 28, 2019 [5 favorites]
I feel like anyone who is conflicted (between a sense of support for Trump and a sense of embarassment about it) is likelier to resolve that against him rather than in favor, even if, back in 2016, they took the gamble and voted red. Back then, they could tell themselves it would start out tough but he would win over the country -- that's legitimately what many of his supporters expected to happen. Now anyone with second thoughts or internal anguish has to ask themselves if they really want to put up with another four years of it. If your blood courses with Fox News and vinegar, then that's exactly what you want, but otherwise? Nah.
I think someone on these threads once said that an upside to Obama, for many Americans of all stripes, was that you didn't have to keep dealing with his administration, whether to confront or defend it -- if you weren't a dedicated nerd or ideologue, he mostly kept politics nice and boring. (Also, an implicit promise Republicans were making in 2016 is that if Hillary won, they'd give us all the daily headache of investigations and emails and Benghazis, whether or not you personally care about that stuff. Which is another upside, I think, to promoting impeachment now!)
posted by InTheYear2017 at 2:19 PM on April 28, 2019 [5 favorites]
News You May Have Missed for 28 April with a focus on the border, anti-vax laws, transgender healthcare, state-level environmental initiatives, a UN resolution against sexual violence during war, the world's oceans getting stormier, and more.
posted by joannemerriam at 2:25 PM on April 28, 2019 [2 favorites]
posted by joannemerriam at 2:25 PM on April 28, 2019 [2 favorites]
From Rolling Stone: Watch Hillary Clinton Read the Mueller Report Aloud, Including Trump’s ‘I’m F-cked’ Quote
Sadly, it's just a brief bit inside a somewhat cute comedy skit. But I would pay money for that, I think. There'd be something kinda magical hearing the report read by someone who herself worked on the Watergate investigation.
posted by los pantalones del muerte at 3:25 PM on April 28, 2019 [4 favorites]
Sadly, it's just a brief bit inside a somewhat cute comedy skit. But I would pay money for that, I think. There'd be something kinda magical hearing the report read by someone who herself worked on the Watergate investigation.
posted by los pantalones del muerte at 3:25 PM on April 28, 2019 [4 favorites]
The New York Time referred to Trump's claim that women and doctors conspire to kill babies immediately after their born was characterized by the New York Times as: "President Trump revived an inaccurate refrain".
Cancel your subscription.
tweet
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 4:15 PM on April 28, 2019 [18 favorites]
Cancel your subscription.
tweet
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 4:15 PM on April 28, 2019 [18 favorites]
Meanwhile, in an op-ed published in Slate, US Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) would like you to notice what's going on in the Supreme Court's "routine" decisions: "The Supreme Court’s Anti-Worker Rulings Are So Routine Now That We Hardly Notice Them. Big Mistake."
posted by Nerd of the North at 5:27 PM on April 28, 2019 [14 favorites]
posted by Nerd of the North at 5:27 PM on April 28, 2019 [14 favorites]
I am so unbearably weary of the whole "a news outlet accurately referred to Trump's lie as a lie, but without using the specific words we approve of, so cancel your subscription!" shtick in these threads that I just subscribed to the NYT for the first (and probably last) time in my life.
posted by shenderson at 5:49 PM on April 28, 2019 [15 favorites]
posted by shenderson at 5:49 PM on April 28, 2019 [15 favorites]
shit, are you blocking CNN?
Trump offers incendiary falsehood on abortion at Wisconsin rally
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 5:54 PM on April 28, 2019 [2 favorites]
Trump offers incendiary falsehood on abortion at Wisconsin rally
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 5:54 PM on April 28, 2019 [2 favorites]
I am so unbearably weary of the whole...
I can't help but agree, and that's not even either of the current headlines. A bit down the front page of nytimes.com, the headline is "In his anti-abortion rhetoric, Mr. Trump has repeated a false claim about doctors 'executing babies.'" The article itself is titled "Trump Repeats a False Claim That Doctors ‘Execute’ Newborns."
posted by reductiondesign at 6:04 PM on April 28, 2019 [2 favorites]
I can't help but agree, and that's not even either of the current headlines. A bit down the front page of nytimes.com, the headline is "In his anti-abortion rhetoric, Mr. Trump has repeated a false claim about doctors 'executing babies.'" The article itself is titled "Trump Repeats a False Claim That Doctors ‘Execute’ Newborns."
posted by reductiondesign at 6:04 PM on April 28, 2019 [2 favorites]
The New York Time referred to Trump's claim that women and doctors conspire to kill babies immediately after their born was characterized by the New York Times as: "President Trump revived an inaccurate refrain".
His “inaccurate refrain” is dangerous as the “lone wolves” accumulate.
posted by homunculus at 6:10 PM on April 28, 2019 [3 favorites]
His “inaccurate refrain” is dangerous as the “lone wolves” accumulate.
posted by homunculus at 6:10 PM on April 28, 2019 [3 favorites]
I’m not subscribing until they use the proper nomenclature: liar, liar, pants on fire!
posted by valkane at 6:12 PM on April 28, 2019 [1 favorite]
posted by valkane at 6:12 PM on April 28, 2019 [1 favorite]
Mod note: We can probably let the subscribe Y/N thing drop, y'all.
posted by cortex (staff) at 6:19 PM on April 28, 2019 [10 favorites]
posted by cortex (staff) at 6:19 PM on April 28, 2019 [10 favorites]
Politico: Cummings drops contempt threat against former W.H. security chief
posted by Doktor Zed at 6:31 PM on April 28, 2019 [6 favorites]
House Oversight Committee Chairman Elijah Cummings has pulled back from plans to initiate contempt proceedings against former White House security clearance chief Carl Kline — who blew off a subpoena demanding his testimony earlier this week — instead agreeing to interview Kline with a White House lawyer present. […]We’ll see if the Trump White House accepts this compromise, especially since Barr's appearance at the House Judiciary Committee hearing is now in doubt.
"Based on the record before us, I am confident that the Committee could move forward with contempt against you immediately, particularly since your defiance of the Committee's subpoena was so flagrant," Cummings wrote to Kline in a Saturday letter obtained by POLITICO. "However, I have always endeavored to be as fair as possible in the pursuit of truth, particularly with witnesses who are willing to come before the Committee."[…]
In his letter Saturday, Cummings said he'd relent and allow a White House lawyer to be present but that the scope of questions would not be limited to the White House's liking.
"The committee sets the scope of its interviews and depositions — not Rep. Jordan and not the President's other defense counsels," Cummings wrote. "You will be expected to answer all of the Committee's questions, including questions about specific White House officials and allegations of retaliation against the whistleblower. If you answer all of these questions, there would be no need for the committee to pursue contempt against you in the future."
posted by Doktor Zed at 6:31 PM on April 28, 2019 [6 favorites]
Judiciary Committee Dem: Impeachment should be considered
Rep. Cedric Richmond (D-La.), a member of the House Judiciary Committee, said Sunday that Democrats should consider bringing impeachment proceedings against President Trump.
Richmond, appearing on CBS's "Face the Nation," also called for Trump to testify under oath.
"I think it's the best way to get all of the facts out," Richmond said. "I also believe at some point we have to hear from this president. Whether he's lying to us or not, we need to hear from him under oath."
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 10:04 PM on April 28, 2019 [11 favorites]
Rep. Cedric Richmond (D-La.), a member of the House Judiciary Committee, said Sunday that Democrats should consider bringing impeachment proceedings against President Trump.
Richmond, appearing on CBS's "Face the Nation," also called for Trump to testify under oath.
"I think it's the best way to get all of the facts out," Richmond said. "I also believe at some point we have to hear from this president. Whether he's lying to us or not, we need to hear from him under oath."
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 10:04 PM on April 28, 2019 [11 favorites]
San Diego Union Tribune, Kate Morrissey, One year after notebook appears in Tijuana, confusion and anxiety continue in asylum line
A long read about the more than 28,000 people who have waited in Mexico for permission to approach the US border and seek asylum under the US government's "metering" system and the strange system, with the involvement of the Mexican government, that has evolved to maintain the line.
posted by zachlipton at 11:59 PM on April 28, 2019 [4 favorites]
A long read about the more than 28,000 people who have waited in Mexico for permission to approach the US border and seek asylum under the US government's "metering" system and the strange system, with the involvement of the Mexican government, that has evolved to maintain the line.
posted by zachlipton at 11:59 PM on April 28, 2019 [4 favorites]
The Fickle Over the Faithful
Loyal supporters of the Democratic Party deserve answers.
By Charles M. Blow/NYTimes
Loyal supporters of the Democratic Party deserve answers.
By Charles M. Blow/NYTimes
Democrats treat the working-class, white voters as if they are white buffaloes — sacred entities.posted by mumimor at 1:33 AM on April 29, 2019 [27 favorites]
I say, do this at your peril. I say that the rest of your base, the ones who have given all to you and received little, are watching with dual lenses of disappointment and dissatisfaction.
Indeed, I believe the entire reason that the Democratic leadership is proceeding so tepidly on the issue of impeachment is because they are afraid of the reaction of white, working-class voters.
At some point, the leadership and the front-runner are going to have to explain to women and minorities why their inordinate focus on white, working-class voters is justified, and that explanation will have to extend beyond, “It’s the only way.”
That explanation no longer has currency. “Anything to defeat Trump” is also not a soothing elixir. At some point, the loyal constituencies will demand to know: “What’s in it for us, specifically?” And I don’t blame them.
Rising tide of white nationalism is at forefront of 2020 presidential race (WaPo)
First came Joe Biden’s campaign announcement video highlighting President Trump’s “very fine people on both sides” comment about the 2017 white-nationalist rally in Charlottesville that left a counterprotester dead.posted by Barack Spinoza at 2:06 AM on April 29, 2019 [15 favorites]
Then Trump dug in, arguing that he was referring not to the self-professed neo-Nazi marchers, but to those who had opposed the removal of a statue of the “great” Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee.
Less than 24 hours later came another act of violence described by authorities as a hate crime: Saturday’s shooting at a synagogue in Poway, Calif., in which a gunman killed one person and injured three others.
Those events have pushed the rising tide of white nationalism to the forefront of the 2020 presidential campaign, putting Trump on the defensive and prompting even some Republicans to acknowledge that the president is taking a political risk by continuing to stand by his Charlottesville comments.
That's his base, and now Twitter has pledged allegiance to the cause, confirming our suspicions.
posted by hugbucket at 4:35 AM on April 29, 2019 [2 favorites]
posted by hugbucket at 4:35 AM on April 29, 2019 [2 favorites]
I wonder what the ratings are for Maddow or the Daily Show compared to The Simpsons. From this weeks episode, after Lisa accidentally goes over Niagara Falls in a zorb she is taken to a Canadian hospital:
posted by adept256 at 4:40 AM on April 29, 2019 [30 favorites]
Doctor: I recommend a five day stay
Homer: Of course, I'll take out a third mortgage
Doctor: Sir, you're in Canada now, where your healthcare is FREEEEEEEE!
Lisa: Free healthcare, why can't America do that?
Homer: She's delirious doc, America can't pay for healthcare and give corporations the tax breaks they so desperately need!posted by adept256 at 4:40 AM on April 29, 2019 [30 favorites]
Populist economic frustration threatens Trump’s strongest reelection issue, Post-ABC poll finds (WaPo)
President Trump’s strongest case for reelection remains the country’s healthy economy, but the potency of that issue for him is complicated by a widespread belief that the economy mainly benefits people already in power, a Washington Post-ABC News poll finds.posted by Barack Spinoza at 5:19 AM on April 29, 2019 [3 favorites]
The result previews a fresh wave of populism that could reshape yet another presidential campaign with about 18 months to go before voters decide whether to return Trump to the White House.
This sentiment runs the deepest among Democratic and independent registered voters, but also exists among a significant slice of Republicans. About 8 in 10 Democrats and more than 6 in 10 independents say the country’s economic system gives an advantage to those already in power, while nearly a third of Republicans share that view.
> Democrats treat the working-class, white voters as if they are white buffaloes.... I believe the entire reason that the Democratic leadership is proceeding so tepidly on the issue of impeachment is because they are afraid of the reaction of white, working-class voters.
I'm a white working-class voter, and I'm really, really sick of politicians and pundits using me as a bogeyman to justify positions I strongly disagree with. I'm not making the Congressional Democratic leadership hold off on impeachment. I'm not planning to vote for any of the "moderate" candidates the pundits claim are supposed to appeal to me in the primaries.
Charles Blow's article is really offensive. I'm not "fickle" or somehow half-Republican. And why, pundits, do you think I'd ever vote for a candidate who doesn't think people like me deserve access to health care when there are other candidates running who do? Why, pundits, what the hell are you thinking?
I'm sick of mostly white upper middle-class pundits, who seem to have never talked to anyone who isn't white or upper middle class like them, using their stereotypes about other groups of people to confabulate non-sense "explanations" about what's going on in politics and make bogus predictions about the future.
And, yeah, I know where the 'half-Republican' thing comes from. Some white working-class people are Republicans and some of us are Democrats (and a lot of us don't vote), and idiots like Blow are too stupid to take in that we have different opinions about things (to put it mildly) and don't all vote alike. We might, like, actually be people or something. The same goes for pundits' characterizations of any group of voters who aren't upper middle-class white suburbanites.
Pundits also seem to ignore how many people don't vote. But enough non-voting Democratic leaners got pissed and turned out in 2018 to get us 40 new seats in the House. I hope non-voting Dems show up and surprise pundits in 2019, when my state has off-year elections, and then again in 2020.
posted by nangar at 5:52 AM on April 29, 2019 [15 favorites]
I'm a white working-class voter, and I'm really, really sick of politicians and pundits using me as a bogeyman to justify positions I strongly disagree with. I'm not making the Congressional Democratic leadership hold off on impeachment. I'm not planning to vote for any of the "moderate" candidates the pundits claim are supposed to appeal to me in the primaries.
Charles Blow's article is really offensive. I'm not "fickle" or somehow half-Republican. And why, pundits, do you think I'd ever vote for a candidate who doesn't think people like me deserve access to health care when there are other candidates running who do? Why, pundits, what the hell are you thinking?
I'm sick of mostly white upper middle-class pundits, who seem to have never talked to anyone who isn't white or upper middle class like them, using their stereotypes about other groups of people to confabulate non-sense "explanations" about what's going on in politics and make bogus predictions about the future.
And, yeah, I know where the 'half-Republican' thing comes from. Some white working-class people are Republicans and some of us are Democrats (and a lot of us don't vote), and idiots like Blow are too stupid to take in that we have different opinions about things (to put it mildly) and don't all vote alike. We might, like, actually be people or something. The same goes for pundits' characterizations of any group of voters who aren't upper middle-class white suburbanites.
Pundits also seem to ignore how many people don't vote. But enough non-voting Democratic leaners got pissed and turned out in 2018 to get us 40 new seats in the House. I hope non-voting Dems show up and surprise pundits in 2019, when my state has off-year elections, and then again in 2020.
posted by nangar at 5:52 AM on April 29, 2019 [15 favorites]
Populist economic frustration threatens Trump’s strongest reelection issue, Post-ABC poll finds (WaPo)
Lots of other bad numbers in the poll for Trump:
55 percent of Americans say they definitely will not vote for Trump.
Among women, it's 62 percent.
Among college educated whites, it's 54%.
Among seniors it’s 53%. (Trump won them by 9 points in 2016.)
posted by chris24 at 6:10 AM on April 29, 2019 [11 favorites]
Lots of other bad numbers in the poll for Trump:
55 percent of Americans say they definitely will not vote for Trump.
Among women, it's 62 percent.
Among college educated whites, it's 54%.
Among seniors it’s 53%. (Trump won them by 9 points in 2016.)
posted by chris24 at 6:10 AM on April 29, 2019 [11 favorites]
The so-called "liberal media" had trouble grappling with the fact that George W. Bush's post-9/11 popularity surge faded and he was not in fact a "popular wartime president" as the media believed him to be.
But since Trump got elected despite the media presuming Clinton would win, they have never come to grips with the fact that Trump has never been popular. Yes, he's popular with his base, but his base are far from a majority.
While we're on the subject of truths the media doesn't mention, they were too busy parroting William Barr's spin on the Mueller report to notice a glaring fact previously established by their own reporting: That among the reasons Trump resisted the Russia investigation was not only the potential exposure of criminal activity, but also that Russian interference would further de-legitimize his narrow electoral victory despite a popular vote loss by nearly three million votes.
And the Mueller report establishes beyond doubt that yes, Russia interfered in the election, and in Trump's favor.
Trump is not a legitimate president. Trump has never been a legitimate president. Which means among other things that his antidemocratic supreme court picks aren't legitimate, either.
posted by Gelatin at 6:40 AM on April 29, 2019 [40 favorites]
But since Trump got elected despite the media presuming Clinton would win, they have never come to grips with the fact that Trump has never been popular. Yes, he's popular with his base, but his base are far from a majority.
While we're on the subject of truths the media doesn't mention, they were too busy parroting William Barr's spin on the Mueller report to notice a glaring fact previously established by their own reporting: That among the reasons Trump resisted the Russia investigation was not only the potential exposure of criminal activity, but also that Russian interference would further de-legitimize his narrow electoral victory despite a popular vote loss by nearly three million votes.
And the Mueller report establishes beyond doubt that yes, Russia interfered in the election, and in Trump's favor.
Trump is not a legitimate president. Trump has never been a legitimate president. Which means among other things that his antidemocratic supreme court picks aren't legitimate, either.
posted by Gelatin at 6:40 AM on April 29, 2019 [40 favorites]
Yes, he's popular with his base, but his base are far from a majority.
We're also far from a democracy. He only needs his 25%.
posted by Rust Moranis at 6:42 AM on April 29, 2019 [3 favorites]
We're also far from a democracy. He only needs his 25%.
posted by Rust Moranis at 6:42 AM on April 29, 2019 [3 favorites]
He only needs his 25%.
Not really. He lost by 3 million votes. Only with FBI/Russia/Clinton Rules Media/Misogyny did he squeak by with 70,000 margin in three states. Two of those states that just had big D wins in 2018. He got 46% of the vote. He needs some Inds votes, a third party candidate to siphon off votes, and a D candidate as unpopular as he is.
Can he draw to an inside straight again? Sure, it’s possible, but he can’t win with his base alone.
posted by chris24 at 6:48 AM on April 29, 2019 [8 favorites]
Not really. He lost by 3 million votes. Only with FBI/Russia/Clinton Rules Media/Misogyny did he squeak by with 70,000 margin in three states. Two of those states that just had big D wins in 2018. He got 46% of the vote. He needs some Inds votes, a third party candidate to siphon off votes, and a D candidate as unpopular as he is.
Can he draw to an inside straight again? Sure, it’s possible, but he can’t win with his base alone.
posted by chris24 at 6:48 AM on April 29, 2019 [8 favorites]
Two Massachusetts district attorneys announced plans this morning to sue the federal government to keep ICE agents out of state courthouses. One is Marian Ryan, DA for Middlesex County, where a judge was indicted on federal charges last week after helping a defendant evade an ICE agent because she was unsure the defendant was even the right guy; the other is Rachael Rollins, DA for Suffolk County, which has the state's busiest courts.
posted by adamg at 6:48 AM on April 29, 2019 [20 favorites]
posted by adamg at 6:48 AM on April 29, 2019 [20 favorites]
I'm sick of mostly white upper middle-class pundits, who seem to have never talked to anyone who isn't white or upper middle class like them, using their stereotypes about other groups of people to confabulate non-sense "explanations" about what's going on in politics and make bogus predictions about the future.I don't think that's Charles Blow's deal, for what it's worth. He's a black man who grew up working-class in Louisiana and graduated from Grambling State University, a public HBCU. He also identifies as bisexual. I think he's really wrong about the appeal of Joe Biden, but I don't think he's writing from a place of upper-middle-class remove. I think he's sounding the familiar theme that the Democrats are ignoring their real base, which is largely people of color, in pursuit of a fantasy working-class white base that doesn't actually exist.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 6:53 AM on April 29, 2019 [22 favorites]
the media doesn't mention
It annoys me when people refer to "the media" saying or not saying this or that, as if it were som monolithic entity that speaks with one voice. "The media" is a caucophany of voices. Just because you see some bad takes does not mean "the media" is bad.
I see this a lot on MeFi and it bothers me, so this is me complaining to the room in general and not picking on this specific instance.
In that caucophany there are bound to be voices I agree with and voices I don't, smart voices and stupid voices, helpful voices and damgerous voices, and a lot of just... noise. MetaFilter is great for filtering a lot of the noise so I can hear the stuff that matters to me. But I find it strange and slightly upsetting that some voices on this site (MeFi is not a monlith either) seem unwilling to give credit to the good reporters and analysts we all rely on here.
posted by OnceUponATime at 6:53 AM on April 29, 2019 [23 favorites]
It annoys me when people refer to "the media" saying or not saying this or that, as if it were som monolithic entity that speaks with one voice. "The media" is a caucophany of voices. Just because you see some bad takes does not mean "the media" is bad.
I see this a lot on MeFi and it bothers me, so this is me complaining to the room in general and not picking on this specific instance.
In that caucophany there are bound to be voices I agree with and voices I don't, smart voices and stupid voices, helpful voices and damgerous voices, and a lot of just... noise. MetaFilter is great for filtering a lot of the noise so I can hear the stuff that matters to me. But I find it strange and slightly upsetting that some voices on this site (MeFi is not a monlith either) seem unwilling to give credit to the good reporters and analysts we all rely on here.
posted by OnceUponATime at 6:53 AM on April 29, 2019 [23 favorites]
He needs some Inds votes, a third party candidate to siphon off votes, and a D candidate as unpopular as he is.
Or enough vote suppression and Russian interference to make up for those factors.
posted by T.D. Strange at 6:58 AM on April 29, 2019 [13 favorites]
Or enough vote suppression and Russian interference to make up for those factors.
posted by T.D. Strange at 6:58 AM on April 29, 2019 [13 favorites]
I think he's sounding the familiar theme that the Democrats are ignoring their real base, which is largely people of color, in pursuit of a fantasy working-class white base that doesn't actually exist.
The Democrats could also work on pointing out that the Republicans really, really don't favor the economic interests of any working class people, white or otherwise, and that only the Democrats do. They need to point out that the "economic anxiety" that supposedly prompts the white working class to vote Republican is a product -- an inevitable and intended result of -- Republican economic policies.
posted by Gelatin at 7:03 AM on April 29, 2019 [8 favorites]
The Democrats could also work on pointing out that the Republicans really, really don't favor the economic interests of any working class people, white or otherwise, and that only the Democrats do. They need to point out that the "economic anxiety" that supposedly prompts the white working class to vote Republican is a product -- an inevitable and intended result of -- Republican economic policies.
posted by Gelatin at 7:03 AM on April 29, 2019 [8 favorites]
> I don't think that's Charles Blow's deal, for what it's worth. He's a black man who grew up working-class in Louisiana and graduated from Grambling State University, a public HBCU.
OK. I was wrong about Blow. I still think his assumptions are pretty off base.
> ...in pursuit of a fantasy working-class white base that doesn't actually exist.
Thanks for telling me I don't exist. I'm real, I exist, and I vote. I just don't vote way Blow thinks I do.
posted by nangar at 7:08 AM on April 29, 2019
OK. I was wrong about Blow. I still think his assumptions are pretty off base.
> ...in pursuit of a fantasy working-class white base that doesn't actually exist.
Thanks for telling me I don't exist. I'm real, I exist, and I vote. I just don't vote way Blow thinks I do.
posted by nangar at 7:08 AM on April 29, 2019
The Democrats could also work on pointing out that the Republicans really, really don't favor the economic interests of any working class people, white or otherwise, and that only the Democrats do.
The party establishment won't even embrace medicare for all. If Democrats are going to make the case that they favor the economic interests of the working class then they need to start favoring them.
posted by Rust Moranis at 7:08 AM on April 29, 2019 [7 favorites]
The party establishment won't even embrace medicare for all. If Democrats are going to make the case that they favor the economic interests of the working class then they need to start favoring them.
posted by Rust Moranis at 7:08 AM on April 29, 2019 [7 favorites]
If Democrats are going to make the case that they favor the economic interests of the working class then they need to start favoring them.
The American people know by now that the Democrats' ADA program, while not perfect, is heaps better than what they had before, to the point that despite more than a decade of propaganda by the Republicans, voters understand that the Republicans have no alternative save "take away coverage for pre-existing conditions."
Many of the Democratic leadership remember a time when Ronald Reagan chuckled his way to popularity despite pushing an objectively terrible agenda (including and especially kicking off the increasingly vast class disparities we see today). Couple that with the media and Democrats alike being suckered by the Republicans false claims that the media is liberal, plus certain Democrats deciding favoring corporations is a survival tactic, and it's little wonder why many of them lack the courage to advocate in favor of their own popular policies and against unpopular Republican ones.
But the fact remains that Democrats, and only Democrats, advocate policies that favor the working class at all, and we shouldn't forget that fact.
posted by Gelatin at 7:16 AM on April 29, 2019 [6 favorites]
The American people know by now that the Democrats' ADA program, while not perfect, is heaps better than what they had before, to the point that despite more than a decade of propaganda by the Republicans, voters understand that the Republicans have no alternative save "take away coverage for pre-existing conditions."
Many of the Democratic leadership remember a time when Ronald Reagan chuckled his way to popularity despite pushing an objectively terrible agenda (including and especially kicking off the increasingly vast class disparities we see today). Couple that with the media and Democrats alike being suckered by the Republicans false claims that the media is liberal, plus certain Democrats deciding favoring corporations is a survival tactic, and it's little wonder why many of them lack the courage to advocate in favor of their own popular policies and against unpopular Republican ones.
But the fact remains that Democrats, and only Democrats, advocate policies that favor the working class at all, and we shouldn't forget that fact.
posted by Gelatin at 7:16 AM on April 29, 2019 [6 favorites]
> ...in pursuit of a fantasy working-class white base that doesn't actually exist.
Thanks for telling me I don't exist. I'm real, I exist, and I vote. I just don't vote way Blow thinks I do.
You're missing the point. YOU exist, white-working-class voters that vote the way Blow thinks don't exist in the numbers that Blow thinks they do. Dems, in turn, need to do a better job of appealing to YOU rather than the fantasy version of you that doesn't exist that they seem to desperate to appeal to.
posted by VTX at 7:21 AM on April 29, 2019 [17 favorites]
Thanks for telling me I don't exist. I'm real, I exist, and I vote. I just don't vote way Blow thinks I do.
You're missing the point. YOU exist, white-working-class voters that vote the way Blow thinks don't exist in the numbers that Blow thinks they do. Dems, in turn, need to do a better job of appealing to YOU rather than the fantasy version of you that doesn't exist that they seem to desperate to appeal to.
posted by VTX at 7:21 AM on April 29, 2019 [17 favorites]
There is a fossilized idea of the "Reagan Democrat" that people like Chuck Schumer rather fantasize about than getting to know working class people. There is an idea that having a base of people who look like "everyday Americans" legitimizes a party, even if people like me can make the numbers happen without the optics. There is the appearance that to some people it seems like Dems had the South and then they just... didn't, like some messaging error just turned them all off at the same time, and a correction will reactivate them. I think Blow is right about the ardent, misguided and futile pursuit - I think he's wrong about how Biden's prominence is an example of the priority placed on it, however. Biden will get a lot of minority support that progressives will handwave away. The times we're facing will also stave off the question of "what's in it for us?" because it's crystal clear.
posted by Selena777 at 7:37 AM on April 29, 2019 [2 favorites]
posted by Selena777 at 7:37 AM on April 29, 2019 [2 favorites]
You're missing the point. YOU exist, white-working-class voters that vote the way Blow thinks don't exist in the numbers that Blow thinks they do.Nope, that's not it. Blow thinks that Democrats are putting too many resources into converting white working-class voters who now vote Republican. He doesn't think that there are sufficient numbers of convertible white working-class voters to ensure victory for Democrats. And he thinks that Democrats are focusing on those voters because of racism, because they believe that white voters are inherently more important than other voters. He thinks that Democrats should focus on the kind of people who already support them, rather than chasing people who don't:
These people are not experiencing conversion, they are being coddled. Democrats want to hold constant their support from women and minorities even as they chase the votes of people hostile to the interests of women and minorities. What does it say that the Democrats lust after disaffection rather than rewarding devotion? Democrats tell their base that this must be done, that the prodigal children must be brought home, as if that is their only path to victory. It is not. That is a lie. And, it’s a lazy lie.This is not a new sentiment: we've been having this discussion since the 2016 primaries.
Democratic candidates would be much better served focusing on energizing new voters among constituencies amenable to this philosophy and these goals, rather than bending to accommodate voters who vacillate between open contempt for those interests and begrudging countenance of them.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 7:39 AM on April 29, 2019 [25 favorites]
> Dems, in turn, need to do a better job of appealing to YOU rather than the fantasy version of you that doesn't exist that they seem to desperate to appeal to.
"Moderate" Democrats need to stop using fantasy white working-class voters to justify their support for policies I'm actually strongly opposed to. Some Democratic candidates are doing a good of appealing to people like me. I'm planning to vote for Harris, and I like Warren a lot too.
posted by nangar at 7:42 AM on April 29, 2019 [5 favorites]
"Moderate" Democrats need to stop using fantasy white working-class voters to justify their support for policies I'm actually strongly opposed to. Some Democratic candidates are doing a good of appealing to people like me. I'm planning to vote for Harris, and I like Warren a lot too.
posted by nangar at 7:42 AM on April 29, 2019 [5 favorites]
BBC notes, in their coverage of the San Diego synagogue shooting, that anti Semitic activity is up almost 60% in a single year.
posted by SecretAgentSockpuppet at 7:49 AM on April 29, 2019 [4 favorites]
posted by SecretAgentSockpuppet at 7:49 AM on April 29, 2019 [4 favorites]
we've been having this discussion since the 2016 primaries.
It's not really clear that further discussion about it is fruitful, to my mind.
posted by Chrysostom at 7:55 AM on April 29, 2019 [10 favorites]
It's not really clear that further discussion about it is fruitful, to my mind.
posted by Chrysostom at 7:55 AM on April 29, 2019 [10 favorites]
"Moderate" Democrats need to stop using fantasy white working-class voters to justify their support for policies I'm actually strongly opposed to. Some Democratic candidates are doing a good of appealing to people like me. I'm planning to vote for Harris, and I like Warren a lot too.The thing is, I think that Blow would actually agree with you. I don't think he's talking about *actual* white working-class voters who already support a progressive agenda, although I agree that he doesn't really acknowledge that such people exist. But he's really talking about the moderate Democrats' fantasy of a large constituency of convertible, Trump-voting white-working-class voters who would support Democrats if Democrats just stopped caring about the interests of women, LGBTQ people, and people of color, and that's what he says isn't actually real. But there's definitely some sloppiness in that column: he's doing some weird things with the category "women," too. I don't think it's a very good column. It's just not contemptuous in quite the way that you're framing it as.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 8:04 AM on April 29, 2019 [10 favorites]
It's clear that Biden does have support that extends beyond the white working class - a lot of women in my FB Indivisible group were head-over-heels for Biden, I think because of the Obama factor and "he's so safe!" Likewise, there are many African-American voters who like Biden because 1) he was considered a staunch ally to our first black President and 2) their own personal politics are more moderate than, say, most MeFites.
So Biden is more a symptom than a cause (sounds familiar?). What I think Blow might have been trying to get at is the Democratic party taking their base for granted in a rather ugly way - "ha ha, we have you women/POC/LGBT people over a barrel, because the alternative is worse! We don't have to give more than lip service to your concerns, because you are STUCK WITH US. That leaves us free to woo and flatter and cater to people who may or may not vote for us, because they have a choice!"
That is not a good look and that is something I want Democrats to avoid. The base matters and we deserve some consideration too, not a taking for granted "it's us or worse."
posted by Rosie M. Banks at 8:10 AM on April 29, 2019 [12 favorites]
So Biden is more a symptom than a cause (sounds familiar?). What I think Blow might have been trying to get at is the Democratic party taking their base for granted in a rather ugly way - "ha ha, we have you women/POC/LGBT people over a barrel, because the alternative is worse! We don't have to give more than lip service to your concerns, because you are STUCK WITH US. That leaves us free to woo and flatter and cater to people who may or may not vote for us, because they have a choice!"
That is not a good look and that is something I want Democrats to avoid. The base matters and we deserve some consideration too, not a taking for granted "it's us or worse."
posted by Rosie M. Banks at 8:10 AM on April 29, 2019 [12 favorites]
But the fact remains that Democrats, and only Democrats, advocate policies that favor the working class at all, and we shouldn't forget that fact.
The shift of the Democratic Party to "third way" centrism got well underway in the 1990s.
Even some Dem candidates who are now being asked views on, for instance, healthcare and tuition reform for the 2020 election are maintaining a centrist position that places the interests of shareholders at the same level of importance as those of voters, if not higher.
I think a larger question that Blow raises is whether or not Dems take their voters for granted. The party's support for corporatism leads me to believe this is true, to an extent that has furthered economic inequality. This has, in turn, favored populist movements that successfully exploit ugly racial tensions, to divide and conquer.
Apparently, one way to win an election is to fight over a relatively smaller demographic slice of white voters. Another way may be by getting more and a broader set of Americans to vote, by supporting policies that benefit voters and not a small handful of shareholders. Some Dem candidates are doing that, some are not.
What can be learned from 2016 (and 2018) that informs what motivates turnout?
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 8:16 AM on April 29, 2019 [6 favorites]
The shift of the Democratic Party to "third way" centrism got well underway in the 1990s.
Even some Dem candidates who are now being asked views on, for instance, healthcare and tuition reform for the 2020 election are maintaining a centrist position that places the interests of shareholders at the same level of importance as those of voters, if not higher.
I think a larger question that Blow raises is whether or not Dems take their voters for granted. The party's support for corporatism leads me to believe this is true, to an extent that has furthered economic inequality. This has, in turn, favored populist movements that successfully exploit ugly racial tensions, to divide and conquer.
Apparently, one way to win an election is to fight over a relatively smaller demographic slice of white voters. Another way may be by getting more and a broader set of Americans to vote, by supporting policies that benefit voters and not a small handful of shareholders. Some Dem candidates are doing that, some are not.
What can be learned from 2016 (and 2018) that informs what motivates turnout?
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 8:16 AM on April 29, 2019 [6 favorites]
The Fickle Over the Faithful
That headline just crystallized a thought that must have been rattling around in my head for a while.
Why does Vegas rake in so much money every year? Because the human brain is wired to go absolutely nuts about an unpredictable reward. Set up an experiment so the rat gets a food pellet every time it pushes the button, and the rat only pushes the button when it's hungry. Set it up so the rat pushes the button and half the time it delivers a food pellet and half the time it doesn't and the rat will push that button over, and over, and over, and over.
It's the same thing that makes MMORPGs so addictive: unpredictable reward.
And I'll bet it's at least a component (in addition to their visceral hatred of the left) in why the Democratic establishment keeps doggedly chasing after that elusive Reagan Democrat, or "white moderate", or whatever you want to call them. Because they're an unpredictable reward. Maybe you'll twist yourself enough to get enough of them to win without having to make concessions to the DFH's, maybe not, so our brains say chase after them as hard as you can!
Gelatin The Democrats could also work on pointing out that the Republicans really, really don't favor the economic interests of any working class people, white or otherwise, and that only the Democrats do.
The Democrats do this, and it gets dismissed as wonkery. Or twisted and spun into contempt for the white working class (see Clinton and her comments to West Virginians about coal mining jobs for a good example).
Worse, per one of the Republicans on MeFi, and I fear she's right, those conservative voters see any actual and effective aid program as an insult to them. They want help, but only on their very specific and basically impossible to meet terms. They want help in the form of bringing back the fantasy 1950's and the manly factory and mining jobs, training, help relocating, an UBI, universal healthcare, all that is seen as welfare and therefore insulting (despite the fact that many of them are on welfare).
I also suspect that we're butting up against the core conservative belief that there is, or should be, a social pyramid. They see the social pyramid as either inevitable or desireable, and see any effort to flatten things as either inherently sinful or, at best, an evil attempt to put the wrong people at the wrong level of the pyramid. And they're convinced that society only works when people are in their proper place so any effort to disrupt things is seen as the first step in total societal collapse.
posted by sotonohito at 8:46 AM on April 29, 2019 [22 favorites]
That headline just crystallized a thought that must have been rattling around in my head for a while.
Why does Vegas rake in so much money every year? Because the human brain is wired to go absolutely nuts about an unpredictable reward. Set up an experiment so the rat gets a food pellet every time it pushes the button, and the rat only pushes the button when it's hungry. Set it up so the rat pushes the button and half the time it delivers a food pellet and half the time it doesn't and the rat will push that button over, and over, and over, and over.
It's the same thing that makes MMORPGs so addictive: unpredictable reward.
And I'll bet it's at least a component (in addition to their visceral hatred of the left) in why the Democratic establishment keeps doggedly chasing after that elusive Reagan Democrat, or "white moderate", or whatever you want to call them. Because they're an unpredictable reward. Maybe you'll twist yourself enough to get enough of them to win without having to make concessions to the DFH's, maybe not, so our brains say chase after them as hard as you can!
Gelatin The Democrats could also work on pointing out that the Republicans really, really don't favor the economic interests of any working class people, white or otherwise, and that only the Democrats do.
The Democrats do this, and it gets dismissed as wonkery. Or twisted and spun into contempt for the white working class (see Clinton and her comments to West Virginians about coal mining jobs for a good example).
Worse, per one of the Republicans on MeFi, and I fear she's right, those conservative voters see any actual and effective aid program as an insult to them. They want help, but only on their very specific and basically impossible to meet terms. They want help in the form of bringing back the fantasy 1950's and the manly factory and mining jobs, training, help relocating, an UBI, universal healthcare, all that is seen as welfare and therefore insulting (despite the fact that many of them are on welfare).
I also suspect that we're butting up against the core conservative belief that there is, or should be, a social pyramid. They see the social pyramid as either inevitable or desireable, and see any effort to flatten things as either inherently sinful or, at best, an evil attempt to put the wrong people at the wrong level of the pyramid. And they're convinced that society only works when people are in their proper place so any effort to disrupt things is seen as the first step in total societal collapse.
posted by sotonohito at 8:46 AM on April 29, 2019 [22 favorites]
The Democrats do this, and it gets dismissed as wonkery. Or twisted and spun into contempt for the white working class (see Clinton and her comments to West Virginians about coal mining jobs for a good example).
More than half a century ago, the Republicans developed a strategy for the fact that their policies were not popular and that they faced challenges in creating messaging to have people vote for politicians who advocated policies that disfavored their constituents' economic interests.
One of the solutions they developed was to create such a consistent falsehood about "liberal media bias" that liberals and the media themselves seem to believe it, and this blind spot costs victories over Republicans time and again.
The Democrats, by contrast, seem to have no strategy for dealing with the media's actual and obvious biases -- laziness, phony "balance," sexism, and obsession with "access," among others. Of course solid and sensible policies will be dismissed as "wonkery," because policy analysis is harrrrd and requires actual expertise, not just "access."
I wish I had answers, but job one would seem to be for the Democrats to abandon any notion that the media is remotely fair to them -- if there's anything that the rise of Republicanism since Reagan has shown, it's that the media is too willing to bend over backward to accept phony Republican framing.
posted by Gelatin at 8:57 AM on April 29, 2019 [24 favorites]
More than half a century ago, the Republicans developed a strategy for the fact that their policies were not popular and that they faced challenges in creating messaging to have people vote for politicians who advocated policies that disfavored their constituents' economic interests.
One of the solutions they developed was to create such a consistent falsehood about "liberal media bias" that liberals and the media themselves seem to believe it, and this blind spot costs victories over Republicans time and again.
The Democrats, by contrast, seem to have no strategy for dealing with the media's actual and obvious biases -- laziness, phony "balance," sexism, and obsession with "access," among others. Of course solid and sensible policies will be dismissed as "wonkery," because policy analysis is harrrrd and requires actual expertise, not just "access."
I wish I had answers, but job one would seem to be for the Democrats to abandon any notion that the media is remotely fair to them -- if there's anything that the rise of Republicanism since Reagan has shown, it's that the media is too willing to bend over backward to accept phony Republican framing.
posted by Gelatin at 8:57 AM on April 29, 2019 [24 favorites]
Former SDNY assistant attorney Mimi Rocah and former federal prosecutor Renato Mariotti, writing for the Daily Beast, lay out a legal case against Trump: If Trump Weren’t President, He Would Already Be Charge
Meanwhile, the NYer's Jeffrey Toobin sends off Trump's fixer to prison, not unsympathetically: Michael Cohen’s Last Days of Freedom—These days, the President’s former lawyer, and the fall guy in his web of misconduct, looks like a victim as well as a perpetrator.
posted by Doktor Zed at 9:18 AM on April 29, 2019 [17 favorites]
Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report is 448 pages long, full of shocking conduct and detail that has prompted non-stop discussion since it was released last week. But one thing seems indisputable from our perspective as former federal prosecutors looking at the evidence laid out by the report: If Donald Trump were not now president he would have been indicted on multiple counts of obstruction of justice. And that case would be as strong, if not stronger, than many we saw working in New York and Chicago, respectively.[…]They conclude, "To look at these facts and say that a prosecutor could not probably sustain a conviction defies logic and our experience" and add, "Right now the only thing standing between Trump and a federal courtroom is the office of the presidency."
With so much to consider, it’s helpful to focus on four areas in particular where there are multiple reliable witnesses whose testimony corroborates one another, where some of the acts simply can’t be disputed because they occurred in plain sight, and where the evidence of corrupt intent and connection to pending proceedings are clear: (1) Trump’s efforts to fire Mueller, (2) Trump’s order to falsify evidence about that effort, (3) Trump’s efforts to limit the scope of Mueller’s investigation to exclude his conduct, and (4) Trump’s efforts to try and prevent witnesses from cooperating with investigators probing him and his campaign. While this may bear some passing similarity to mob-related and other obstruction of justice cases we worked on and saw as federal prosecutors, the conduct is more shocking and serious given that Trump is the president of the United States.
Meanwhile, the NYer's Jeffrey Toobin sends off Trump's fixer to prison, not unsympathetically: Michael Cohen’s Last Days of Freedom—These days, the President’s former lawyer, and the fall guy in his web of misconduct, looks like a victim as well as a perpetrator.
“I now have congressional committees asking me for more information based upon information that I had already given,” he told me at the Regency. “I’m not going to take another minute out of my family’s time with me in order to do anything anymore without knowing what benefit there is now to me.”[…]The answer Toobin provides in a detailed investigation of Cohen's legal affairs is that, unlike Allen Weisselberg and David Pecker, he screwed up his cooperation deal with the SDNY initially and never recovered from it.
When we met, Cohen remained outraged that he was prosecuted and Trump was not. “You are going to find me guilty of campaign finance, with McDougal or Stormy, and give me three years—really?” Cohen said. “And how come I’m the only one? I didn’t work for the campaign. I worked for him. And how come I’m the one that’s going to prison? I’m not the one that slept with the porn star.”
posted by Doktor Zed at 9:18 AM on April 29, 2019 [17 favorites]
Federal complaint by the two Massachusetts DAs against ICE (plaintiffs also include the statewide public-defenders committee).
posted by adamg at 9:39 AM on April 29, 2019 [8 favorites]
posted by adamg at 9:39 AM on April 29, 2019 [8 favorites]
So Biden is more a symptom than a cause (sounds familiar?). What I think Blow might have been trying to get at is the Democratic party taking their base for granted in a rather ugly way - "ha ha, we have you women/POC/LGBT people over a barrel, because the alternative is worse! We don't have to give more than lip service to your concerns, because you are STUCK WITH US. That leaves us free to woo and flatter and cater to people who may or may not vote for us, because they have a choice!"
That is not a good look and that is something I want Democrats to avoid. The base matters and we deserve some consideration too, not a taking for granted "it's us or worse."
Right, and I think the only way forward is for Democratic leaders and president-aspirants to directly call out divide-and-conquer.
"For three hundred years, working-class white people and people of color have been pitted against one another. And who got rich off that strategy? It wasn't you! Which party is trying to divide people against one another? It's the Republicans."
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:59 AM on April 29, 2019 [14 favorites]
That is not a good look and that is something I want Democrats to avoid. The base matters and we deserve some consideration too, not a taking for granted "it's us or worse."
Right, and I think the only way forward is for Democratic leaders and president-aspirants to directly call out divide-and-conquer.
"For three hundred years, working-class white people and people of color have been pitted against one another. And who got rich off that strategy? It wasn't you! Which party is trying to divide people against one another? It's the Republicans."
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:59 AM on April 29, 2019 [14 favorites]
Haven't leftists been saying that for decades now and getting shrugs in response?
posted by Selena777 at 10:03 AM on April 29, 2019 [5 favorites]
posted by Selena777 at 10:03 AM on April 29, 2019 [5 favorites]
"Right now the only thing standing between Trump and a federal courtroom is the office of the presidency."
It's hardly far-fetched to supposed that Trump, in hock up to his neck and laundering money for the Russians for years, ran for president just so he could avoid prosecution. Which would explain why the Russians wanted not just to disrupt the American election but elect Trump ,specifically: They knew, since Trump had been laundering money for the Russian mob -- and therefore, by extension, the Russian government -- they'd automatically have leverage over the President of the United States.
The narrative returning to the familiar, lazy "Democrats in disarray" trope due to conflicts over the timing and nature of responding to the Mueller report, Democrats are losing -- and being actively denied -- the opportunity to point out that Trump is hiding something. Obviously hiding something. Something big. Something he was willing to obstruct justice to cover up. But the reluctance of conservatives to have that message out doesn't excuse the Democrats from repeating those points every time they're in front of a microphone.
posted by Gelatin at 10:06 AM on April 29, 2019 [7 favorites]
It's hardly far-fetched to supposed that Trump, in hock up to his neck and laundering money for the Russians for years, ran for president just so he could avoid prosecution. Which would explain why the Russians wanted not just to disrupt the American election but elect Trump ,specifically: They knew, since Trump had been laundering money for the Russian mob -- and therefore, by extension, the Russian government -- they'd automatically have leverage over the President of the United States.
The narrative returning to the familiar, lazy "Democrats in disarray" trope due to conflicts over the timing and nature of responding to the Mueller report, Democrats are losing -- and being actively denied -- the opportunity to point out that Trump is hiding something. Obviously hiding something. Something big. Something he was willing to obstruct justice to cover up. But the reluctance of conservatives to have that message out doesn't excuse the Democrats from repeating those points every time they're in front of a microphone.
posted by Gelatin at 10:06 AM on April 29, 2019 [7 favorites]
Right, and I think the only way forward is for Democratic leaders and president-aspirants to directly call out divide-and-conquer.
Dave Weigel (WaPo)
Warren explaining the wealth tax: "How many people here own a home?" Most hands go up. "You’ve been paying a wealth tax for years. They just call it a property tax. I just want their tax to include the diamonds, the yachts, and the Rembrandts."
posted by chris24 at 10:09 AM on April 29, 2019 [102 favorites]
Dave Weigel (WaPo)
Warren explaining the wealth tax: "How many people here own a home?" Most hands go up. "You’ve been paying a wealth tax for years. They just call it a property tax. I just want their tax to include the diamonds, the yachts, and the Rembrandts."
posted by chris24 at 10:09 AM on April 29, 2019 [102 favorites]
It's hardly far-fetched to supposed that Trump, in hock up to his neck and laundering money for the Russians for years, ran for president just so he could avoid prosecution.
There are plenty of indications that he had no expectation of winning (and lots of inside sources saying this), so running would actually bring additional unwanted attention to his misdeeds, making his running a mistake in all cases except the long shot of actually winning.
posted by Bovine Love at 10:14 AM on April 29, 2019 [2 favorites]
There are plenty of indications that he had no expectation of winning (and lots of inside sources saying this), so running would actually bring additional unwanted attention to his misdeeds, making his running a mistake in all cases except the long shot of actually winning.
posted by Bovine Love at 10:14 AM on April 29, 2019 [2 favorites]
I think this is what this primary decision is coming down to for me: it really isn't center vs. left or liberal vs. leftist or whatever. It's populism, plain and simple. Not Trump's fake populism, but someone who says the simple truth that everyone, even my trumpist white-working-class father-in-law can see: that ordinary people are spinning their wheels up in here.
Liz Warren's got the feel. So does AOC, though of course she's not running. Pete whatshisface seems to as well, even though I think his politics are bit to the right of me.
I think Sanders had it in 2016 but, sorry to say, what he started to do got coopted by your stereotypical kindasortasexist/racist white kids. He's not a good standard-bearer.
Haven't leftists been saying that for decades now and getting shrugs in response?
Well, I don't think so, not white Democratic leaders anyway. I agree with whoever said above that the current leadership is living in the past days when the Democratic Party really was a coalition of conservative working-class white Southerners and northern liberals. That's not today's Party though, and if the Party is going to fight the ghosts of battles from the 70s and 80s, it's not going to win.
It doesn't mean that I hate people like Joe Biden or whatever. I disagree with some of his policies, I think he's the sort of chummy old-boy pol that I don't really care for and while I appreciate his foregrounding the horrifying and disgraceful shit that Trump said about neo-nazis, I don't see in his record a particular willingness to stick his neck out for black and brown people. So that feels a bit pander-y. But if he's the candidate I will happily pull the damn lever (not that it matters, I moved to Louisiana last month soooo).
What people want, and this is such a cliche and I hate myself for writing it, but it's a politician who seems like they actually understand what's going on and have good ideas for how to fix problems. Trump's right on one thing: a good politician has to be a good salesperson. The good news is that Democrats have some pretty good ideas to sell if they can step away, for like five minutes, from the circular firing squad.
posted by tivalasvegas at 10:15 AM on April 29, 2019 [14 favorites]
Liz Warren's got the feel. So does AOC, though of course she's not running. Pete whatshisface seems to as well, even though I think his politics are bit to the right of me.
I think Sanders had it in 2016 but, sorry to say, what he started to do got coopted by your stereotypical kindasortasexist/racist white kids. He's not a good standard-bearer.
Haven't leftists been saying that for decades now and getting shrugs in response?
Well, I don't think so, not white Democratic leaders anyway. I agree with whoever said above that the current leadership is living in the past days when the Democratic Party really was a coalition of conservative working-class white Southerners and northern liberals. That's not today's Party though, and if the Party is going to fight the ghosts of battles from the 70s and 80s, it's not going to win.
It doesn't mean that I hate people like Joe Biden or whatever. I disagree with some of his policies, I think he's the sort of chummy old-boy pol that I don't really care for and while I appreciate his foregrounding the horrifying and disgraceful shit that Trump said about neo-nazis, I don't see in his record a particular willingness to stick his neck out for black and brown people. So that feels a bit pander-y. But if he's the candidate I will happily pull the damn lever (not that it matters, I moved to Louisiana last month soooo).
What people want, and this is such a cliche and I hate myself for writing it, but it's a politician who seems like they actually understand what's going on and have good ideas for how to fix problems. Trump's right on one thing: a good politician has to be a good salesperson. The good news is that Democrats have some pretty good ideas to sell if they can step away, for like five minutes, from the circular firing squad.
posted by tivalasvegas at 10:15 AM on April 29, 2019 [14 favorites]
WRT Bovine Love, above: ....unless the "long shot" was rigged, thanks to extensive vote-rigging by a malicious nation state actor.
posted by wenestvedt at 10:16 AM on April 29, 2019 [2 favorites]
posted by wenestvedt at 10:16 AM on April 29, 2019 [2 favorites]
Shorter me: I want a president with some righteous, furious sass! Less fascism, more sass!
posted by tivalasvegas at 10:19 AM on April 29, 2019 [7 favorites]
posted by tivalasvegas at 10:19 AM on April 29, 2019 [7 favorites]
Biden lost me with his stance on legal pot. It goes waaaayyyy beyond me wanting access outside of a shady back alley. It's a social justice issue now that can't be ignored. Black and brown kids are sitting in prison for dime bags while entitled white people in legal states are making money hand over fist with this.
posted by archimago at 10:25 AM on April 29, 2019 [44 favorites]
posted by archimago at 10:25 AM on April 29, 2019 [44 favorites]
not that it matters, I moved to Louisiana last month soooo).
Living in NYC I understand the feeling that a vote in certain states doesn’t count much, but if ever there’s a year to encourage your friends to vote regardless it’s 2020. Handing Trump a resounding rejection is not only smart morally and politically, it may be necessary to preserve democracy. Given his autocratic tendencies and the cravenness and history of the Republican Party, making sure the popular vote is clear cut to avoid a non-peaceful transfer of power is important.
posted by chris24 at 10:27 AM on April 29, 2019 [14 favorites]
Living in NYC I understand the feeling that a vote in certain states doesn’t count much, but if ever there’s a year to encourage your friends to vote regardless it’s 2020. Handing Trump a resounding rejection is not only smart morally and politically, it may be necessary to preserve democracy. Given his autocratic tendencies and the cravenness and history of the Republican Party, making sure the popular vote is clear cut to avoid a non-peaceful transfer of power is important.
posted by chris24 at 10:27 AM on April 29, 2019 [14 favorites]
It's hardly far-fetched to supposed that Trump, in hock up to his neck and laundering money for the Russians for years, ran for president just so he could avoid prosecution. Which would explain why the Russians wanted not just to disrupt the American election but elect Trump, specifically: They knew, since Trump had been laundering money for the Russian mob -- and therefore, by extension, the Russian government -- they'd automatically have leverage over the President of the United States.
It's kind of far-fetched, I think. The simplest explanation is that a rather dumb but unnecessarily famous rich-ish guy did a vanity run for President, managed to get a plurality of voters in the conservative party's primary to vote for him, and then Russia was like "hm, awesome, this guy's a total idiot so let's support him because chaos works good for us". Maybe the idea of leverage entered into it, but mostly I think it was just "stir some shit & see what happens".
I kind of wonder sometimes if Vladimir Putin gets anxious at night about the stupid-ass monster he helped hand some nukes to. Hope so!
posted by tivalasvegas at 10:31 AM on April 29, 2019 [15 favorites]
It's kind of far-fetched, I think. The simplest explanation is that a rather dumb but unnecessarily famous rich-ish guy did a vanity run for President, managed to get a plurality of voters in the conservative party's primary to vote for him, and then Russia was like "hm, awesome, this guy's a total idiot so let's support him because chaos works good for us". Maybe the idea of leverage entered into it, but mostly I think it was just "stir some shit & see what happens".
I kind of wonder sometimes if Vladimir Putin gets anxious at night about the stupid-ass monster he helped hand some nukes to. Hope so!
posted by tivalasvegas at 10:31 AM on April 29, 2019 [15 favorites]
It's hardly far-fetched to supposed that Trump, in hock up to his neck and laundering money for the Russians for years, ran for president just so he could avoid prosecution.
Perhaps if he thought that he'd be able to rule like a king, he could somehow stay above the law. But it's a huge risk, since the job invites immense scrutiny into misdeeds past and present.
As Bovine Love suggests, Trump didn't seem to believe he'd win, and Michael Wolff's research backs that up:
Shortly after 8 p.m. on Election Night, when the unexpected trend — Trump might actually win — seemed confirmed, Don Jr. told a friend that his father, or DJT, as he calls him, looked as if he had seen a ghost. Melania was in tears — and not of joy.
There was, in the space of little more than an hour, in Steve Bannon’s not unamused observation, a befuddled Trump morphing into a disbelieving Trump and then into a horrified Trump.
I think Trump really does think he can turn the US into a dictatorship, if he needed to. He already has no problem tearing down institutions and norms of behavior when he doesn't get his way. He directs people to break the law on his behalf, offering to issue pardons to anyone who gets charged and convicted.
But tearing down the US is basically an all-in gamble, and it suggests that he really is in debt to the Russian mob, well past his neck and up to his eyeballs.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 10:36 AM on April 29, 2019 [15 favorites]
Perhaps if he thought that he'd be able to rule like a king, he could somehow stay above the law. But it's a huge risk, since the job invites immense scrutiny into misdeeds past and present.
As Bovine Love suggests, Trump didn't seem to believe he'd win, and Michael Wolff's research backs that up:
Shortly after 8 p.m. on Election Night, when the unexpected trend — Trump might actually win — seemed confirmed, Don Jr. told a friend that his father, or DJT, as he calls him, looked as if he had seen a ghost. Melania was in tears — and not of joy.
There was, in the space of little more than an hour, in Steve Bannon’s not unamused observation, a befuddled Trump morphing into a disbelieving Trump and then into a horrified Trump.
I think Trump really does think he can turn the US into a dictatorship, if he needed to. He already has no problem tearing down institutions and norms of behavior when he doesn't get his way. He directs people to break the law on his behalf, offering to issue pardons to anyone who gets charged and convicted.
But tearing down the US is basically an all-in gamble, and it suggests that he really is in debt to the Russian mob, well past his neck and up to his eyeballs.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 10:36 AM on April 29, 2019 [15 favorites]
WaPo: Fact Checker: President Trump Has Made More Than 10,000 False Or Misleading Claims
posted by Doktor Zed at 10:38 AM on April 29, 2019 [11 favorites]
It took President Trump 601 days to top 5,000 false and misleading claims in The Fact Checker’s database, an average of eight claims a day.To nobody's surprise, Trump tends to lie most during his rallies, especially during the mid-term campaign season. Since he's now in 2020 re-election mode and under pressure from Democratic investigations, he's likely to hit his next milestone even sooner.
But on April 26, just 226 days later, the president crossed the 10,000 mark — an average of nearly 23 claims a day in this seven-month period, which included the many rallies he held before the midterm elections, the partial government shutdown over his promised border wall and the release of the special counsel’s report on Russian interference in the presidential election.[…]
About one-fifth of the president’s claims are about immigration issues, a percentage that has grown since the government shutdown over funding for his promised border wall. In fact, his most repeated claim — 160 times — is that his border wall is being built. Congress balked at funding the concrete wall he envisioned, and so he has tried to pitch bollard fencing and repairs of existing barriers as “a wall.”
posted by Doktor Zed at 10:38 AM on April 29, 2019 [11 favorites]
The counter to fascism isn't sass, it's bold and major government programs to ensure a basic standard of living, redistribute wealth, and abolish elaborate systems of racial oppression.
The saying isn't "Sassism or Barbarism."
Entirely agreed, but as we've depressingly seen those policies don't happen unless there's someone who can sell them. I hate that Hillary Clinton wasn't seen as the kickass human that she is, but she was not able to do it. Not her fault mostly, but people (and by people, I mean not just the mythical white moderates but also lots of people of color and leftists) thought she wanted the presidency handed to her on a platter. I think that's going back to the vicious 2008 primaries and even to when she sorta randomly ran for Senator in New York. The 30-year smear campaign didn't help but that's not the whole picture. She was flawed as well.
I don't want the fight to happen again, though it's probably inevitable -- but for the love of everything can Democrats just agree that all of the candidates are broadly acceptable and not do the fighty thing again.
Policies, yup. We've got them up the ass. We need a salesperson to sell them.
posted by tivalasvegas at 10:40 AM on April 29, 2019 [11 favorites]
The saying isn't "Sassism or Barbarism."
Entirely agreed, but as we've depressingly seen those policies don't happen unless there's someone who can sell them. I hate that Hillary Clinton wasn't seen as the kickass human that she is, but she was not able to do it. Not her fault mostly, but people (and by people, I mean not just the mythical white moderates but also lots of people of color and leftists) thought she wanted the presidency handed to her on a platter. I think that's going back to the vicious 2008 primaries and even to when she sorta randomly ran for Senator in New York. The 30-year smear campaign didn't help but that's not the whole picture. She was flawed as well.
I don't want the fight to happen again, though it's probably inevitable -- but for the love of everything can Democrats just agree that all of the candidates are broadly acceptable and not do the fighty thing again.
Policies, yup. We've got them up the ass. We need a salesperson to sell them.
posted by tivalasvegas at 10:40 AM on April 29, 2019 [11 favorites]
But tearing down the US is basically an all-in gamble, and it suggests that he really is in debt to the Russian mob, well past his neck and up to his eyeballs.
I kinda wonder if the next version of the US Constitution will have to have an amendment that separates money from state, as it is supposed to separate church from state. Citizens United is a poison to democracy, for sure, but having a president who pays Russian mobsters juice on the vig by tearing apart the country is a next-level cancer.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 10:48 AM on April 29, 2019 [7 favorites]
I kinda wonder if the next version of the US Constitution will have to have an amendment that separates money from state, as it is supposed to separate church from state. Citizens United is a poison to democracy, for sure, but having a president who pays Russian mobsters juice on the vig by tearing apart the country is a next-level cancer.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 10:48 AM on April 29, 2019 [7 favorites]
but for the love of everything can Democrats just agree that all of the candidates are broadly acceptable and not do the fighty thing again.
I'll vote for whoever gets the nomination, but in this primary my concern is which candidates (assuming a 2020 win, which is a big assume) are less likely to lead to president Tom Cotton in 2024. Any Democrat who does not earnestly push major and concrete left-wing reforms will lead to President Cotton, and if you think we have fascism now, just wait until a competent fascist gets in office: today's horrors are prologue. As it stands there are only two candidates polling over 1% who show any hint of making the necessary promises.
posted by Rust Moranis at 10:49 AM on April 29, 2019 [24 favorites]
I'll vote for whoever gets the nomination, but in this primary my concern is which candidates (assuming a 2020 win, which is a big assume) are less likely to lead to president Tom Cotton in 2024. Any Democrat who does not earnestly push major and concrete left-wing reforms will lead to President Cotton, and if you think we have fascism now, just wait until a competent fascist gets in office: today's horrors are prologue. As it stands there are only two candidates polling over 1% who show any hint of making the necessary promises.
posted by Rust Moranis at 10:49 AM on April 29, 2019 [24 favorites]
Politico: House Democrats Set Stage for Barr Standoff
posted by Doktor Zed at 11:11 AM on April 29, 2019 [7 favorites]
The standoff took its latest turn Monday when the Judiciary Committee formally announced plans to hold a Wednesday morning vote that would authorize the panel’s Democratic and GOP counsels to split an hour of additional questioning about the special counsel’s findings on Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.[…]Politico’s Andrew Desiderio comments, “House Judiciary formally notices Barr hearing for Thursday morning with the format that Barr has already objected to. Dems are essentially daring him to back out.”
Thursday’s House hearing is one of two scheduled appearances Barr has this week on Capitol Hill.
The GOP-led Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday morning gets the first opportunity to question the attorney general, a session that will include its own share of theatrics with three Democrats running for the White House — Amy Klobuchar, Cory Booker and Kamala Harris — serving on the panel.
posted by Doktor Zed at 11:11 AM on April 29, 2019 [7 favorites]
WaPo: Fact Checker: President Trump Has Made More Than 10,000 False Or Misleading Claims
Each and every one denying Congress the facts they need for their oversight role, and arguably in violation of 18 USC 1001.
10,000 criminal acts. And nothing. This is not a nation of Laws.
posted by mikelieman at 11:30 AM on April 29, 2019 [11 favorites]
Each and every one denying Congress the facts they need for their oversight role, and arguably in violation of 18 USC 1001.
10,000 criminal acts. And nothing. This is not a nation of Laws.
posted by mikelieman at 11:30 AM on April 29, 2019 [11 favorites]
Studio 1A on NPR had a good show today called Javanka in the White House. Highly critical and has quite a bit on the Kuschner Saudi/Qatar connections.
posted by misterpatrick at 11:58 AM on April 29, 2019 [2 favorites]
posted by misterpatrick at 11:58 AM on April 29, 2019 [2 favorites]
... the Democratic party taking their base for granted in a rather ugly way - "ha ha, we have you women/POC/LGBT people over a barrel, because the alternative is worse! We don't have to give more than lip service to your concerns, because you are STUCK WITH US. That leaves us free to woo and flatter and cater to people who may or may not vote for us, because they have a choice!"
I promise you I'm not defending it but this is actual, real game theory, explained here by an actual games scholar
That model of an election is shallow and flawed, and those flaws are beyond my expertise and beyond the scope of this comment, but my point is,
The sort of Why does Vegas rake in so much money every year? psychological explanation is entirely unnecessary and IMO doesn't really fit. The Occam's Razor explanation is that political careerists accept the shallow model at face value because it fits their prior assumptions.
posted by Rainbo Vagrant at 12:21 PM on April 29, 2019 [6 favorites]
I promise you I'm not defending it but this is actual, real game theory, explained here by an actual games scholar
That model of an election is shallow and flawed, and those flaws are beyond my expertise and beyond the scope of this comment, but my point is,
The sort of Why does Vegas rake in so much money every year? psychological explanation is entirely unnecessary and IMO doesn't really fit. The Occam's Razor explanation is that political careerists accept the shallow model at face value because it fits their prior assumptions.
posted by Rainbo Vagrant at 12:21 PM on April 29, 2019 [6 favorites]
Cohen remained outraged that he was prosecuted and Trump was not. “And how come I’m the only one? I didn’t work for the campaign. I worked for him. And how come I’m the one that’s going to prison?"
Michael, when you decided that the path to wealth for you and your family was to assist Donald Trump in his criminal activity you pledged that you would be "willing to take a bullet for Trump."
You are a lawyer. How is it you failed to understand this bargain?
posted by JackFlash at 1:11 PM on April 29, 2019 [23 favorites]
Michael, when you decided that the path to wealth for you and your family was to assist Donald Trump in his criminal activity you pledged that you would be "willing to take a bullet for Trump."
You are a lawyer. How is it you failed to understand this bargain?
posted by JackFlash at 1:11 PM on April 29, 2019 [23 favorites]
"I said I'd take a bullet. I didn't say I'd go to jail for that asshole!"
posted by Faint of Butt at 1:34 PM on April 29, 2019 [11 favorites]
posted by Faint of Butt at 1:34 PM on April 29, 2019 [11 favorites]
The party establishment won't even embrace medicare for all. If Democrats are going to make the case that they favor the economic interests of the working class then they need to start favoring them.
I’d prefer Universal Health Care. If we can’t get it, then we need Medicare for All.
As a 50-something, I’ve been looking at retirement in my 60s which seems right around the corner. And the biggest ticket item for seniors with pre-existing health issues is almost always health care costs. Even under Medicare as it is (beginning at 65), there’s a drug coverage gap alone that could cost over $5K a year, plus a significant percentage of costs exceeding that.
That’s pretty scary. So the gaps in Medicare need to be tightened, at the very least.
Even if the Medicare age were dropped to 60, so people could enroll five years sooner, it would be a huge benefit. People who want to retire (or need to for health reasons — not being disabled, but just being worn down by working forty plus years) could do so without the fear of losing insurance. It would be a massive help to seniors, as well as freeing up jobs for mid-life and younger workers.
So, preferences, in ranked order:
1. Universal Health Care, by far the most efficient and equitable approach.
2. Alternately, Medicare for All (and tighten up the gaps).
3. Or, at least reduce the enrollment age for current Medicare (and tighten up the gaps).
There are options here that don’t require maybe expending the political capital of UHC, but which would still get a lot of people on-side, if establishment Dems were championing them.
posted by darkstar at 1:45 PM on April 29, 2019 [6 favorites]
I’d prefer Universal Health Care. If we can’t get it, then we need Medicare for All.
As a 50-something, I’ve been looking at retirement in my 60s which seems right around the corner. And the biggest ticket item for seniors with pre-existing health issues is almost always health care costs. Even under Medicare as it is (beginning at 65), there’s a drug coverage gap alone that could cost over $5K a year, plus a significant percentage of costs exceeding that.
That’s pretty scary. So the gaps in Medicare need to be tightened, at the very least.
Even if the Medicare age were dropped to 60, so people could enroll five years sooner, it would be a huge benefit. People who want to retire (or need to for health reasons — not being disabled, but just being worn down by working forty plus years) could do so without the fear of losing insurance. It would be a massive help to seniors, as well as freeing up jobs for mid-life and younger workers.
So, preferences, in ranked order:
1. Universal Health Care, by far the most efficient and equitable approach.
2. Alternately, Medicare for All (and tighten up the gaps).
3. Or, at least reduce the enrollment age for current Medicare (and tighten up the gaps).
There are options here that don’t require maybe expending the political capital of UHC, but which would still get a lot of people on-side, if establishment Dems were championing them.
posted by darkstar at 1:45 PM on April 29, 2019 [6 favorites]
I’m not saying we’ll win Texas, but making Rs defend it and spend a lot of money is big.
Emerson: 2020 Texas: Biden and Beto in Dead Heat in Democratic Primary.
Emerson: 2020 Texas: Biden and Beto in Dead Heat in Democratic Primary.
In general election matchups, Trump is in statistical dead heats with four of the top six Democratic opponents and leads the other two. In a Donald Trump versus Joe Biden matchup, the two are almost exactly even at 50% for Biden and 49% for Trump. Beto O’Rourke versus Trump is very similar, with 50% going to Beto and 50% supporting Trump. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are the other Democrats within the margin, with Trump receiving 51% to Sanders’ 49% and Trump leading Warren 53% to 47%. The rest fall outside of the margin, with Kamala Harris and Pete Buttigieg each receiving 46% support to Trump’s 54%.posted by chris24 at 1:49 PM on April 29, 2019 [10 favorites]
"I said I'd take a bullet. I didn't say I'd go to jail for that asshole!"
It's one thing to quickly die for someone, it's quite another to drag out alive in jail for years.
posted by jenfullmoon at 1:58 PM on April 29, 2019 [2 favorites]
It's one thing to quickly die for someone, it's quite another to drag out alive in jail for years.
posted by jenfullmoon at 1:58 PM on April 29, 2019 [2 favorites]
Chris24 I somehow missed the word Texas in the run up to that pull quote so thought those were the national match up numbers. Now I need to breathe into a paper bag for a week or three. Carry on.
posted by merocet at 2:12 PM on April 29, 2019 [15 favorites]
posted by merocet at 2:12 PM on April 29, 2019 [15 favorites]
Oh shit. Yeah, sorry if it wasn’t clear. I’d have a heart attack too.
posted by chris24 at 2:18 PM on April 29, 2019 [1 favorite]
posted by chris24 at 2:18 PM on April 29, 2019 [1 favorite]
Rosenstein submits resignation letter (wsj link)
and the national debate over whether hes a hostage or hostage taker will continue:
Baffling letter: “I am grateful to you for the opportunity to serve; for the courtesy and humor you often display in our personal conversations; and for the goals you set in your inaugural address: patriotism, unity, safety, education and prosperity.”
posted by Exceptional_Hubris at 2:28 PM on April 29, 2019 [6 favorites]
and the national debate over whether hes a hostage or hostage taker will continue:
Baffling letter: “I am grateful to you for the opportunity to serve; for the courtesy and humor you often display in our personal conversations; and for the goals you set in your inaugural address: patriotism, unity, safety, education and prosperity.”
posted by Exceptional_Hubris at 2:28 PM on April 29, 2019 [6 favorites]
"personal conversations"
Between the Acting Attorney General overseeing the Mueller investigation, and the subject of the investigation. Were any of these at an airport?
posted by T.D. Strange at 2:34 PM on April 29, 2019 [36 favorites]
Between the Acting Attorney General overseeing the Mueller investigation, and the subject of the investigation. Were any of these at an airport?
posted by T.D. Strange at 2:34 PM on April 29, 2019 [36 favorites]
I read some lawyerly shade in 'the courtesy and humor you often display in our personal conversations; and for the goals you set', but I'm not sure Rosenstein intended it.
posted by box at 2:49 PM on April 29, 2019 [12 favorites]
posted by box at 2:49 PM on April 29, 2019 [12 favorites]
Andrew Napolitano is pretty done with Trump, but this is still a surprise. Napolitano Denies Trump’s Allegations in On-Air Response: This is How You Treat a Friend!?
posted by zachlipton at 2:50 PM on April 29, 2019 [27 favorites]
“I said ‘no, no, I’m not describing myself,'” Napolitano recalled. “‘I’m describing Neil Gorsuch because you have this list of people from which you want to choose, and Judge Gorsuch is the person that I think most of your advisers are going to point to.'”So both sides now agree that Trump told Napolitano to call someone up and dangle a pardon.
That’s when, according to Napolitano, Trump asked him to give him “the spiel as to why I should put you on” the Supreme Court.
“I gave him the spiel so to speak,” Napolitano explained, which prompted Trump to utter an expletive aimed at another person in the room. “It was that kind of a conversation.”
In response to the “pardon” allegation, Napolitano said Trump once asked for his opinion about the conviction of a “mutual friend” of theirs. Napolitano said he thought that the conviction was just, to which, Trump offered “a very strong term” to express his disagreement.
“He said ‘You know this person as well as I do. Call this person up and tell this person he’s going to be on the list of pardons that I will seriously consider.’ That was the extent of that conversation,” Napolitano said.
posted by zachlipton at 2:50 PM on April 29, 2019 [27 favorites]
I read some lawyerly shade in 'the courtesy and humor you often display in our personal conversations; and for the goals you set', but I'm not sure Rosenstein intended it.
Yes. It's really not that hard to understand Rosenstein. He IS a lawyer and he's doing the lawyerly thing of saying something which means one thing when you parse it technically but which sounds like it means something else if you just bring your own expectations to it.
It's the same thing that Comey did when he promised Trump "Honest loyalty" when what Trump asked for was "loyalty." Comey hoped Trump would interpret "honest loyalty" as being the thing that Trump had asked for, while Comey could reassure himself that he had never promised what Trump had asked for. It's the same thing Bill Clinton did with his "depends on the meaning of the word is" shtick. Technically "is" is present tense, and the question was about the past, so...
Everything Rosenstein says is technically true, which I think is very important to Rosenstein. Everything he says is also calculated to sound like what Trump wants to hear. I gave some more examples of this kind of behavior in a comment earlier in this thread.
Once again, Rosenstein isn't praising Trump for what he has done, he is praising Trump for paying lip service to real ideals, and for sometimes being ingratiating when they met in person (which is something a lot of people have observed about Trump -- that he can be very ingratiating when you actually meet him, very different from his abrasive manner in speeches. At least until he explodes at you.)
It sounds like the kind of praise Trump wants, but if you pay attention he's only praising Trump for occasionally speaking in a an un-Trumplike way.
posted by OnceUponATime at 2:53 PM on April 29, 2019 [10 favorites]
Yes. It's really not that hard to understand Rosenstein. He IS a lawyer and he's doing the lawyerly thing of saying something which means one thing when you parse it technically but which sounds like it means something else if you just bring your own expectations to it.
It's the same thing that Comey did when he promised Trump "Honest loyalty" when what Trump asked for was "loyalty." Comey hoped Trump would interpret "honest loyalty" as being the thing that Trump had asked for, while Comey could reassure himself that he had never promised what Trump had asked for. It's the same thing Bill Clinton did with his "depends on the meaning of the word is" shtick. Technically "is" is present tense, and the question was about the past, so...
Everything Rosenstein says is technically true, which I think is very important to Rosenstein. Everything he says is also calculated to sound like what Trump wants to hear. I gave some more examples of this kind of behavior in a comment earlier in this thread.
Once again, Rosenstein isn't praising Trump for what he has done, he is praising Trump for paying lip service to real ideals, and for sometimes being ingratiating when they met in person (which is something a lot of people have observed about Trump -- that he can be very ingratiating when you actually meet him, very different from his abrasive manner in speeches. At least until he explodes at you.)
It sounds like the kind of praise Trump wants, but if you pay attention he's only praising Trump for occasionally speaking in a an un-Trumplike way.
posted by OnceUponATime at 2:53 PM on April 29, 2019 [10 favorites]
Mitch McConnell Signs Shirt Joking About Merrick Garland’s Death
posted by T.D. Strange at 2:56 PM on April 29, 2019 [5 favorites]
posted by T.D. Strange at 2:56 PM on April 29, 2019 [5 favorites]
Hey guys, guys - remember those states Turmp won that were a surprise? To wit: Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania? And that dangly Minnesota? And everybody was all "aw man they didn't campaign there"
Guess what guess what? Those were the states Manafort specifically asked Konstantin Kilimnik about in the "polling data" he shared (10:57 mark).
Point one: Way to go, corporate media, r/whoosh
Point two: When did Wonkette become the very best?
Point three: Is it a good thing or a bad thing that I didn't have to look up the spelling of Kilimnik? Whom Manafort and Gates both believed to be a spy as they so discussed amongst and betwixt themselves?
Srsly it's like back-and-to-the-left for another 50 years innit.
posted by petebest at 3:12 PM on April 29, 2019 [35 favorites]
Guess what guess what? Those were the states Manafort specifically asked Konstantin Kilimnik about in the "polling data" he shared (10:57 mark).
Point one: Way to go, corporate media, r/whoosh
Point two: When did Wonkette become the very best?
Point three: Is it a good thing or a bad thing that I didn't have to look up the spelling of Kilimnik? Whom Manafort and Gates both believed to be a spy as they so discussed amongst and betwixt themselves?
Srsly it's like back-and-to-the-left for another 50 years innit.
posted by petebest at 3:12 PM on April 29, 2019 [35 favorites]
Russian Hackers Were ‘In a Position’ to Alter Florida Voter Rolls, Rubio Confirms
Although the spearphishing attempt in Florida had first been brought to light nearly two years ago when The Intercept cited a secret National Security Agency report, state officials said they were certain no elections computers had been compromised. The Mueller report turned that assertion on its head. “The F.B.I.,” it said, “believes that this operation enabled the G.R.U. to gain access to the network of at least one Florida county government.”
In an interview on Friday, Senator Marco Rubio of Florida took it one step further, saying that Russian hackers not only accessed a Florida voting system, but were “in a position” to change voter roll data.
The report has sent Florida officials scurrying once again for specifics. Which county? Could there have been more than one?
“They won’t tell us which county it was. Are you kidding me?” an exasperated Ron DeSantis, Florida’s Republican governor, said at a news conference in Miami on Thursday. “Why would you have not said something immediately?”
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 3:21 PM on April 29, 2019 [23 favorites]
Although the spearphishing attempt in Florida had first been brought to light nearly two years ago when The Intercept cited a secret National Security Agency report, state officials said they were certain no elections computers had been compromised. The Mueller report turned that assertion on its head. “The F.B.I.,” it said, “believes that this operation enabled the G.R.U. to gain access to the network of at least one Florida county government.”
In an interview on Friday, Senator Marco Rubio of Florida took it one step further, saying that Russian hackers not only accessed a Florida voting system, but were “in a position” to change voter roll data.
The report has sent Florida officials scurrying once again for specifics. Which county? Could there have been more than one?
“They won’t tell us which county it was. Are you kidding me?” an exasperated Ron DeSantis, Florida’s Republican governor, said at a news conference in Miami on Thursday. “Why would you have not said something immediately?”
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 3:21 PM on April 29, 2019 [23 favorites]
Burger time again.
And not at all creepy.
Donald Trump to NCAA Women's Championship Team: 'I love those short sleeves, such beautiful arms, great definition.'
posted by zabuni at 3:44 PM on April 29, 2019 [9 favorites]
And not at all creepy.
Donald Trump to NCAA Women's Championship Team: 'I love those short sleeves, such beautiful arms, great definition.'
posted by zabuni at 3:44 PM on April 29, 2019 [9 favorites]
I read some lawyerly shade in 'the courtesy and humor you often display in our personal conversations; and for the goals you set', but I'm not sure Rosenstein intended it.
Remember the time Trump tweeted an image of Rosenstein behind bars for treason (11/27/18)? Such a great sense of humor, that guy!
Everything Rosenstein says is technically true, which I think is very important to Rosenstein. Everything he says is also calculated to sound like what Trump wants to hear.
This is a bizarrely fulsome resignation letter for someone to write on his first day back at the office after a major news story shredded what was left of his reputation for independence and integrity.
Buzzfeed’s Zoe Tillman points out another curious piece of timing: "Rosenstein's successor, Jeffrey Rosen, hasn't been confirmed by the Senate. He had a hearing on April 10 and the committee hasn't voted yet on his nomination."
NPR's Carrie Johnson suggests his nominated successor's timeline just barely works: "Jeffrey Rosen has already had a hearing to be Deputy AG. If the current schedule holds, he could get Judiciary vote May 9 and be confirmed before Rod Rosenstein leaves May 11."
The Dems need to haul Rosenstein in front of Congress to testify under oath and to hold up Rosen's confirmation by any means necessary until we know more about what's going on at the DoJ.
posted by Doktor Zed at 3:45 PM on April 29, 2019 [10 favorites]
Remember the time Trump tweeted an image of Rosenstein behind bars for treason (11/27/18)? Such a great sense of humor, that guy!
Everything Rosenstein says is technically true, which I think is very important to Rosenstein. Everything he says is also calculated to sound like what Trump wants to hear.
This is a bizarrely fulsome resignation letter for someone to write on his first day back at the office after a major news story shredded what was left of his reputation for independence and integrity.
Buzzfeed’s Zoe Tillman points out another curious piece of timing: "Rosenstein's successor, Jeffrey Rosen, hasn't been confirmed by the Senate. He had a hearing on April 10 and the committee hasn't voted yet on his nomination."
NPR's Carrie Johnson suggests his nominated successor's timeline just barely works: "Jeffrey Rosen has already had a hearing to be Deputy AG. If the current schedule holds, he could get Judiciary vote May 9 and be confirmed before Rod Rosenstein leaves May 11."
The Dems need to haul Rosenstein in front of Congress to testify under oath and to hold up Rosen's confirmation by any means necessary until we know more about what's going on at the DoJ.
posted by Doktor Zed at 3:45 PM on April 29, 2019 [10 favorites]
Sorry, that's the link to the original tweet that Trump retweeted (screenshot).
The NYPost reported this exchange at the time: "When asked during an interview with The Post: “Why do you think he belongs behind bars?” Trump responded: “He should have never picked a Special Counsel.”"
posted by Doktor Zed at 4:15 PM on April 29, 2019 [9 favorites]
The NYPost reported this exchange at the time: "When asked during an interview with The Post: “Why do you think he belongs behind bars?” Trump responded: “He should have never picked a Special Counsel.”"
posted by Doktor Zed at 4:15 PM on April 29, 2019 [9 favorites]
Apologies if this has already been discussed to death: All About Pete, a portrait of Buttigieg from someone who finds him to be the very picture of a McKinsey consultant.
posted by clawsoon at 4:56 PM on April 29, 2019 [4 favorites]
I find this short passage very weird. See the way Buttigieg thinks here. He dismisses student labor activists with the right-wing pejorative “social justice warriors.” But more importantly, to this day it hasn’t even entered his mind that he could have joined the PSLM in the fight for a living wage. Activists are an alien species, one he “strides past” to go to “Pizza & Politics” sessions with governors and New York Times journalists. He didn’t consider, and still hasn’t considered, the moral quandary that should come with being a student at an elite school that doesn’t pay its janitors a living wage.The article argues that this part of Buttigieg's approach to the world continued when he became mayor, and there's no sign he sees anything wrong with it.
posted by clawsoon at 4:56 PM on April 29, 2019 [4 favorites]
clawsoon, it was the topic of an FPP about a month ago, if you want to dive into a dedicated discussion about it.
posted by Rhaomi at 5:03 PM on April 29, 2019 [7 favorites]
posted by Rhaomi at 5:03 PM on April 29, 2019 [7 favorites]
Warren supporter here:
Buttigieg has expressed support for AOC's Green New Deal, universal background checks on gun sales, single-payer health insurance, a pathway to citizenship for DACA kids and undocumented immigrants, and he wants to fix the Supreme Court nomination process so that it can't be gamed by people like Mitch McConnell.
Implementation is the bugbear, but these sound like policies that would be ideals of many progressive voters.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 5:04 PM on April 29, 2019 [8 favorites]
Buttigieg has expressed support for AOC's Green New Deal, universal background checks on gun sales, single-payer health insurance, a pathway to citizenship for DACA kids and undocumented immigrants, and he wants to fix the Supreme Court nomination process so that it can't be gamed by people like Mitch McConnell.
Implementation is the bugbear, but these sound like policies that would be ideals of many progressive voters.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 5:04 PM on April 29, 2019 [8 favorites]
Buttigieg's "plan" for fixing the Supreme Court relies on every future Republican administration conscientiously appointing Democrat nominees as required to keep the court balanced. Seriously.
As for his expressions of support for Warren's platform, the traditional way to support a platform is to endorse the candidate, not run against her.
posted by Joe in Australia at 5:37 PM on April 29, 2019 [17 favorites]
As for his expressions of support for Warren's platform, the traditional way to support a platform is to endorse the candidate, not run against her.
posted by Joe in Australia at 5:37 PM on April 29, 2019 [17 favorites]
In a Twitter exchange earlier today, Chase Bank got it in the neck from Sen. Warren. CNN:
.@Chase: why aren’t customers saving money?
Taxpayers: we lost our jobs/homes/savings but gave you a $25b bailout
Workers: employers don’t pay living wages
Economists: rising costs + stagnant wages = 0 savings
Chase: guess we’ll never know
Everyone: seriously?
[Warren tagged her tweet #MoneyMotivation.]
posted by Iris Gambol at 5:52 PM on April 29, 2019 [120 favorites]
The [deleted] tweet depicted a hypothetical conversation between a customer and their bank account. Chase Bank tagged it with the hashtag "#MondayMotivation."The senator retweeted, and responded:
You: why is my balance so low
Bank account: make coffee at home
Bank account: eat the food that's already in the fridge
Bank account: you don't need a cab, it's only three blocks
You: I guess we'll never know
Bank account: seriously?
.@Chase: why aren’t customers saving money?
Taxpayers: we lost our jobs/homes/savings but gave you a $25b bailout
Workers: employers don’t pay living wages
Economists: rising costs + stagnant wages = 0 savings
Chase: guess we’ll never know
Everyone: seriously?
[Warren tagged her tweet #MoneyMotivation.]
posted by Iris Gambol at 5:52 PM on April 29, 2019 [120 favorites]
All About Pete
Reddit: A final response to the Current Affairs hitjob
posted by OnceUponATime at 6:15 PM on April 29, 2019 [1 favorite]
Reddit: A final response to the Current Affairs hitjob
posted by OnceUponATime at 6:15 PM on April 29, 2019 [1 favorite]
Mod note: That previous Pete Buttigieg thread is still open for another few days, so please head over there if you want to dig in more on that. Thanks.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 6:28 PM on April 29, 2019 [7 favorites]
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 6:28 PM on April 29, 2019 [7 favorites]
BuzzFeed, Trump Wants To Speed Up Asylum Cases And Start Charging An Application Fee
posted by zachlipton at 6:32 PM on April 29, 2019 [10 favorites]
President Trump directed top immigration officials on Monday to issue new regulations to speed up the resolution of asylum cases in court and institute a fee for asylum applications. Trump also wants to limit employment permits for those who cross the border without authorization.Welcome huddled masses! Pay up or else!
Trump called on acting Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kevin McAleenan and Attorney General William Barr to “take all appropriate actions” to propose the regulations within 90 days.
posted by zachlipton at 6:32 PM on April 29, 2019 [10 favorites]
WaPo, Trump’s lack of cooperation with Congress intensifies impeachment push in House, in which more moderate Democrats are starting to talk impeachment as Trump stonewalls on investigations.
Frustration among House Democratic investigators is intensifying after President Trump’s refusal to cooperate with congressional inquiries, leading some to privately question whether they should try to pressure Speaker Nancy Pelosi into launching impeachment proceedings.posted by zachlipton at 6:44 PM on April 29, 2019 [10 favorites]
The chairmen and members of the six panels investigating the president are increasingly angered by the White House’s unwillingness to comply as they carry out their oversight role, according to several House Democratic officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the matter freely. But that anger extends into the ranks of Pelosi’s team as well, according to multiple leadership officials.
...
During a House leadership meeting Monday night, Pelosi (Calif.) argued that the Democratic caucus needed to continue “building the case” for impeachment — if that’s where it ultimately ends up. But she emphasized that the House had to remain focused on its legislative agenda.
“We have to deliver,” she said at several points in the meeting, according to participants who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the session.
“We have to deliver,” [Pelosi] said at several points in the meeting, according to participants who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the session.Deliver what? To whom? What does that even mean when the opposition party controls the executive branch, the other house of the legislature, and (increasingly) the judiciary?
Yes, the Democrats should continue trying to do whatever they can to use the powers of the house to mitigate the harm being done to the country and to force Trump and McConnell to the bargaining table if they want anything that needs legislative action. But majority leadership of a single house of the legislature is going to do very little to advance the Democrats' agenda. The investigatory and oversight powers that it gives, however, actually do stand some chance of benefiting the country.
It's OK if she doesn't want to say "Our number one goal is to get to the bottom of what happened and impeach if necessary," because of some crafty tactical considerations but I pay quite a lot of attention to politics and even I have no idea what she credibly hopes to deliver legislatively in the current climate. And I really can't tell whether the "we have to move the country forward (even though we have no leverage to do so and the other party opposes everything we advocate)" is diversion or delusion.
posted by Nerd of the North at 7:18 PM on April 29, 2019 [6 favorites]
During a House leadership meeting Monday night, Pelosi (Calif.) argued that the Democratic caucus needed to continue “building the case” for impeachment — if that’s where it ultimately ends up. But she emphasized that the House had to remain focused on its legislative agenda.
Yeah I dunno that smacks of "having serious concern" to me. Pelosi, of all people, understands where the train is going.
So let's take that as a thought exercise for a second - Let's say Pelosi knows full well he should be impeached, can be impeached, and that the Senate R's and Fox will squawk and puff and ultimately kick it down. Okay, that's the given. So what's her game?
Play it "But her emails"-style and grind them through 18 months of shrieking headlines?
Or does she really think it's not justified and it's left to the voters to decide? Like if all the things voters have representation to do they should do themselves. Y'know hey guise let's go interview Michael Caputo and see if he cracks! Then we'll vote the heck out of November 2020, after we all secure a free and fair election, as private citizens, natch.
Or - hey it's a thought exercise - she's on the gravy train and we're just supposed to let her slow roll it until all that tiresome regulation is gone. I mean, - ?
posted by petebest at 7:19 PM on April 29, 2019 [2 favorites]
Yeah I dunno that smacks of "having serious concern" to me. Pelosi, of all people, understands where the train is going.
So let's take that as a thought exercise for a second - Let's say Pelosi knows full well he should be impeached, can be impeached, and that the Senate R's and Fox will squawk and puff and ultimately kick it down. Okay, that's the given. So what's her game?
Play it "But her emails"-style and grind them through 18 months of shrieking headlines?
Or does she really think it's not justified and it's left to the voters to decide? Like if all the things voters have representation to do they should do themselves. Y'know hey guise let's go interview Michael Caputo and see if he cracks! Then we'll vote the heck out of November 2020, after we all secure a free and fair election, as private citizens, natch.
Or - hey it's a thought exercise - she's on the gravy train and we're just supposed to let her slow roll it until all that tiresome regulation is gone. I mean, - ?
posted by petebest at 7:19 PM on April 29, 2019 [2 favorites]
NYT, Trump Sues Banks to Stop Them From Complying With House Subpoenas
posted by zachlipton at 7:43 PM on April 29, 2019 [49 favorites]
President Trump, his three eldest children and his private company filed a federal lawsuit on Monday against Deutsche Bank and Capital One, in a bid to prevent the banks from responding to congressional subpoenas.So this is all totally fine and normal.
posted by zachlipton at 7:43 PM on April 29, 2019 [49 favorites]
In late 2017 the House Intelligence Committee under GOP control subpoenaed Fusion GPS’s bank records and Fusion sued to stop the bank from giving the info.
Fusion lost and the bank had to give up the records.
posted by chris24 at 7:58 PM on April 29, 2019 [11 favorites]
Fusion lost and the bank had to give up the records.
posted by chris24 at 7:58 PM on April 29, 2019 [11 favorites]
Mod note: A few comments deleted - please take the Pete Buttigieg/ "Jacob Wohl ginning up fake assault story" over to Pete Buttigieg thread
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 7:58 PM on April 29, 2019 [3 favorites]
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 7:58 PM on April 29, 2019 [3 favorites]
This is absolutely bonkers.
Mattis ignored orders from Trump, White House on North Korea, Iran: report
Mattis ignored orders from Trump, White House on North Korea, Iran: report
Former Defense Secretary James Mattis declined to carry out orders from President Trump or otherwise limited his options in various attempts to prevent tensions with North Korea, Iran and Syria from escalating, The New Yorker reported Monday, the latest account of Trump’s own officials trying to check his worst instincts.
"The president thinks out loud. Do you treat it like an order? Or do you treat it as part of a longer conversation? We treated it as part of a longer conversation," a former senior national security official told The New Yorker.
"We prevented a lot of bad things from happening."
In 2017, following a series of North Korean ballistic missile tests, Trump ordered the Pentagon to begin removing the spouses and children of military personnel from South Korea, where the U.S. military has a base. An administration official told the magazine that "Mattis just ignored" the order.
In another instance in the fall of 2017, as White House officials were planning a private meeting at Camp David to develop military options for a possible conflict with North Korea, Mattis allegedly stopped the gathering from happening. He ignored a request from then-national security adviser H.R. McMaster to send officers and planners, according to a former senior administration official.posted by scalefree at 8:20 PM on April 29, 2019 [36 favorites]
Looks like Stacey Abrams has decided not to run for GA-SEN.
Between this and Bullock not running in MT, Dems are going to be very hard pressed to take the Senate in 2020.
posted by Chrysostom at 9:31 PM on April 29, 2019 [9 favorites]
Between this and Bullock not running in MT, Dems are going to be very hard pressed to take the Senate in 2020.
posted by Chrysostom at 9:31 PM on April 29, 2019 [9 favorites]
In today’s installment of "I’m Not Terrified, You Are,"Bloomberg Government reports on a FedBizOpps.gov posting by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) with the relatively benign-sounding subject “Media Monitoring Services.”
The details of the attached Statement of Work, however, outline a plan to gather and monitor the public activities of media professionals and influencers and are enough to cause nightmares of constitutional proportions, particularly as the freedom of the press is under attack worldwide.
More from Michelle Kaminsky of Forbes.
posted by SecretAgentSockpuppet at 9:32 PM on April 29, 2019 [14 favorites]
The details of the attached Statement of Work, however, outline a plan to gather and monitor the public activities of media professionals and influencers and are enough to cause nightmares of constitutional proportions, particularly as the freedom of the press is under attack worldwide.
More from Michelle Kaminsky of Forbes.
posted by SecretAgentSockpuppet at 9:32 PM on April 29, 2019 [14 favorites]
Morning Consult has their first 2020 Dem poll with post-Biden launch numbers; according to them he got about a 6 point bump from his announcement, similar to what Harris and Sanders saw. Note that everyone else's bump faded in the weeks or months after their announcement and it's possible or likely that Biden's will as well. But Biden has at least a temporarily sizable advantage after his rollout.
They have it at Biden 36%, Sanders 22%, and everybody else in single digits. Obviously there's a big difference between being Harris/Buttigieg/Warren at 7-9% and most candidates at 0-2% but there's too damn many to report them all so if you're interested in the numbers here's the link to the MC polling.
posted by Justinian at 9:48 PM on April 29, 2019 [1 favorite]
They have it at Biden 36%, Sanders 22%, and everybody else in single digits. Obviously there's a big difference between being Harris/Buttigieg/Warren at 7-9% and most candidates at 0-2% but there's too damn many to report them all so if you're interested in the numbers here's the link to the MC polling.
posted by Justinian at 9:48 PM on April 29, 2019 [1 favorite]
Between this and Bullock not running in MT, Dems are going to be very hard pressed to take the Senate in 2020.
Why is she declining to run? Angling for a VP nod?
posted by Justinian at 9:49 PM on April 29, 2019 [1 favorite]
Why is she declining to run? Angling for a VP nod?
posted by Justinian at 9:49 PM on April 29, 2019 [1 favorite]
I'm right now listening to Mueller She Wrote's podcast book club reading of the report. These women are experts on this, they've studied the investigation from day zero and they have the insight, they know the names, they know the politics. I think at the moment it's only available to patrons, which is 3 bucks a month. They're going to make it publicly available with ads at some point. They predict it's going to be 10 parts or more.
I know it's on Amazon for free, but this is the way I choose to digest this report. Good mental food deserves good company, and I trust these women. And I sort of need their humor.
Jaleesa just asked what do we know about citizen's arrest?, and now I know what I'm going to dream about tonight.
posted by adept256 at 9:56 PM on April 29, 2019 [10 favorites]
I know it's on Amazon for free, but this is the way I choose to digest this report. Good mental food deserves good company, and I trust these women. And I sort of need their humor.
Jaleesa just asked what do we know about citizen's arrest?, and now I know what I'm going to dream about tonight.
posted by adept256 at 9:56 PM on April 29, 2019 [10 favorites]
NYT, Trump Sues Banks to Stop Them From Complying With House Subpoenas
How much does this crime family owe the Russian mob? Clearly they have something massive to hide in their bank records by resorting to these end-runs around the law.
If this doesn't wake up Pelosi et al. from their hemming and hawing and get them to take their Constitutionally-mandated jobs seriously, little else will.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 10:43 PM on April 29, 2019 [7 favorites]
How much does this crime family owe the Russian mob? Clearly they have something massive to hide in their bank records by resorting to these end-runs around the law.
If this doesn't wake up Pelosi et al. from their hemming and hawing and get them to take their Constitutionally-mandated jobs seriously, little else will.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 10:43 PM on April 29, 2019 [7 favorites]
Mattis ignored orders from Trump, White House on North Korea, Iran: report
This is a Hill story that summarizes some of the New Yorker's John Bolton on the Warpath by Dexter Filkins, which is worth reading in full. One more quote, in which a former Bolton aide is willing to sign his name to this:
That's from April 2018's installment of "I’m Not Terrified, You Are."
posted by zachlipton at 10:43 PM on April 29, 2019 [11 favorites]
This is a Hill story that summarizes some of the New Yorker's John Bolton on the Warpath by Dexter Filkins, which is worth reading in full. One more quote, in which a former Bolton aide is willing to sign his name to this:
In addition to giving Trump a rundown of potential national threats each morning, Bolton attends the President’s Daily Brief, a top-secret meeting with Gina Haspel, the head of the C.I.A., and Dan Coats, the director of National Intelligence. Trump prefers to hold these meetings just two or three times a week, and is famously susceptible to distractions—people walking into the office, telephone calls, even houseflies. Aides have found that detailed briefings provoke impatience; graphics and bullet points work better, and relatable photographs better still. “Bolton gets to the point very fast,” a senior Administration official told me. “He’s very brief, and the President appreciates that.” Groombridge, the former aide, said, “John is thinking, To the extent I can modify or mollify the President’s actions, I will. He is truly a patriot. But I wonder how he goes into work every day, because deep in his heart he believes the President is a moron.”In today’s installment of "I’m Not Terrified, You Are,"Bloomberg Government reports on a FedBizOpps.gov posting by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) with the relatively benign-sounding subject “Media Monitoring Services.”
That's from April 2018's installment of "I’m Not Terrified, You Are."
posted by zachlipton at 10:43 PM on April 29, 2019 [11 favorites]
Why is she declining to run? Angling for a VP nod?
She hasn't made a public statement yet, although I think she's supposed to tomorrow. I think it was just that she's never been interested in Senate at all.
posted by Chrysostom at 10:49 PM on April 29, 2019 [2 favorites]
She hasn't made a public statement yet, although I think she's supposed to tomorrow. I think it was just that she's never been interested in Senate at all.
posted by Chrysostom at 10:49 PM on April 29, 2019 [2 favorites]
Strange, Senator is probably the best job in government.
posted by Justinian at 10:53 PM on April 29, 2019 [1 favorite]
posted by Justinian at 10:53 PM on April 29, 2019 [1 favorite]
How much does this crime family owe the Russian mob?
I don't think that's how it works with these guys. I think they're all indebted to each other in some way, favors flow back and forth and there is a generalized accounting among the players and that's what makes those players bosses. I wouldn't be surprised if Trump doesn't have stuff to hold over Putin's head. Heck, it may be that all the alliances he's been jettisoning are with countries and leaders that this cartel isn't involved with.
I have a feeling Congressional action is going to "gradually, then suddenly," and people are now starting to call out Mitch, so we'll see what that looks like. I do still think that Nancy & Chuck are the last ones who will voice support, and that will be after significant Republicans cross the fold.
posted by rhizome at 11:05 PM on April 29, 2019 [10 favorites]
I don't think that's how it works with these guys. I think they're all indebted to each other in some way, favors flow back and forth and there is a generalized accounting among the players and that's what makes those players bosses. I wouldn't be surprised if Trump doesn't have stuff to hold over Putin's head. Heck, it may be that all the alliances he's been jettisoning are with countries and leaders that this cartel isn't involved with.
I have a feeling Congressional action is going to "gradually, then suddenly," and people are now starting to call out Mitch, so we'll see what that looks like. I do still think that Nancy & Chuck are the last ones who will voice support, and that will be after significant Republicans cross the fold.
posted by rhizome at 11:05 PM on April 29, 2019 [10 favorites]
Apologies for missing the earlier Buttigieg thread; thanks for pointing me to it.
posted by clawsoon at 3:50 AM on April 30, 2019 [1 favorite]
posted by clawsoon at 3:50 AM on April 30, 2019 [1 favorite]
"Mattis just ignored" the order.
Even more baffling to me than the fact that cabinet-level officials just ignore orders is the fact that Trump seems to forget to follow up on his own orders. I mean, if I order my SoD to evacuate military families from one of the tensest borders in the world, and that doesn't happen... I'd probably notice. He really is a toddler you can distract with the pretty shiny vroom vrooms, isn't he?
/pillowscream
posted by Rykey at 4:28 AM on April 30, 2019 [39 favorites]
Even more baffling to me than the fact that cabinet-level officials just ignore orders is the fact that Trump seems to forget to follow up on his own orders. I mean, if I order my SoD to evacuate military families from one of the tensest borders in the world, and that doesn't happen... I'd probably notice. He really is a toddler you can distract with the pretty shiny vroom vrooms, isn't he?
/pillowscream
posted by Rykey at 4:28 AM on April 30, 2019 [39 favorites]
Between this and Bullock not running in MT, Dems are going to be very hard pressed to take the Senate in 2020.
Yglesias: Democrats struggling with senate recruiting is a bigger deal for policy than the 2020 primary.
People don’t want to run longshot races but Dems need to win some if they want to actually want to govern.
posted by T.D. Strange at 4:41 AM on April 30, 2019 [28 favorites]
Yglesias: Democrats struggling with senate recruiting is a bigger deal for policy than the 2020 primary.
People don’t want to run longshot races but Dems need to win some if they want to actually want to govern.
posted by T.D. Strange at 4:41 AM on April 30, 2019 [28 favorites]
The Tweeterers on that Stacey Abrams' link above suggest Sally Yates may be a candidate? As in former AG-for-a-hot-minute Sally Yates?
a FedBizOpps.gov posting by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) with the relatively benign-sounding subject “Media Monitoring Services.”
One of the biggest disappointments in the Turmp timeline (there's understatement) has been the corporate media's complete inability (refusal?) to change. They absolutely will not be reporting on their own decimation, which is just weird. Maybe Shepherd Smith will get out a yelp before being dragged off-camera.
posted by petebest at 5:30 AM on April 30, 2019 [7 favorites]
a FedBizOpps.gov posting by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) with the relatively benign-sounding subject “Media Monitoring Services.”
One of the biggest disappointments in the Turmp timeline (there's understatement) has been the corporate media's complete inability (refusal?) to change. They absolutely will not be reporting on their own decimation, which is just weird. Maybe Shepherd Smith will get out a yelp before being dragged off-camera.
posted by petebest at 5:30 AM on April 30, 2019 [7 favorites]
Finally, Schiff says House will make a criminal referral of Trump ally Erik Prince for possible perjury (WaPo)
posted by peeedro at 6:49 AM on April 30, 2019 [51 favorites]
posted by peeedro at 6:49 AM on April 30, 2019 [51 favorites]
Security Experts Unite Over the Right to Repair (Louise Matsakis for Wired, April 30, 2019)
The FTC Hearing link states that it's actually a workshop titled "Nixing the Fix: A Workshop on Repair Restrictions," where "Staff of the Federal Trade Commission will host a workshop on July 16, 2019 to examine ways in which manufacturers may limit third-party repairs and is seeking research focused on such limitations." It'll be interesting to see what comes of this July 16th workshop.
posted by filthy light thief at 7:12 AM on April 30, 2019 [14 favorites]
... with right to repair legislation gaining traction across the country, a new nonprofit advocacy group called Securepairs.org wants to push back against that kind of messaging, arguing instead that devices can be both easy to fix and secure. Democratic presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren recently proposed (Medium) a national right to repair law (Wired), and the Federal Trade Commission is holding a hearing (FTC.gov) on the issue in July. Over a dozen states are also currently considering right to repair bills, including Apple’s home state of California, which will hold a hearing on its version Tuesday.Farmers are included because
To avoid the draconian locks that John Deere puts on the tractors they buy, farmers throughout America's heartland have started hacking their equipment with firmware that's cracked in Eastern Europe and traded on invite-only, paid online forums.(Motherboard article by Jason Koebler, March 21, 2017)
The FTC Hearing link states that it's actually a workshop titled "Nixing the Fix: A Workshop on Repair Restrictions," where "Staff of the Federal Trade Commission will host a workshop on July 16, 2019 to examine ways in which manufacturers may limit third-party repairs and is seeking research focused on such limitations." It'll be interesting to see what comes of this July 16th workshop.
posted by filthy light thief at 7:12 AM on April 30, 2019 [14 favorites]
Some good news for a change: Federal Court Issues Statewide Injunction Against Wisconsin’s Categorical Medicaid Exclusion on Transgender Healthcare.
"On April 23, 2019, a federal court issued a preliminary injunction invalidating Wisconsin’s categorical exclusion on coverage for medically-necessary gender-confirming treatments for transgender Medicaid beneficiaries. The injunction bars enforcement of the discriminatory exclusion, which has been in effect since 1997, to deny coverage for treatments for gender dysphoria. The court also certified the case as a class action on behalf of all transgender Wisconsin Medicaid beneficiaries seeking treatments for gender dysphoria." The trial is scheduled for September 2019.
posted by Bella Donna at 7:17 AM on April 30, 2019 [23 favorites]
"On April 23, 2019, a federal court issued a preliminary injunction invalidating Wisconsin’s categorical exclusion on coverage for medically-necessary gender-confirming treatments for transgender Medicaid beneficiaries. The injunction bars enforcement of the discriminatory exclusion, which has been in effect since 1997, to deny coverage for treatments for gender dysphoria. The court also certified the case as a class action on behalf of all transgender Wisconsin Medicaid beneficiaries seeking treatments for gender dysphoria." The trial is scheduled for September 2019.
posted by Bella Donna at 7:17 AM on April 30, 2019 [23 favorites]
NYT, Trump Sues Banks to Stop Them From Complying With House Subpoenas
The NYT's Nicholas Fandos: "Maxine Waters this morning on the Trump lawsuit trying to effectively quash her subpoena for bank records: “He can file his lawsuit, but that’s not the end of this game.” Says House Dems will be fighting back."
Politico's Kyle Cheney:
posted by Doktor Zed at 7:40 AM on April 30, 2019 [32 favorites]
The NYT's Nicholas Fandos: "Maxine Waters this morning on the Trump lawsuit trying to effectively quash her subpoena for bank records: “He can file his lawsuit, but that’s not the end of this game.” Says House Dems will be fighting back."
Politico's Kyle Cheney:
OF NOTE: Trump's lawsuit against Deutsche Bank attributes to House Democrats a bunch of things they didn't say. And one is actually the headline of a story about the NY state attorney general (not a quote)" [a Vanity Fair article is the real source of the misattributed quotes]Sounds like Trump can hire only third-rate legal representation at this point.
For example, the suit quotes John Yarmuth as saying the Democratic majority "would" be brutal for Trump. Yarmuth actually told POLITICO it "could" be brutal.
Here's how the suit characterizes a Hoyer quote versus what he actually said [screenshots 1 & 2]
posted by Doktor Zed at 7:40 AM on April 30, 2019 [32 favorites]
Heck, it may be that all the alliances he's been jettisoning are with countries and leaders that this cartel isn't involved with.
I think you may be onto something here because the one European country he doesn't openly antagonize is the UK. Which is rather famous for 'The City', London's quasi independent oligarch money-laundering operation.
posted by srboisvert at 8:09 AM on April 30, 2019 [8 favorites]
I think you may be onto something here because the one European country he doesn't openly antagonize is the UK. Which is rather famous for 'The City', London's quasi independent oligarch money-laundering operation.
posted by srboisvert at 8:09 AM on April 30, 2019 [8 favorites]
Mod note: A few deleted; let's keep this thread more narrowly for potus stuff and closely related national level stuff. If gun violence PSA merits discussion probably it should get its own post.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 8:11 AM on April 30, 2019
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 8:11 AM on April 30, 2019
Trump’s campaign manager gave a paid speech in Romania, prompting ethics concerns (WaPo):
Legal analysts said that Parscale’s visit breaks no laws so long as he does not do any lobbying in the United States on behalf of foreign clients without registering. But ethics experts said any money changing hands between foreign citizens and campaign officials created an obstacle course of potential risks. And some ethics lawyers worried that Parscale’s engagement — which received little attention outside Romania at the time — is a sign that the 2016 Trump campaign’s freewheeling approach to foreign contacts may be carrying over to its 2020 successor.posted by peeedro at 8:33 AM on April 30, 2019 [8 favorites]
Democrats Face Uphill Fight for Senate (NBCNews (via))
First Read: “Here’s the math: With the GOP holding a 53-47 advantage right now, Democrats must pick up a net of three Senate seats to win control of the chamber if they win the White House (with the vice president getting to break 50-50 ties).”
“And here’s the map: GOP Sen. Cory Gardner is vulnerable in Colorado; Democrats have recruited Mark Kelly to run against GOP Sen. Martha McSally in Arizona; but Dem Sen. Doug Jones is going to have a challenge hanging on in Alabama in a presidential year.”
“So assuming Dem wins in Arizona and Colorado — as well as a loss in Alabama — Democrats have to beat Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, plus flip one of Georgia, North Carolina, Iowa, Kentucky or Texas.”
“It’s doable. But it’s also daunting."
Bring in the JCPL machine that goes "bing"!
posted by petebest at 9:20 AM on April 30, 2019 [18 favorites]
First Read: “Here’s the math: With the GOP holding a 53-47 advantage right now, Democrats must pick up a net of three Senate seats to win control of the chamber if they win the White House (with the vice president getting to break 50-50 ties).”
“And here’s the map: GOP Sen. Cory Gardner is vulnerable in Colorado; Democrats have recruited Mark Kelly to run against GOP Sen. Martha McSally in Arizona; but Dem Sen. Doug Jones is going to have a challenge hanging on in Alabama in a presidential year.”
“So assuming Dem wins in Arizona and Colorado — as well as a loss in Alabama — Democrats have to beat Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, plus flip one of Georgia, North Carolina, Iowa, Kentucky or Texas.”
“It’s doable. But it’s also daunting."
Bring in the JCPL machine that goes "bing"!
posted by petebest at 9:20 AM on April 30, 2019 [18 favorites]
Pompeo says #US backs #Venezuela's Guaidó in call for military uprising against Maduro.
Guaido calls for troops to support uprising against Maduro and claims coup is under way.
EuroNews live
posted by adamvasco at 9:39 AM on April 30, 2019 [4 favorites]
Guaido calls for troops to support uprising against Maduro and claims coup is under way.
EuroNews live
posted by adamvasco at 9:39 AM on April 30, 2019 [4 favorites]
Yahoo: Kimberly Guilfoyle: Trump Hires Ex-Fox News Host And Son’s Girlfriend to Serve On 2020 Campaign "Along with Ms Guilfoyle joining the campaign are Marty Obst*, who will serve as a senior strategist for vice presidential operations, Nathan Groth** as in-house counsel, Hannah Castillo*** as director of coalitions and Samantha Menh† as director of vice presidential operations."
Just to make Trump 2020 more nepo-tastic, Guilfoyle will be joining Don Jr., who has been campaigning for his father although he'd promised staying out of politics to run the The Trump Organization on his behalf.
* Pence's longtime finance director and gubernatorial campaign manager.
** An associate at Michael Best & Friedrich, and a former lawyer for the RNC and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker.
*** Previously Associate Director of the Office of Public Liaison at the Trump White House.
† Executive Director of Pence’s PAC, Great America Committee.
posted by Doktor Zed at 10:04 AM on April 30, 2019 [8 favorites]
Just to make Trump 2020 more nepo-tastic, Guilfoyle will be joining Don Jr., who has been campaigning for his father although he'd promised staying out of politics to run the The Trump Organization on his behalf.
* Pence's longtime finance director and gubernatorial campaign manager.
** An associate at Michael Best & Friedrich, and a former lawyer for the RNC and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker.
*** Previously Associate Director of the Office of Public Liaison at the Trump White House.
† Executive Director of Pence’s PAC, Great America Committee.
posted by Doktor Zed at 10:04 AM on April 30, 2019 [8 favorites]
ongoing clashes between military, protesters in Venezuela, Juan Guaido calls on military to support uprising against Maduro government in "final phase of Operation Freedom" MetaFilter post
posted by the man of twists and turns at 10:12 AM on April 30, 2019 [4 favorites]
posted by the man of twists and turns at 10:12 AM on April 30, 2019 [4 favorites]
Stephen Moore knows what the real problem is.
posted by Bacon Bit at 11:08 AM on April 30, 2019 [1 favorite]
posted by Bacon Bit at 11:08 AM on April 30, 2019 [1 favorite]
Well, it really looks like multiple infrastructure weeks coming up!
NYT: Trump and Democrats Agree to Pursue $2 Trillion Infrastructure Plan
posted by RedOrGreen at 11:44 AM on April 30, 2019 [10 favorites]
NYT: Trump and Democrats Agree to Pursue $2 Trillion Infrastructure Plan
Democratic congressional leaders said that President Trump had agreed to pursue a plan to upgrade the nation’s highways, railroads, bridges and broadband. After a meeting of “good will” at the White House, the leaders will meet again in three weeks to discuss how to actually pay for the ambitious project.My personal reaction is just, WTF. The Democratic congressional leaders have stronger stomachs than I do, to negotiate with a bunch of wannabe-fascists and criminals in office as if things were normal.
... “In previous meetings, the president has said if these investigations continue, I can’t work with you,” Mr. Schumer said of the president. “He didn’t bring it up. I believe we can do both at once,” Mr. Schumer added. “The two are not mutually exclusive, and we were glad he didn’t make it that way.”
posted by RedOrGreen at 11:44 AM on April 30, 2019 [10 favorites]
Sure, let's just give him a political win on his other signature issue that he's made zero progress on to date, right before the election really gets going. How much more Democrat could you get? None. None more Democrat.
posted by T.D. Strange at 12:00 PM on April 30, 2019 [24 favorites]
posted by T.D. Strange at 12:00 PM on April 30, 2019 [24 favorites]
" the leaders will meet again in three weeks to discuss how to actually pay for the ambitious project"
Pretty sure that's where things will stop and progress will remain at zero.
posted by mikepop at 12:03 PM on April 30, 2019 [9 favorites]
Pretty sure that's where things will stop and progress will remain at zero.
posted by mikepop at 12:03 PM on April 30, 2019 [9 favorites]
chunks of the Richmond Bridge keep falling off; I really don't want anybody to plummet into the sea to own the fashies.
posted by prize bull octorok at 12:04 PM on April 30, 2019 [27 favorites]
posted by prize bull octorok at 12:04 PM on April 30, 2019 [27 favorites]
I guess well all hold our collective breath to see if Chuck and Nancy are down with the "well juts stiff the contractors and not pay any of them" as the financing plan in 3 weeks time.
posted by Exceptional_Hubris at 12:21 PM on April 30, 2019 [2 favorites]
posted by Exceptional_Hubris at 12:21 PM on April 30, 2019 [2 favorites]
They are meeting again in three weeks to discuss "how to pay for it"? That's... the entire discussion. This is like me meeting with a broke buddy and we decide that we really should get a Ferrari and we'll meet again in a couple weeks to figure out the details.
posted by Justinian at 12:27 PM on April 30, 2019 [13 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 12:27 PM on April 30, 2019 [13 favorites]
(Remember, they revived PayGo).
posted by Justinian at 12:27 PM on April 30, 2019 [4 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 12:27 PM on April 30, 2019 [4 favorites]
mikepop: " the leaders will meet again in three weeks to discuss how to actually pay for the ambitious project"
Pretty sure that's where things will stop and progress will remain at zero.
Trump, Democrats Grasp for Funding Answers on Infrastructure (Laura Litvan and Mark Niquette for Bloomberg, April 30, 2019)
From February 2018, CNN Money had a review of Trump's proposal (53 page PDF):
And as touted in the official White House press release last year, "This empowers States and localities to make more infrastructure investment decisions and prioritize projects based on the needs of their communities."
Because the real problem is that local entities and states are just hoarding their infrastructure investment funds, because the Feds have been so generous, which leads to low-priority projects getting built for shits and giggles.
In other words, Trump’s long-awaited infrastructure plan is a fraud (Think Progress, Feb. 2018)
posted by filthy light thief at 12:29 PM on April 30, 2019 [8 favorites]
Pretty sure that's where things will stop and progress will remain at zero.
Trump, Democrats Grasp for Funding Answers on Infrastructure (Laura Litvan and Mark Niquette for Bloomberg, April 30, 2019)
* Both sides avoid specifying size of plan and financing needsI know there are various strategies for bargaining and negotiating, but I'm not optimistic for compromise to come from these two positions.
* Even the much-debated Gateway plan is stuck in funding impasse
President Donald Trump and Democratic leaders enter infrastructure talks on Tuesday already at odds over how to pay for the massive investments that American voters say their communities desperately need.
Before their first White House meeting since January’s government shutdown, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer made it clear in a Monday letter to Trump that they will push for a “substantial, new and real” source of revenue to pay for (Speaker.gov; PDF) infrastructure projects.
Schumer, speaking later on the Senate floor, suggested clawing back part of the GOP’s “massive mammoth tax break to big corporations and the already wealthy” to pay for an infrastructure deal.
The White House has been hesitant to define the scope of investment needed and wary of specifying a funding source or how to deploy federal dollars. Since Trump took office, his aides have favored a mix of some federal spending and seed money to encourage larger investments of state, local and private capital. Congressional Republicans have slammed the suggestion that trimming tax cuts could pay for infrastructure.
From February 2018, CNN Money had a review of Trump's proposal (53 page PDF):
The White House says its plan will create $1.5 trillion for repairing and upgrading America's infrastructure.In this example, Trump's team is "count money already spent as part of 4:1 match ratio," to boost the numbers they can report. You know, the old "less bang for your buck" plan.
Only $200 billion of that, however, would come from direct federal spending. The rest is supposed to come from state and local governments, which are expected to match any federal allocation by at least a four-to-one ratio. States have gradually assumed more of the responsibility for funding infrastructure in recent years, and the White House says it wants to accelerate that trend.
"What we really want to do is provide opportunities for state and local governments to receive federal funding when they're doing what's politically hard, and increasing investment in infrastructure," DJ Gribbin, Trump's special assistant for infrastructure, said to the United States Conference of Mayors last month.
However, existing funding sources — such as sales taxes that have already been levied to pay for transit projects — may count towards a local jurisdiction's contribution.
And as touted in the official White House press release last year, "This empowers States and localities to make more infrastructure investment decisions and prioritize projects based on the needs of their communities."
Because the real problem is that local entities and states are just hoarding their infrastructure investment funds, because the Feds have been so generous, which leads to low-priority projects getting built for shits and giggles.
In other words, Trump’s long-awaited infrastructure plan is a fraud (Think Progress, Feb. 2018)
posted by filthy light thief at 12:29 PM on April 30, 2019 [8 favorites]
Hard to imagine what Pelosi and Schumer think this will accomplish. Given the 100% certainty that no actual infrastructure will ever be built as a result of this meeting, it seems like a lose-lose scenario for Democrats.
posted by Nat "King" Cole Porter Wagoner at 12:32 PM on April 30, 2019 [8 favorites]
posted by Nat "King" Cole Porter Wagoner at 12:32 PM on April 30, 2019 [8 favorites]
It's a win if Pelosi can trick the President into boastfully taking credit for the plan's eventual collapse. Again.
posted by notyou at 12:37 PM on April 30, 2019 [5 favorites]
posted by notyou at 12:37 PM on April 30, 2019 [5 favorites]
the leaders will meet again in three weeks to discuss how to actually pay for the ambitious project
hey here's an idea, what if we raised taxes on corporations and high earners? i hear there's a lot of money we're currently leaving on the table there
posted by murphy slaw at 12:40 PM on April 30, 2019 [15 favorites]
hey here's an idea, what if we raised taxes on corporations and high earners? i hear there's a lot of money we're currently leaving on the table there
posted by murphy slaw at 12:40 PM on April 30, 2019 [15 favorites]
I doubt it would get anywhere, but if Pelosi puts a plan together then the Senate shoots it down because reasons, there could be several political effects that would benefit the Dems in the build up to 2020. Trump could fire at the Senate Republicans for stalling the plan, Democrats would show their willingness to work with Trump even as they investigate him, Republican messaging could be jammed up badly, and the idea of a better Democratic infrastructure plan would already have a pretty good seed planted.
But no, I don't think any workable plan will be signed into law.
posted by Lord Chancellor at 12:40 PM on April 30, 2019 [9 favorites]
But no, I don't think any workable plan will be signed into law.
posted by Lord Chancellor at 12:40 PM on April 30, 2019 [9 favorites]
Paul Waldman and Greg Sargent (together!), Democrats offer Trump an infrastructure deal that isn’t going to happen
@StreetsblogUSA: A $2 trillion infrastructure package, without major changes in how federal transportation programs are structured, could easily lead to a lot of new highway sprawl -- worsening already large climate impacts.
posted by zachlipton at 12:44 PM on April 30, 2019 [14 favorites]
According to a source familiar with the meeting, Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon raised the issue of “fairness” in paying for the package, insisting that the middle class can’t foot the bill. At that point, per the source, Schumer “summed it up by saying: we can’t make the tax code any more regressive," and instead that it "needs to be more progressive.” This would presumably mean rolling back some of Trump’s tax cuts or raising taxes on higher earners in some other way, which Trump -- and even more so, congressional Republicans -- would all but certainly oppose.Remember that Trump's last infrastructure plan, which he advertised as $1.5 trillion, was really $200B worth of federal money with a bunch of magic assumptions that the rest of the money would come from somewhere else.
Second, how to fund an infrastructure bill points to another fundamental divide between Democrats and Republicans on this issue.
What it comes down to is that Democrats want to build infrastructure by building infrastructure. By contrast, Republicans would prefer to focus on giving tax incentives to private corporations, which would build the infrastructure and then control it, charging fees and tolls to continue to profit on it in perpetuity.
...
What’s more, as a senior Democratic aide pointed out to us, Trump just doesn’t have the bandwidth for getting something through Congress if Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell doesn’t want it to happen. “Everything the Trump administration has achieved legislatively has been pushed through by McConnell,” the aide said. “If McConnell is not on board with a deal, Trump has shown no sustained interest in getting anything across the finish line.”
Now add in the fact that Democrats will insist, as they have made clear, that any infrastructure plan should include funds to mitigate climate change and invest in clean energy. That will immediately turn Trump off; he regularly displays his contempt for clean energy, sometimes going on nonsensical rants about the horrors of windmills.
@StreetsblogUSA: A $2 trillion infrastructure package, without major changes in how federal transportation programs are structured, could easily lead to a lot of new highway sprawl -- worsening already large climate impacts.
posted by zachlipton at 12:44 PM on April 30, 2019 [14 favorites]
Quinnipiac, one of the best pollsters, has a 2020 Dem poll out. Details here. Topline numbers: Biden 38%, Warren 12%, Sanders 11%, Buttigieg 10%, everyone else lol. The two big takeaways are Biden taking a fairly commanding lead and Warren passing Sanders in a major poll for the first time.
posted by Justinian at 12:45 PM on April 30, 2019 [10 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 12:45 PM on April 30, 2019 [10 favorites]
@StreetsblogUSA: A $2 trillion infrastructure package, without major changes in how federal transportation programs are structured, could easily lead to a lot of new highway sprawl -- worsening already large climate impacts.
I'd love to hear what they have in mind. Because to really change transportation programs, you also have to change development patterns. Housing policy is climate policy (but it's bigger than just housing) (previously on the topics of climate change, housing policy, and transportation).
Nat "King" Cole Porter Wagoner: Hard to imagine what Pelosi and Schumer think this will accomplish. Given the 100% certainty that no actual infrastructure will ever be built as a result of this meeting, it seems like a lose-lose scenario for Democrats.
The problem is that the Dems have to work with the GOP to keep the government open for another 630 days (I'm not marking off days on calendars, there's a website for that -- days.to US presidential inauguration). So there has to be playing nice, even if there's little to no chance of compromise in this instance.
And they're not looking to compromise, from zachlipton's prior comment. So they meet, and each side hammers their points and positions, which also plays towards election rhetoric, and nothing changes. I anticipate more than a few continuing resolutions (Wikipedia) to push the status quo out a few more months, to keep things going.
posted by filthy light thief at 12:51 PM on April 30, 2019 [4 favorites]
I'd love to hear what they have in mind. Because to really change transportation programs, you also have to change development patterns. Housing policy is climate policy (but it's bigger than just housing) (previously on the topics of climate change, housing policy, and transportation).
Nat "King" Cole Porter Wagoner: Hard to imagine what Pelosi and Schumer think this will accomplish. Given the 100% certainty that no actual infrastructure will ever be built as a result of this meeting, it seems like a lose-lose scenario for Democrats.
The problem is that the Dems have to work with the GOP to keep the government open for another 630 days (I'm not marking off days on calendars, there's a website for that -- days.to US presidential inauguration). So there has to be playing nice, even if there's little to no chance of compromise in this instance.
And they're not looking to compromise, from zachlipton's prior comment. So they meet, and each side hammers their points and positions, which also plays towards election rhetoric, and nothing changes. I anticipate more than a few continuing resolutions (Wikipedia) to push the status quo out a few more months, to keep things going.
posted by filthy light thief at 12:51 PM on April 30, 2019 [4 favorites]
I climbed on board the Warren bandwagon in the past week, and given my narcissism, I assume a lot of other people did so, too.
This race may shape up into a competition among the not-Bidens over which of them can become THE not-Biden, and do it soon enough to be in position to grab delegates.
posted by notyou at 12:53 PM on April 30, 2019 [23 favorites]
This race may shape up into a competition among the not-Bidens over which of them can become THE not-Biden, and do it soon enough to be in position to grab delegates.
posted by notyou at 12:53 PM on April 30, 2019 [23 favorites]
This race may shape up into a competition among the not-Bidens over which of them can become THE not-Biden, and do it soon enough to be in position to grab delegates.
@NateSilver, before that poll came out:
@NateSilver, before that poll came out:
I'm not saying Warren is more likely to win the nomination than Bernie, since he probably has a larger base than her in a split field, and the field could remain divided. But if it comes down to a 1-on-1 race between Biden and X, it's maybe easier to imagine Warren being that X.posted by a snickering nuthatch at 12:59 PM on April 30, 2019 [12 favorites]
That is, a Biden vs Bernie showdown would leave a lot of important constituencies unhappy. Party activists aren't thrilled with either. Two old white guys in a party that's 60% women. Warren has somewhat fewer of those problems; she and Biden collectively cover the bases better.
Can't wait to vote for not-biden to contend for the position of not-trump, healthy democracy over here
posted by Rust Moranis at 12:59 PM on April 30, 2019 [36 favorites]
posted by Rust Moranis at 12:59 PM on April 30, 2019 [36 favorites]
I take your point, filthy light thief, but based on the material zachlipton quoted, there's been no change at all in anyone's previous position regarding an infrastructure bill. Democrats want the government to actually build some infrastructure, while Individual 1 is looking to set up some tricksy grift to funnel $$$ into the pockets of rich people and corporations.
So why meet now? I get that there are a lot of voters in favor of an infrastructure bill, but engaging in this sort of kayfabe in the hopes that it will bank-shot into a negative political outcome for Individual 1 seems ill-advised in the wake of his public statements last week defying all Congressional oversight authority.
At this point, he's basically declared war on Congress, and Pelosi and Schumer meeting with him (for any other reason than to hand him a subpoena, that is) gives the appearance of him being, for the moment anyway, a legitimate President who could reasonably be expected to keep his word in a negotiation, when literally every person in the world with an IQ over room temperature knows that's not true. Democrats should be waging total war; at this point, any acknowledgement that suggests he's a legit President makes them look like suckers.
posted by Nat "King" Cole Porter Wagoner at 1:08 PM on April 30, 2019 [14 favorites]
So why meet now? I get that there are a lot of voters in favor of an infrastructure bill, but engaging in this sort of kayfabe in the hopes that it will bank-shot into a negative political outcome for Individual 1 seems ill-advised in the wake of his public statements last week defying all Congressional oversight authority.
At this point, he's basically declared war on Congress, and Pelosi and Schumer meeting with him (for any other reason than to hand him a subpoena, that is) gives the appearance of him being, for the moment anyway, a legitimate President who could reasonably be expected to keep his word in a negotiation, when literally every person in the world with an IQ over room temperature knows that's not true. Democrats should be waging total war; at this point, any acknowledgement that suggests he's a legit President makes them look like suckers.
posted by Nat "King" Cole Porter Wagoner at 1:08 PM on April 30, 2019 [14 favorites]
Fixing the disintegrating infrastructure in this country is the right thing to do no matter what else is going on and I expect the Democrats I voted for to chew this gum while they're walking toward investigations, even if their only negotiating partner is a boiling puddle of pure spite. It's not just "kayfabe" to make Trump look bad, it's something that desperately needs to get done for the benefit of everybody in this country and if it's going to fail, let it fail through the inaction and malfeasance of Trump and the party backing him.
posted by prize bull octorok at 1:14 PM on April 30, 2019 [37 favorites]
posted by prize bull octorok at 1:14 PM on April 30, 2019 [37 favorites]
What it comes down to is that Democrats want to build infrastructure by building infrastructure. By contrast, Republicans would prefer to focus on giving tax incentives to private corporations, which would build the infrastructure and then control it, charging fees and tolls to continue to profit on it in perpetuity.
Update: Trump now thinks the Public-Private-Partnership stuff he spouted last year is nonsense.
@anniekarni: Trump tells Dems he was never in favor of public-private partnership to pay for infrastructure, which he also said at the time. Now trashes Cohn. “That was a Gary bill. That bill was so stupid.”
Join us tomorrow, when Trump changes his mind again. In the meantime, I agree with prize bull octorok: Democrats can continue to give a damn about governing, which includes caring about whether bridges are falling down or there's a functional connection between New York and New Jersey, and they can do it without being traitors.
In other news, the wheels are all falling off the Stephen Moore nomination, with Senate Republicans making it increasingly clear they wouldn't confirm him.
posted by zachlipton at 1:19 PM on April 30, 2019 [24 favorites]
Update: Trump now thinks the Public-Private-Partnership stuff he spouted last year is nonsense.
@anniekarni: Trump tells Dems he was never in favor of public-private partnership to pay for infrastructure, which he also said at the time. Now trashes Cohn. “That was a Gary bill. That bill was so stupid.”
Join us tomorrow, when Trump changes his mind again. In the meantime, I agree with prize bull octorok: Democrats can continue to give a damn about governing, which includes caring about whether bridges are falling down or there's a functional connection between New York and New Jersey, and they can do it without being traitors.
In other news, the wheels are all falling off the Stephen Moore nomination, with Senate Republicans making it increasingly clear they wouldn't confirm him.
posted by zachlipton at 1:19 PM on April 30, 2019 [24 favorites]
WaPo, At Trump golf course, undocumented employees said they were sometimes told to work extra hours without pay
posted by zachlipton at 1:24 PM on April 30, 2019 [21 favorites]
“It was that way with all the managers: Many of them told us, ‘Just clock out and then stay and do the side work,’ ” said Juarez, who spent a decade at the golf club, before leaving in May 2018. “There was a lot of side work.”Nearly 30 former employees have met with prosecutors, supplying pay stubs and other documentation in interviews focusing on wage and hour concerns.
Allegations that workers were routinely shortchanged on their pay at President Trump’s suburban country club are now the subject of an inquiry by the New York attorney general, whose investigators have interviewed more than two dozen former employees.
...
In interviews, six former Trump workers told The Washington Post that they felt systematically cheated because they were undocumented. Some told The Post about being denied promotions, vacation days and health insurance, which were offered to legal employees. The same pattern of unpaid labor was also described by a former manager.
Others recounted practices that could violate labor laws. Two told The Post that they had been required to do unpaid side work. Two others said managers made them work 60-hour weeks without paying them overtime.
...
Juarez mastered Trump’s finicky preferences. He knew to pour Trump’s Diet Coke from particular miniature glass bottles into a plastic cup, never letting Trump see anyone touch the straw. In the clubhouse computer, Trump automatically got a hefty discount, Juarez recalled: at least half off everything he ordered. He could never be brought a bill. “He would fire me for that,” Juarez said.
posted by zachlipton at 1:24 PM on April 30, 2019 [21 favorites]
The white nationalist movement is starting to act like ISIS
posted by The Whelk at 1:25 PM on April 30, 2019 [21 favorites]
posted by The Whelk at 1:25 PM on April 30, 2019 [21 favorites]
Hey, I'd like some new infrastructure as much as anyone, but pretending like this is a real negotiation when everyone knows no bill will ever happen accomplishes nothing, and has a political downside for Democrats.
Trump's refusal to accept any Congressional oversight ought to be something that fundamentally changes the rules of engagement. At this point, even pretending that any sort of substantive bill can be passed is not Pelosi and Schumer doing their jobs, it's them indulging a delusion.
posted by Nat "King" Cole Porter Wagoner at 1:28 PM on April 30, 2019 [8 favorites]
Trump's refusal to accept any Congressional oversight ought to be something that fundamentally changes the rules of engagement. At this point, even pretending that any sort of substantive bill can be passed is not Pelosi and Schumer doing their jobs, it's them indulging a delusion.
posted by Nat "King" Cole Porter Wagoner at 1:28 PM on April 30, 2019 [8 favorites]
Prepped this to post earlier and I see there was an expiration date on it, but. It's been posted in the "Maduro thread" but since we mentioned Erik earlier in here it's still kind of relevant.
Exclusive - Blackwater founder's latest sales pitch: mercenaries for Venezuela
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Erik Prince - the founder of the controversial private security firm Blackwater and a prominent supporter of U.S. President Donald Trump - has been pushing a plan to deploy a private army to help topple Venezuela’s socialist president, Nicholas Maduro, four sources with knowledge of the effort told Reuters.
So while there is a pretend discussion happening on Infrastructure, the hollowed-out executive branch is letting in ants. Anyone want to bet a cake the funding for Blackwater II isn't coming from us?
posted by petebest at 1:29 PM on April 30, 2019 [6 favorites]
Exclusive - Blackwater founder's latest sales pitch: mercenaries for Venezuela
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Erik Prince - the founder of the controversial private security firm Blackwater and a prominent supporter of U.S. President Donald Trump - has been pushing a plan to deploy a private army to help topple Venezuela’s socialist president, Nicholas Maduro, four sources with knowledge of the effort told Reuters.
So while there is a pretend discussion happening on Infrastructure, the hollowed-out executive branch is letting in ants. Anyone want to bet a cake the funding for Blackwater II isn't coming from us?
posted by petebest at 1:29 PM on April 30, 2019 [6 favorites]
Neil Gorsuch, who definitely understands regression
posted by T.D. Strange at 1:31 PM on April 30, 2019 [20 favorites]
I mean, normally we would have a regression analysis that would disaggregate the potential cause and identify to a 95th percentile degree of certainty what the reason is that persons are not filling out this form and we could attribute it to this question.Paul Waldman: When people put statistics in their Supreme Court briefs, the conservative justices say "This is just witchcraft!" When there aren't statistics, they say "How about some statistics, which is something I don't know the first thing about but will pretend I understand?" Sigh.
posted by T.D. Strange at 1:31 PM on April 30, 2019 [20 favorites]
Politico’s Natasha Bertrand: Prosecutors subpoena Roger Stone associate Credico—Randy Credico, a radio host, is expected to shed light on Stone’s efforts to connect with WikiLeaks during the 2016 election.
Buzzfeed’s Zoe Tillman has more from Stone’s uneventful status conference hearing today.
And yesterday, Politico reported Mueller wins again with appeals court ruling against Stone associate Andrew Miller.
posted by Doktor Zed at 1:32 PM on April 30, 2019 [8 favorites]
Buzzfeed’s Zoe Tillman has more from Stone’s uneventful status conference hearing today.
And yesterday, Politico reported Mueller wins again with appeals court ruling against Stone associate Andrew Miller.
posted by Doktor Zed at 1:32 PM on April 30, 2019 [8 favorites]
If the Democrats want to demonstrate they are serious about infrastructure, the House could pass a real bill without any Republican input at all, as they did with HR1 (the election reform/voting rights bill that was the first thing passed this year by the new House).
Sure, it wouldn't even get a vote in the Senate (just like HR1), but it would show what could be done starting in 2021, without treating Republicans as if they were negotiating in good faith.
posted by Nat "King" Cole Porter Wagoner at 1:35 PM on April 30, 2019 [14 favorites]
Sure, it wouldn't even get a vote in the Senate (just like HR1), but it would show what could be done starting in 2021, without treating Republicans as if they were negotiating in good faith.
posted by Nat "King" Cole Porter Wagoner at 1:35 PM on April 30, 2019 [14 favorites]
RE Gorsuch's "I mean, normally we would have a regression analysis that would disaggregate the potential cause and identify to a 95th percentile degree of certainty what the reason is that persons are not filling out this form and we could attribute it to this question."
I have taught undergraduates (at a party school) statistics, which means ive heard many many horrible, poorly reasoned and wildly off base attempts to impart statistical information via words. This is right up there with the very worst of them, something i might put on a multiple choice test as a throwaway/freebie distractor for its complete lack of grasp.
posted by Exceptional_Hubris at 1:36 PM on April 30, 2019 [43 favorites]
I have taught undergraduates (at a party school) statistics, which means ive heard many many horrible, poorly reasoned and wildly off base attempts to impart statistical information via words. This is right up there with the very worst of them, something i might put on a multiple choice test as a throwaway/freebie distractor for its complete lack of grasp.
posted by Exceptional_Hubris at 1:36 PM on April 30, 2019 [43 favorites]
If you want the bread-and-butter work of government to come to a complete halt until the Democrats control the House, Senate, and Presidency, you’re drowning the government in the bathtub under a different name.
They’ll talk, and then the House will pass exactly the infrastructure bill the House Democratic leadership wants to pass. Where it goes from there, maybe they’ll actually negotiate with someone, maybe it goes to conference, probably nothing happens. But step 1 is to pass something in the House, anyway. And if by some miracle it gets to the White House, the President signs a Democratic infrastructure bill. Which I thought was one of the things we want Democrats to do.
posted by Huffy Puffy at 1:45 PM on April 30, 2019 [10 favorites]
They’ll talk, and then the House will pass exactly the infrastructure bill the House Democratic leadership wants to pass. Where it goes from there, maybe they’ll actually negotiate with someone, maybe it goes to conference, probably nothing happens. But step 1 is to pass something in the House, anyway. And if by some miracle it gets to the White House, the President signs a Democratic infrastructure bill. Which I thought was one of the things we want Democrats to do.
posted by Huffy Puffy at 1:45 PM on April 30, 2019 [10 favorites]
“This is absurd. CNN's poll showing a "huge bump" for Biden didn't poll people under 50 (or not enough to factor in). Biden has next to no support under 50 and millennials are the biggest voting bloc in 2020. This is effectively CNN lying to the public. Look at the data yourself:”
posted by The Whelk at 1:46 PM on April 30, 2019 [31 favorites]
posted by The Whelk at 1:46 PM on April 30, 2019 [31 favorites]
CNN's national poll appears to closely match recent polls from Quinnipiac, HarrisX, and Morning Consult. They aren't identical of course, but all those post-announcement polls show Biden in the 33-39% range among potential Democratic primary voters. I don't see what supports @PatTheBerner's claim here.
Per the methodology, N/A denotes any subgroup with fewer than 125 unweighted cases. Since the sample of Dem/Dem-leaning independent registered voters was only 411 people in this poll, and they then weighted the data based on census data for age (and gender, race, education, region, and telephone usage), seeing N/A in those columns makes sense. Given the small sample, the margin of error on that question is +/- 5.9, so it's not the most useful poll in the world, but it's also not CNN lying to the public: they polled people under 50 and weighted the results accordingly.
posted by zachlipton at 2:01 PM on April 30, 2019 [15 favorites]
Per the methodology, N/A denotes any subgroup with fewer than 125 unweighted cases. Since the sample of Dem/Dem-leaning independent registered voters was only 411 people in this poll, and they then weighted the data based on census data for age (and gender, race, education, region, and telephone usage), seeing N/A in those columns makes sense. Given the small sample, the margin of error on that question is +/- 5.9, so it's not the most useful poll in the world, but it's also not CNN lying to the public: they polled people under 50 and weighted the results accordingly.
posted by zachlipton at 2:01 PM on April 30, 2019 [15 favorites]
If you want the bread-and-butter work of government to come to a complete halt until the Democrats control the House, Senate, and Presidency, you’re drowning the government in the bathtub under a different name.
They’ll talk, and then the House will pass exactly the infrastructure bill the House Democratic leadership wants to pass....
Which the House can do without a photo op and meaningless conference at the White House.
And no, I don't want the bread-and-butter work of government to come to a complete halt: but I have some bad news for you. The last major policy initiative to come out of Washington happened with the ACA. A decade ago. For a third of my whole life, the Federal government has been nearly completely paralyzed, running on autopilot. (Except for that massive tax cut for the wealthy thinger last year.)
Republicans swore to shut down the government to the best of their ability in 2010, and that's the one damn thing they've kept their word about. Instead of flirting once again with bipartisan bullshit, Democratic leadership has to act like we're in the crisis we are, actually, in. Pass a balanced, progressive budget. Pass all the wildly popular center-left and left-of-center proposals that never seem to make it to the floor of anywhere. Be the government-in-waiting.
They had a good start with the democratic reforms legislation, the wheels of investigation are creaking into place. But why, oh why, is Liz Warren's website the only place where common-sense plans are showing up for solving the multiple and overlapping problems this country faces?
I liked sunglasses-and-striding-away-in-trench-coat Nancy Pelosi. Is it political posturing? Yup, it's posturing that will get you memed on facebook as opposed to lauded in the opinion columns of the NYT for your bipartisan graciousness. Opinion columns don't vote.
posted by tivalasvegas at 2:02 PM on April 30, 2019 [34 favorites]
They’ll talk, and then the House will pass exactly the infrastructure bill the House Democratic leadership wants to pass....
Which the House can do without a photo op and meaningless conference at the White House.
And no, I don't want the bread-and-butter work of government to come to a complete halt: but I have some bad news for you. The last major policy initiative to come out of Washington happened with the ACA. A decade ago. For a third of my whole life, the Federal government has been nearly completely paralyzed, running on autopilot. (Except for that massive tax cut for the wealthy thinger last year.)
Republicans swore to shut down the government to the best of their ability in 2010, and that's the one damn thing they've kept their word about. Instead of flirting once again with bipartisan bullshit, Democratic leadership has to act like we're in the crisis we are, actually, in. Pass a balanced, progressive budget. Pass all the wildly popular center-left and left-of-center proposals that never seem to make it to the floor of anywhere. Be the government-in-waiting.
They had a good start with the democratic reforms legislation, the wheels of investigation are creaking into place. But why, oh why, is Liz Warren's website the only place where common-sense plans are showing up for solving the multiple and overlapping problems this country faces?
I liked sunglasses-and-striding-away-in-trench-coat Nancy Pelosi. Is it political posturing? Yup, it's posturing that will get you memed on facebook as opposed to lauded in the opinion columns of the NYT for your bipartisan graciousness. Opinion columns don't vote.
posted by tivalasvegas at 2:02 PM on April 30, 2019 [34 favorites]
Have a look at the HPSCI's official referral of Erik Prince to the DOJ.
That's some very damning, very black and white, very easy to understand material. This is a great place for them to start. Unlike with Jr, no one is going to buy the, "too stupid to actually have criminal intent", spin with Prince. And the war-crime-committing mercenary who is currently working for the Chinese in Iraq is not hard to sell as a villain to even pretty entrenched Republicans.
And notice how that perjury being referred leads straight back to Bannon and the transition team. Set up those dominoes.
posted by bcd at 2:35 PM on April 30, 2019 [39 favorites]
That's some very damning, very black and white, very easy to understand material. This is a great place for them to start. Unlike with Jr, no one is going to buy the, "too stupid to actually have criminal intent", spin with Prince. And the war-crime-committing mercenary who is currently working for the Chinese in Iraq is not hard to sell as a villain to even pretty entrenched Republicans.
And notice how that perjury being referred leads straight back to Bannon and the transition team. Set up those dominoes.
posted by bcd at 2:35 PM on April 30, 2019 [39 favorites]
I'd prefer that Chuck and Nancy didn't sit for pleasant chit-chats with the evil authoritarian madman.
posted by diogenes at 2:56 PM on April 30, 2019 [10 favorites]
posted by diogenes at 2:56 PM on April 30, 2019 [10 favorites]
Congressional Democrats’ emoluments lawsuit targeting President Trump’s private business can proceed, judge says (WaPo):
Democrats in Congress can move ahead with their lawsuit against President Trump alleging that his private business violates the Constitution’s ban on gifts or payments from foreign governments, a federal judge ruled Tuesday.posted by peeedro at 3:04 PM on April 30, 2019 [16 favorites]
The decision in Washington from U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan adopted a broad definition of the anti-corruption ban and could set the stage for Democratic lawmakers to begin seeking information from the Trump Organization. The Justice Department can try to delay or block the process by asking an appeals court to intervene.
The numbers for Warren and Sanders in the latest Quinnipiac poll that Justinian linked to are pretty remarkable. But it's poll of 419 Democrats and Dem leaners with a +/- 5.4% margin of error, and even good pollsters have outlier results sometimes. I'd like to believe that a bunch of Bernie supporters started reading Warren's policy proposals last week and suddenly decided to jump ship, but other polls conducted in roughly the same time frame don't seem to be picking this up. I'd like see confirmation.
posted by nangar at 3:10 PM on April 30, 2019 [5 favorites]
posted by nangar at 3:10 PM on April 30, 2019 [5 favorites]
I'd prefer that Chuck and Nancy didn't sit for pleasant chit-chats with the evil authoritarian madman as though he was a normal president.
A thing that concerns me is that even if the Dems do win the next executive branch election they will then try and parlay all the criminal charges they could bring via polite horse trading. And, in doing so, the Trumpcore Republican Party will escape all censure and justice in return for minor gestural returns.
That there leader-of-the-polls Biden: he seems like a guy who would do that.
posted by Buntix at 3:11 PM on April 30, 2019 [20 favorites]
A thing that concerns me is that even if the Dems do win the next executive branch election they will then try and parlay all the criminal charges they could bring via polite horse trading. And, in doing so, the Trumpcore Republican Party will escape all censure and justice in return for minor gestural returns.
That there leader-of-the-polls Biden: he seems like a guy who would do that.
posted by Buntix at 3:11 PM on April 30, 2019 [20 favorites]
Apparently there's a documentary about AOC ("Knock Down the House", Netflix), which is I guess great, I don't know, but here's the part from the article about the boyfriend in the documentary that relates *exactly* to the Chuck 'n Nancy news herein:
We also see in the doc that Roberts and Ocasio-Cortez’s political views align. He clearly believes in her mission and as her status as the best candidate for the job, as evidenced by him saying, “One of these core, core issues for the Democratic establishment is that their consultants are garbage.” In a true millennial fashion, he emphasizes this point by clapping his hands.
The article has an animated gif for reference, but let's attempt a translation: their consultants 👏 are 👏 garbage. 👏
I can totally belive that a line of besuited bank-friendly well-afforded folk are singing the siren song of relatable centrists to the Democratic Leadership.
posted by petebest at 3:19 PM on April 30, 2019 [8 favorites]
We also see in the doc that Roberts and Ocasio-Cortez’s political views align. He clearly believes in her mission and as her status as the best candidate for the job, as evidenced by him saying, “One of these core, core issues for the Democratic establishment is that their consultants are garbage.” In a true millennial fashion, he emphasizes this point by clapping his hands.
The article has an animated gif for reference, but let's attempt a translation: their consultants 👏 are 👏 garbage. 👏
I can totally belive that a line of besuited bank-friendly well-afforded folk are singing the siren song of relatable centrists to the Democratic Leadership.
posted by petebest at 3:19 PM on April 30, 2019 [8 favorites]
> A thing that concerns me is that even if the Dem's do win the next executive branch election they will then try and parlay all the criminal charges they could bring via polite horse trading...
That there leader-of-the-polls Biden: he seems like a guy who would do that.
One of the reasons I like Harris is that she doesn't seem like the kind of Democrat who would do that.
posted by nangar at 3:28 PM on April 30, 2019 [10 favorites]
That there leader-of-the-polls Biden: he seems like a guy who would do that.
One of the reasons I like Harris is that she doesn't seem like the kind of Democrat who would do that.
posted by nangar at 3:28 PM on April 30, 2019 [10 favorites]
With Rubio declaring that the voting in a Florida county was compromised by Russia in 2016, I decided to look at the most populous counties and see if there were anomalous changes between 2012 to 2016. Trump won Florida by 120,000 votes out of 4.6 million. (29 electoral votes)
I compared Obama versus Romney percentages to Hillary versus Trump. Not much by the way of anomalies. Of the seven most populous counties, Pinellas (St. Petersburg) had the greatest change (about 4% in favor of Trump -- Trump won 2016, Obama won in 2012).
Of course the hacking could have been in a smaller county or else the change could have been in reducing the total votes of a pro-Hillary county (among other scenarios). To examine the latter, I would need to take into account population changes.
Or it could have been in multiple counties and Rubio and others don't know.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 3:34 PM on April 30, 2019 [1 favorite]
I compared Obama versus Romney percentages to Hillary versus Trump. Not much by the way of anomalies. Of the seven most populous counties, Pinellas (St. Petersburg) had the greatest change (about 4% in favor of Trump -- Trump won 2016, Obama won in 2012).
Of course the hacking could have been in a smaller county or else the change could have been in reducing the total votes of a pro-Hillary county (among other scenarios). To examine the latter, I would need to take into account population changes.
Or it could have been in multiple counties and Rubio and others don't know.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 3:34 PM on April 30, 2019 [1 favorite]
One of the reasons I like Harris is that she doesn't seem like the kind of Democrat who would do that.
KAMALA HARRIS CELEBRATES HER ROLE IN THE MORTGAGE CRISIS SETTLEMENT. THE REALITY IS QUITE DIFFERENT
Kamala Harris Tells Big Lie: That 2012 Mortgage Settlement Was a Good Deal for Homeowners
Warren is the one taking the hardest stand on impeachment and enforcing the actual law. Harris already has a documented history of letting corporations walk.
posted by T.D. Strange at 3:37 PM on April 30, 2019 [24 favorites]
KAMALA HARRIS CELEBRATES HER ROLE IN THE MORTGAGE CRISIS SETTLEMENT. THE REALITY IS QUITE DIFFERENT
Kamala Harris Tells Big Lie: That 2012 Mortgage Settlement Was a Good Deal for Homeowners
Warren is the one taking the hardest stand on impeachment and enforcing the actual law. Harris already has a documented history of letting corporations walk.
posted by T.D. Strange at 3:37 PM on April 30, 2019 [24 favorites]
+1. I switched to Warren because of her policies, her leadership - first major candidate to talk about ending the filibuster, first to call for impeachment - and because I think she’s the one who will make sure Trump & Co are prosecuted.
posted by chris24 at 3:41 PM on April 30, 2019 [26 favorites]
posted by chris24 at 3:41 PM on April 30, 2019 [26 favorites]
William Barr will testify about the Mueller report this week. Here’s what you should know. (Jen Kirby, Vox)
The attorney general appears before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday. He’s scheduled to testify before the House on Thursday — but his appearance is still in doubt.
The attorney general appears before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday. He’s scheduled to testify before the House on Thursday — but his appearance is still in doubt.
Attorney General William Barr has a busy week ahead of him. He’s supposed to testify at back-to-back hearings in Congress about special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation and report.posted by Barack Spinoza at 3:42 PM on April 30, 2019 [3 favorites]
On Wednesday, May 1, Barr will appear before the Republican-led Senate Judiciary Committee. He’s then supposed to return to Congress on Thursday to testify before the Democratic-led House Judiciary Committee, though he’s threatened not to show up to this hearing over objections to the committee’s proposed interview format.
This is the first time the attorney general will face direct questioning from lawmakers after the release of the Mueller report earlier this month.
can we just let mefites like the candidates that they like without feeling the need to post links to "here's why your candidate is actually very bad" editorials?
posted by prize bull octorok at 3:43 PM on April 30, 2019 [15 favorites]
posted by prize bull octorok at 3:43 PM on April 30, 2019 [15 favorites]
I would like to see to see all of the "here's why your candidate is very bad" editorials, especially for the candidates I'm inclined to support.
posted by contraption at 3:47 PM on April 30, 2019 [34 favorites]
posted by contraption at 3:47 PM on April 30, 2019 [34 favorites]
sounds like a great idea for a megapost. it doesn't need to be done as one-upmanship.
posted by prize bull octorok at 3:49 PM on April 30, 2019 [12 favorites]
posted by prize bull octorok at 3:49 PM on April 30, 2019 [12 favorites]
William Barr will testify about the Mueller report this week
Chapter how-many of "Trump Always Folds?" Sure the SJC is still being brinksmanned, but I have a feeling Barr is in a too-tough place to refuse. Like, isn't there something like automatic (or merely "certain") disbarral if a lawyer ever takes the 5th? I can't think of any reason he could refuse that wasn't "I don't wanna."
posted by rhizome at 3:56 PM on April 30, 2019 [2 favorites]
Chapter how-many of "Trump Always Folds?" Sure the SJC is still being brinksmanned, but I have a feeling Barr is in a too-tough place to refuse. Like, isn't there something like automatic (or merely "certain") disbarral if a lawyer ever takes the 5th? I can't think of any reason he could refuse that wasn't "I don't wanna."
posted by rhizome at 3:56 PM on April 30, 2019 [2 favorites]
WaPo, Mueller told the attorney general that the depiction of his findings failed to capture ‘context, nature, and substance’ of probe
posted by zachlipton at 4:16 PM on April 30, 2019 [58 favorites]
Special counsel Robert S. Mueller III expressed his concerns in a letter to William P. Barr after the attorney general publicized Mueller’s principal conclusions. The letter was followed by a phone call during which Mueller pressed Barr to release executive summaries of his report.More details to come, but the gist of the story seems to be that Mueller told Barr he was full of crap.
posted by zachlipton at 4:16 PM on April 30, 2019 [58 favorites]
The perfect leak right before Barr goes before Congress. Especially the letter part since it’s harder to lie to Congress when there’s physical evidence than can be FOIAed.
posted by chris24 at 4:18 PM on April 30, 2019 [26 favorites]
posted by chris24 at 4:18 PM on April 30, 2019 [26 favorites]
It sounds like Team Mueller is prepared to bury Barr before his testimony, but as this leak comes through Matt Zapotosky, there's some bureaucratic manoeuvring going on as well:
posted by Doktor Zed at 4:23 PM on April 30, 2019 [6 favorites]
“The summary letter the Department sent to Congress and released to the public late in the afternoon of March 24 did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this office’s work and conclusions,” Mueller wrote. “There is now public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation. This threatens to undermine a central purpose for which the Department appointed the Special Counsel: to assure full public confidence in the outcome of the investigations.”And it sounds as though the description of the phone call between Barr and Mueller has a bit of spin to it:
The letter made a key request: that Barr release the 448-page report’s introductions and executive summaries, and made some initial suggested redactions for doing so, according to Justice Department officials.
Justice Department officials said Tuesday they were taken aback by the tone of Mueller’s letter, and it came as a surprise to them that he had such concerns. Until they received the letter, they believed Mueller was in agreement with them on the process of reviewing the report and redacting certain types of information, a process that took several weeks. Barr has testified to Congress previously that Mueller declined the opportunity to review his four-page letter to lawmakers that distilled the essence of the special counsel’s findings.
A day after the letter was sent, Barr and Mueller spoke by phone for about 15 minutes, according to law enforcement officials.The big question is, did whoever leak this letter to the WaPo also send it to anyone on the HJC?
In that call, Mueller said he was concerned that news coverage of the obstruction investigation was misguided and creating public misunderstandings about the office’s work, according to Justice Department officials.
When Barr pressed him whether he thought Barr’s letter was inaccurate, Mueller said he did not, but felt that the media coverage of the letter was misinterpreting the investigation, officials said.
In their call, Barr also took issue with Mueller calling his letter a “summary,” saying he had never meant his letter to summarize the voluminous report, but instead provide an account of the top conclusions, officials said.
Justice Department officials said in some ways, the phone conversation was more cordial than the letter that preceded it, but they did express some differences of opinion about how to proceed.
posted by Doktor Zed at 4:23 PM on April 30, 2019 [6 favorites]
Yeah, it reads to me like WaPo got the letter and the fact that there was also a call, and when they called Barr/DOJ for comment, WaPo got Barr’s spin on the call being friendlier, Mueller supposedly agreeing that the letter wasn’t inaccurate and the problem was the media. They couldn’t really spin the letter since it’s black and white, but the call... I’d talk that part with a huge grain of salt.
posted by chris24 at 4:29 PM on April 30, 2019 [20 favorites]
posted by chris24 at 4:29 PM on April 30, 2019 [20 favorites]
I too oppose Chuck and Nancy sitting down with Trump for any purpose while he is giving the finger to Congress regarding subpoenas. I would view such a meeting as equivalent to Trump sitting down with Kim Jong-un.
posted by M-x shell at 4:29 PM on April 30, 2019 [6 favorites]
posted by M-x shell at 4:29 PM on April 30, 2019 [6 favorites]
It's not just "kayfabe" to make Trump look bad, it's something that desperately needs to get done for the benefit of everybody in this country
We don't know what this plan will look like, but so far Democrat leadership is signalling that compromise is their strategy. It all desperately needs to be done, but will we get a green infrastructure, or a new highway system made for profit? Will we get universal healthcare, or some shoddily shored up Obamacare? Seeing Democrats go straight to the negotiating table isn't a great sign for the future.
posted by xammerboy at 4:30 PM on April 30, 2019 [3 favorites]
We don't know what this plan will look like, but so far Democrat leadership is signalling that compromise is their strategy. It all desperately needs to be done, but will we get a green infrastructure, or a new highway system made for profit? Will we get universal healthcare, or some shoddily shored up Obamacare? Seeing Democrats go straight to the negotiating table isn't a great sign for the future.
posted by xammerboy at 4:30 PM on April 30, 2019 [3 favorites]
Nate Silver has just published an analysis of recent polls "Biden Is Way Out In Front. Second Place Is Anyone’s Guess." on 538. He's a lot less skeptical about the Quinnipiac poll than I was. Warren's numbers have gone up in several recent polls, and Sanders' have gone down since Biden announced. Not as dramatically as in the Q poll but in the same direction.
He's revised his candidate rankings accordingly.
posted by nangar at 4:35 PM on April 30, 2019 [2 favorites]
He's revised his candidate rankings accordingly.
posted by nangar at 4:35 PM on April 30, 2019 [2 favorites]
Warren is the one taking the hardest stand on impeachment and enforcing the actual law. Harris already has a documented history of letting corporations walk.
A lot of people criticised Obama for the same thing. In retrospect, at least, those criticisms seem to have been very justified. I've been very impressed by Warren's release of policy positions and she's the candidate I would support if I had a vote. What worries me is that success in US politics seems to be driven by two factors: money and showmanship. I haven't seen any evidence that she can attract swooning fanpersons the way Sanders, Beto, and Buttigieg have, and her public policies are going to drive a whole lot of corporate money to her opponents. I hope I'm wrong, but I feel that with these disadvantages she just won't be able to secure the Democratic Party nomination.
posted by Joe in Australia at 4:36 PM on April 30, 2019 [3 favorites]
A lot of people criticised Obama for the same thing. In retrospect, at least, those criticisms seem to have been very justified. I've been very impressed by Warren's release of policy positions and she's the candidate I would support if I had a vote. What worries me is that success in US politics seems to be driven by two factors: money and showmanship. I haven't seen any evidence that she can attract swooning fanpersons the way Sanders, Beto, and Buttigieg have, and her public policies are going to drive a whole lot of corporate money to her opponents. I hope I'm wrong, but I feel that with these disadvantages she just won't be able to secure the Democratic Party nomination.
posted by Joe in Australia at 4:36 PM on April 30, 2019 [3 favorites]
Barr should be impeached tomorrow.
posted by T.D. Strange at 4:40 PM on April 30, 2019 [38 favorites]
posted by T.D. Strange at 4:40 PM on April 30, 2019 [38 favorites]
We don't know what this plan will look like, but so far Democrat leadership is signalling that compromise is their strategy. It all desperately needs to be done, but will we get a green infrastructure, or a new highway system made for profit? Will we get universal healthcare, or some shoddily shored up Obamacare
The answer is nothing. You will get nothing. The White House is not capable of securing any policy initiatives, even if the President were capable of expressing a coherent position longer than 140 characters; and there's practically no chance that the Senate will pass any legislation coming from the House. Pelosi and Schumer know this, and their actions are undoubtedly driven by political considerations: how would it look if they refused to meet with the President? How would it be reported? This gives them a chance to look bipartisan and point to actual legislation that might have been passed if not for Republican intransigence.
posted by Joe in Australia at 4:44 PM on April 30, 2019 [11 favorites]
The answer is nothing. You will get nothing. The White House is not capable of securing any policy initiatives, even if the President were capable of expressing a coherent position longer than 140 characters; and there's practically no chance that the Senate will pass any legislation coming from the House. Pelosi and Schumer know this, and their actions are undoubtedly driven by political considerations: how would it look if they refused to meet with the President? How would it be reported? This gives them a chance to look bipartisan and point to actual legislation that might have been passed if not for Republican intransigence.
posted by Joe in Australia at 4:44 PM on April 30, 2019 [11 favorites]
The anatomy of every NYT Trump story:
DAY 1: GOOD NEWS FOR TRUMP
DAY 3: WITH GOOD NEWS FOR TRUMP, DEMOCRATIC STRUGGLES
DAY 4: IN NEW REPORT, ISSUES FOR TRUMP
DAY 8: OKAY, HERE ARE SOME THINGS THAT REALLY DO CONTRADICT THE DAY 1 STORY
DAY 14: EXCLUSIVE: BAD NEWS FOR TRUMP
posted by T.D. Strange at 4:55 PM on April 30, 2019 [56 favorites]
DAY 1: GOOD NEWS FOR TRUMP
DAY 3: WITH GOOD NEWS FOR TRUMP, DEMOCRATIC STRUGGLES
DAY 4: IN NEW REPORT, ISSUES FOR TRUMP
DAY 8: OKAY, HERE ARE SOME THINGS THAT REALLY DO CONTRADICT THE DAY 1 STORY
DAY 14: EXCLUSIVE: BAD NEWS FOR TRUMP
posted by T.D. Strange at 4:55 PM on April 30, 2019 [56 favorites]
> I haven't seen any evidence that she can attract swooning fanpersons the way Sanders, Beto, and Buttigieg have...
Now that Nate's convinced me the movement in Warren's polling numbers is real, I'm wondering if people have been reading her policy proposals.
posted by nangar at 5:05 PM on April 30, 2019 [5 favorites]
Now that Nate's convinced me the movement in Warren's polling numbers is real, I'm wondering if people have been reading her policy proposals.
posted by nangar at 5:05 PM on April 30, 2019 [5 favorites]
Barr should be impeached tomorrow.
Julian Castro agrees, tweeting just now about this news: “Attorney General Barr willfully misled the American people to cover up attempted crimes by Donald Trump. He should resign his position or face an impeachment inquiry immediately.”
Amy Klobuchar takes note: “Major breaking news. And tomorrow Barr will have to answer for this at our hearing. Updating my questions! Mueller complained that Barr’s letter did not capture ‘context’ of Trump probe”
Kamala Harris also said: “Since the Mueller report was completed, Attorney General Barr has acted more like the president’s attorney than a protector of the rule of law. This isn't normal. Today my colleagues and I called on the DOJ Inspector General to investigate DOJ’s handling of the Mueller report.”
(Waiting for the other 2020 Dem candidates to issue statements.)
posted by Doktor Zed at 5:08 PM on April 30, 2019 [43 favorites]
Julian Castro agrees, tweeting just now about this news: “Attorney General Barr willfully misled the American people to cover up attempted crimes by Donald Trump. He should resign his position or face an impeachment inquiry immediately.”
Amy Klobuchar takes note: “Major breaking news. And tomorrow Barr will have to answer for this at our hearing. Updating my questions! Mueller complained that Barr’s letter did not capture ‘context’ of Trump probe”
Kamala Harris also said: “Since the Mueller report was completed, Attorney General Barr has acted more like the president’s attorney than a protector of the rule of law. This isn't normal. Today my colleagues and I called on the DOJ Inspector General to investigate DOJ’s handling of the Mueller report.”
(Waiting for the other 2020 Dem candidates to issue statements.)
posted by Doktor Zed at 5:08 PM on April 30, 2019 [43 favorites]
I haven't seen any evidence that she can attract swooning fanpersons the way Sanders, Beto, and Buttigieg have
Did you see her town hall? She is actually very good and dare I say charismatic in front of voters. I think she’ll do very well in the debates.
posted by chris24 at 5:10 PM on April 30, 2019 [27 favorites]
Did you see her town hall? She is actually very good and dare I say charismatic in front of voters. I think she’ll do very well in the debates.
posted by chris24 at 5:10 PM on April 30, 2019 [27 favorites]
I for one am a swooning fangirl for Elizabeth Warren. Instead of binders full of women, we get a woman with binders full of policies. And, far from being "not charismatic" and let's not forget "shrill" and/or "schoolmarm" (can we retire that word already?) people who see her town halls come away loving her.
The fact that Bernie has gone down in the polls since Biden announced says to me that to the "economically anxious" (cough) one white guy is as good as another. As long as he's white and male and poised to be the front-runner, all else is gravy.
Meanwhile, I think Warren is in a lane of her own right now and is likely to peel supporters from Bernie from the other direction - bona fide progressives who want a progressive candidate prepared to back up talk with action.
I used to love Kamala Harris, and still do; I used to love Kirsten Gillibrand, and still do and will defend her against anyone who thinks "dude process" as Scott Lemieux put it, was violated. But right now Elizabeth Warren is the one making me all giddy with her policy proposals and her upfront "Let's eat the rich so we, as a nation, can have nice things."
(Now if we really want an effective President Warren, or even a President Biden who doesn't go full tilt Third Way, we have to flip the Senate. I'm very glad that Doug Jones is the only vulnerable Democrat whose seat we have to fight to defend. Because we need every blue seat we can get.)
posted by Rosie M. Banks at 5:19 PM on April 30, 2019 [62 favorites]
The fact that Bernie has gone down in the polls since Biden announced says to me that to the "economically anxious" (cough) one white guy is as good as another. As long as he's white and male and poised to be the front-runner, all else is gravy.
Meanwhile, I think Warren is in a lane of her own right now and is likely to peel supporters from Bernie from the other direction - bona fide progressives who want a progressive candidate prepared to back up talk with action.
I used to love Kamala Harris, and still do; I used to love Kirsten Gillibrand, and still do and will defend her against anyone who thinks "dude process" as Scott Lemieux put it, was violated. But right now Elizabeth Warren is the one making me all giddy with her policy proposals and her upfront "Let's eat the rich so we, as a nation, can have nice things."
(Now if we really want an effective President Warren, or even a President Biden who doesn't go full tilt Third Way, we have to flip the Senate. I'm very glad that Doug Jones is the only vulnerable Democrat whose seat we have to fight to defend. Because we need every blue seat we can get.)
posted by Rosie M. Banks at 5:19 PM on April 30, 2019 [62 favorites]
Elizabeth Warren is *fantastic* in front of an audience. She's warm, funny, and can think on her feet like nobody's business. She's my senator and I adore her.
Re: the Senate: if she did go to the White House, Massachusetts' Republican governor would appoint a replacement to fill out her term. Surely this would be a Republican. So, much as I LOVE Elizabeth Warren, which I do, there's some unsettling senate math involved in my calculation.
posted by Sublimity at 5:25 PM on April 30, 2019 [22 favorites]
Re: the Senate: if she did go to the White House, Massachusetts' Republican governor would appoint a replacement to fill out her term. Surely this would be a Republican. So, much as I LOVE Elizabeth Warren, which I do, there's some unsettling senate math involved in my calculation.
posted by Sublimity at 5:25 PM on April 30, 2019 [22 favorites]
Who would have thought that a rando on twitter with the name PatTheBerner would lack a basic understanding of polling methodology?
posted by Justinian at 5:34 PM on April 30, 2019 [9 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 5:34 PM on April 30, 2019 [9 favorites]
Blue state Democrats should really stop voting for Republicans governors.
posted by T.D. Strange at 5:35 PM on April 30, 2019 [38 favorites]
posted by T.D. Strange at 5:35 PM on April 30, 2019 [38 favorites]
Agreed completely on that one, TD Strange. Massachusetts is peculiar in a lot of ways and this is one of them.
posted by Sublimity at 5:43 PM on April 30, 2019 [1 favorite]
posted by Sublimity at 5:43 PM on April 30, 2019 [1 favorite]
Let’s go to MSNBC’s Kyle Griffin with the video:
posted by Doktor Zed at 5:43 PM on April 30, 2019 [30 favorites]
Flashback: April 10.At this point, the Dems on the Senate Judiciary Committee should assume that Barr’s testimony borders on perjury. They need to cross-examine him like a hostile witness and not grandstand for the TV cameras.
VAN HOLLEN: Did Bob Mueller support your conclusion?
BARR: I don't know whether Bob Mueller supported my conclusion.
posted by Doktor Zed at 5:43 PM on April 30, 2019 [30 favorites]
As far as Baker being able to appoint an R senator in Warren's place: This Boston Globe article is dated 2016, when it was assumed that Warren might be Hillary Clinton's VP pick. "In the event of a Senate or House vacancy, Massachusetts currently requires a special election to be held within 145 to 160 days. In the interim, the governor has the authority to appoint a successor."
Of course, what happened the last time there was a Senate vacancy in MA (Ted Kennedy's death) the Democratic candidate's campaign was such an epic fustercluck that an election that was hers to lose was lost to the emptiest of Republican suits. So if Warren gets the Democratic nomination, MA just has to find a decent Democratic candidate to run in the special election. (I bet you pictures of dead presidents on folding paper that Seth Moulton will be tanned, rested and ready.)
posted by Rosie M. Banks at 5:51 PM on April 30, 2019 [8 favorites]
Of course, what happened the last time there was a Senate vacancy in MA (Ted Kennedy's death) the Democratic candidate's campaign was such an epic fustercluck that an election that was hers to lose was lost to the emptiest of Republican suits. So if Warren gets the Democratic nomination, MA just has to find a decent Democratic candidate to run in the special election. (I bet you pictures of dead presidents on folding paper that Seth Moulton will be tanned, rested and ready.)
posted by Rosie M. Banks at 5:51 PM on April 30, 2019 [8 favorites]
I hope Harris grills the living hell out of him and gets a bunch of positive coverage out of it, leading to a contest between the Senators in primary contention to see who can move most aggressively against the administration.
posted by contraption at 5:54 PM on April 30, 2019 [10 favorites]
posted by contraption at 5:54 PM on April 30, 2019 [10 favorites]
They need to cross-examine him like a hostile witness and not grandstand for the TV cameras.
¿Por qué no los dos?
I mean thats some good TV. Sometimes you gotta exploit the shitty media race to the shitty bottom.
posted by butterstick at 5:56 PM on April 30, 2019 [9 favorites]
¿Por qué no los dos?
I mean thats some good TV. Sometimes you gotta exploit the shitty media race to the shitty bottom.
posted by butterstick at 5:56 PM on April 30, 2019 [9 favorites]
If the Kavanaugh hearings taught us anything, it's that all the other Senators should cede their time to Harris. Cross-examination works better that way.
posted by snuffleupagus at 5:57 PM on April 30, 2019 [25 favorites]
posted by snuffleupagus at 5:57 PM on April 30, 2019 [25 favorites]
More details to come, but the gist of the story seems to be that Mueller told Barr he was full of crap.
Surely the President is familiar with lawyers who write letters.
posted by notyou at 5:58 PM on April 30, 2019 [2 favorites]
Surely the President is familiar with lawyers who write letters.
posted by notyou at 5:58 PM on April 30, 2019 [2 favorites]
Nadler's issued a statement (screenshot, via MoJo's Dan Friedman):
posted by Doktor Zed at 6:06 PM on April 30, 2019 [44 favorites]
“The Special Counsel’s concerns reflect our own. The Attorney General should not have taken it upon himself to describe the Special Counsel’s findings in a light more favorable to the President. It was only a matter of time before the facts caught up to him.Meanwhile, Sen. Brian Schatz tweets, "I’m hearing that several senior republicans in Congress are finally fed up and they are quietly planning to do nothing"
“Attorney General Barr also should not have withheld this letter from Congress for as long as he has. I have demanded a copy from the Department of Justice. I have asked that it be delivered no later than 10:00 tomorrow morning.
“The Attorney General has expressed some reluctance to appear before the House Judiciary Committee this Thursday. These reports make it that much more important for him to appear and answer our questions. The Department of Justice has also been reluctant to confirm a date for Special Counsel Mueller to testify. Given this evening’s reports, I will press the Department to schedule that hearing without delay.”
posted by Doktor Zed at 6:06 PM on April 30, 2019 [44 favorites]
Nothing would be a significant improvement over what would be active obstruction of justice in any other context.
posted by wierdo at 6:17 PM on April 30, 2019 [7 favorites]
posted by wierdo at 6:17 PM on April 30, 2019 [7 favorites]
LOL. From March 26th.
Glenn Greenwald
Truly amazing: MSNBC has succeeded in convincing a lot of people that William Barr is running around radically misrepresenting the true findings of the Mueller report & Mueller and his team of high-powered lawyers are just sitting silently by while he does it.
• How dumb & gullible do you have be to believe this? MSNBC is like an apocalyptic cult that kept promising its flock the world would end on a specific date & now that it hasn't, they have to invent new theories to keep them hooked. Hence, Mueller found collusion but Barr is lying.
- - -
The rant continues from there with video of him and everything.
posted by chris24 at 6:18 PM on April 30, 2019 [20 favorites]
Glenn Greenwald
Truly amazing: MSNBC has succeeded in convincing a lot of people that William Barr is running around radically misrepresenting the true findings of the Mueller report & Mueller and his team of high-powered lawyers are just sitting silently by while he does it.
• How dumb & gullible do you have be to believe this? MSNBC is like an apocalyptic cult that kept promising its flock the world would end on a specific date & now that it hasn't, they have to invent new theories to keep them hooked. Hence, Mueller found collusion but Barr is lying.
- - -
The rant continues from there with video of him and everything.
posted by chris24 at 6:18 PM on April 30, 2019 [20 favorites]
Aaaaaand Greenwald doubled down on his losing hand tonight. Nate Silver, among many others, is not letting him off the hook.
posted by martin q blank at 6:32 PM on April 30, 2019 [11 favorites]
posted by martin q blank at 6:32 PM on April 30, 2019 [11 favorites]
Marcy Wheeler tweeted a nice response to Greenwald. Her total lack of shock should be educational for anyone with rational thought processes who thought Barr would be an institutionalist.
posted by Silverstone at 6:33 PM on April 30, 2019 [9 favorites]
posted by Silverstone at 6:33 PM on April 30, 2019 [9 favorites]
How about a perjury referral to DOJ for the AG?
Kyle Griffin (MSNBC)
Flashback: April 9.
CRIST: Reports have emerged recently, general, that members of the Special Counsel's team are frustrated at some level with the limited information included in your March 24th letter ... Do you know what they are referencing with that?
BARR: No, I don't.
posted by chris24 at 6:49 PM on April 30, 2019 [16 favorites]
Kyle Griffin (MSNBC)
Flashback: April 9.
CRIST: Reports have emerged recently, general, that members of the Special Counsel's team are frustrated at some level with the limited information included in your March 24th letter ... Do you know what they are referencing with that?
BARR: No, I don't.
posted by chris24 at 6:49 PM on April 30, 2019 [16 favorites]
Maybe he'll say next that Robert Mueller himself is obviously not a "member of" the team, but the leader.
posted by InTheYear2017 at 6:58 PM on April 30, 2019 [2 favorites]
posted by InTheYear2017 at 6:58 PM on April 30, 2019 [2 favorites]
Greenwald won't back down because there is a tiny kernel of truth in his position. He's doing that thing that is so common these days of putting words in other people's mouth to paint their position as extremist and picking and choosing a few facts to justify his opposition to that straw man. Never mind that the ultimate conclusion is misleading because of the selective blindness he displays.
In this case, it's driven by some deep seated need to ensure that Hillary Clinton is never vindicated by the recognition of the election interference. He hates her, and all of his arguments flow from there.
posted by wierdo at 7:00 PM on April 30, 2019 [8 favorites]
In this case, it's driven by some deep seated need to ensure that Hillary Clinton is never vindicated by the recognition of the election interference. He hates her, and all of his arguments flow from there.
posted by wierdo at 7:00 PM on April 30, 2019 [8 favorites]
The NYT backs up the WaPo scoop: Mueller Objected to Barr’s Description of Russia Investigation’s Findings on Trump
Rep. Nadler: “I note with interest AG Barr’s 4/10 Senate testimony. “Q: Did Bob Mueller support your conclusion? A: I don’t know whether Bob Mueller supported my conclusion.” Now it appears that Mueller objected in this 3/27 letter.”
Just Security’s Ryan Goodman: “Bob Mueller sent his letter to Barr on March 27. I’m having a hard time understanding how this is anything but an intentional false statement to Congress (18 U.S.C 1001)”
posted by Doktor Zed at 7:02 PM on April 30, 2019 [34 favorites]
Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel, wrote a letter in late March to Attorney General William P. Barr objecting to his early description of the Russia investigation’s conclusions that appeared to clear President Trump on possible obstruction of justice, according to the Justice Department and three people with direct knowledge of the communication between the two men.[…]BU law prof Beth Ingber: “Considering the context — Mueller’s frustration over Barr’s summary — and the admission that Mueller expressed “frustration over the lack of context,” it is hard to take DOJ at its word now that Mueller actually said that nothing in the AG’s letter was misleading.“
“The special counsel emphasized that nothing in the attorney general’s March 24 letter was inaccurate or misleading,” a Justice Department spokeswoman, Kerri Kupec, said in response to a request for comment made on Tuesday afternoon. A spokesman for the special counsel’s office declined to comment.
Rep. Nadler: “I note with interest AG Barr’s 4/10 Senate testimony. “Q: Did Bob Mueller support your conclusion? A: I don’t know whether Bob Mueller supported my conclusion.” Now it appears that Mueller objected in this 3/27 letter.”
Just Security’s Ryan Goodman: “Bob Mueller sent his letter to Barr on March 27. I’m having a hard time understanding how this is anything but an intentional false statement to Congress (18 U.S.C 1001)”
posted by Doktor Zed at 7:02 PM on April 30, 2019 [34 favorites]
Nixon’s Attorney General, John Mitchell, was convicted and went to prison for perjury, conspiracy and obstruction of justice.
posted by T.D. Strange at 7:04 PM on April 30, 2019 [48 favorites]
posted by T.D. Strange at 7:04 PM on April 30, 2019 [48 favorites]
“Mr. Mueller’s report, the attorney general and the other senior law enforcement officials believed, read like it had been written for consumption by Congress and the public, not like a confidential report to Mr. Barr, as required under the regulations governing the special counsel.”
- - -
As Josh at TPM tweeted, Barr was pissed the report made the coverup harder.
posted by chris24 at 7:05 PM on April 30, 2019 [18 favorites]
- - -
As Josh at TPM tweeted, Barr was pissed the report made the coverup harder.
posted by chris24 at 7:05 PM on April 30, 2019 [18 favorites]
Let’s not forget Michael Tracey...
@mtracey
Unless Bill Barr -- a former Attorney General under George H. W. Bush and a widely esteemed member of the DC legal establishment -- is one of the most blatantly sociopathic liars on the face of Earth, the Trump/Russia conspiracy theory is officially dead
- - -
Oops. Guess he was.
posted by chris24 at 7:09 PM on April 30, 2019 [19 favorites]
@mtracey
Unless Bill Barr -- a former Attorney General under George H. W. Bush and a widely esteemed member of the DC legal establishment -- is one of the most blatantly sociopathic liars on the face of Earth, the Trump/Russia conspiracy theory is officially dead
- - -
Oops. Guess he was.
posted by chris24 at 7:09 PM on April 30, 2019 [19 favorites]
...read like it had been written for consumption by Congress and the public, not like a confidential report to Mr. Barr, as required under the regulations governing the special counsel.
Which one is required by the regulations? The sentence is impressively unclear.
posted by reductiondesign at 7:15 PM on April 30, 2019 [9 favorites]
Which one is required by the regulations? The sentence is impressively unclear.
posted by reductiondesign at 7:15 PM on April 30, 2019 [9 favorites]
I’m really confused by what’s going on right now even though I’ve read everything a few times. So, Barr said that Mueller had no qualms with his summary, but now we find out that Mueller called him and said he actually does have issues with it? Or what is going on? Because here:
posted by gucci mane at 7:20 PM on April 30, 2019 [2 favorites]
In that call, Mueller said he was concerned that news coverage of the obstruction investigation was misguided and creating public misunderstandings about the office’s work, according to Justice Department officials.It sounds like Mueller objected to the media’s coverage, and that he didn’t find Barr’s letter inaccurate.
When Barr pressed him whether he thought Barr’s letter was inaccurate, Mueller said he did not, but felt that the media coverage of the letter was misinterpreting the investigation, officials said.
posted by gucci mane at 7:20 PM on April 30, 2019 [2 favorites]
If the Kavanaugh hearings taught us anything, it's that all the other Senators should cede their time to Harris. Cross-examination works better that way.
Klobuchar had him pinned; with more time she would have finished him.
It sounds like Mueller objected to the media’s coverage, and that he didn’t find Barr’s letter inaccurate.
There's a difference between inaccurate and misleading. Barr didn't lie in his letter; he just avoided much of the (damning) truth. I can't say for sure, but I believe Mueller was objecting to this elision, especially because Barr may have called his letter a "summary" (which implies that it was a reasonably complete overview).
posted by a snickering nuthatch at 7:27 PM on April 30, 2019 [4 favorites]
Klobuchar had him pinned; with more time she would have finished him.
It sounds like Mueller objected to the media’s coverage, and that he didn’t find Barr’s letter inaccurate.
There's a difference between inaccurate and misleading. Barr didn't lie in his letter; he just avoided much of the (damning) truth. I can't say for sure, but I believe Mueller was objecting to this elision, especially because Barr may have called his letter a "summary" (which implies that it was a reasonably complete overview).
posted by a snickering nuthatch at 7:27 PM on April 30, 2019 [4 favorites]
Earlier today Sen. Mazie Hirono, in a letter co-signed by 11 other senators, wrote to the DoJ Inspector General to complain about Barr's behavior as AG (PDF), concluding:
It sounds like Mueller objected to the media’s coverage, and that he didn’t find Barr’s letter inaccurate.
That's someone's characterization of the telephone call, not the letter. It's hard to say how much of that is part of the looser give-and-take of conversation and how much is pure spin in recounting their version of how the call went. We need to see the letter itself, as part of the record that Mueller wanted to establish.
posted by Doktor Zed at 7:29 PM on April 30, 2019 [41 favorites]
Given these concerns, we therefore urge the Office of the Inspector General and the Office of Professional Responsibility to initiate immediately investigations of the following matters:[…]And she wrote that before the WaPo bombshell hit.
• Whether Attorney General Barr’s four-page letter dated March 24, 2019, regarding Special Counsel Mueller’s report was misleading and whether it was consistent with Department of Justice policies and practices;[…]
• Whether Attorney General Barr’s press conference on April 18, 2019, regarding Special Counsel Mueller’s report, which took place well before he released a redacted version of the report, was misleading and consistent with Department of Justice policies and practices;
• Whether Attorney General Barr has demonstrated sufficient impartiality to continue overseeing the ongoing matters related to the Special Counsel’s investigation referenced in Appendix D of the Special Counsel’s report;[…]
• Whether any of Attorney General Barr’s other actions or statements call into question his impartiality such that they warrant his recusal from particular matters or are relevant to the Senate Judiciary Committee’s oversight into the Department of Justice.
It sounds like Mueller objected to the media’s coverage, and that he didn’t find Barr’s letter inaccurate.
That's someone's characterization of the telephone call, not the letter. It's hard to say how much of that is part of the looser give-and-take of conversation and how much is pure spin in recounting their version of how the call went. We need to see the letter itself, as part of the record that Mueller wanted to establish.
posted by Doktor Zed at 7:29 PM on April 30, 2019 [41 favorites]
It's hard to say how much of that is part of the looser give-and-take of conversation and how much is pure spin in recounting their version of how the call went.
Former federal prosecutor Elizabeth de la Vega:
Former federal prosecutor Elizabeth de la Vega:
Counterintuitive as it may seem, I think we will learn some day that this letter was leaked by Barr's DOJ allies. They knew that @HouseJudiciary had the letter and they wanted to try to dilute its impact with their own spin.posted by a snickering nuthatch at 7:32 PM on April 30, 2019 [11 favorites]
This whole story, like the others, is coming from DOJ officials who, sadly, can not be believed. So, yes, the letter is real, of course. The conversation happened. Don't believe the spin. (I know you won't. 😉)
Sen. Mazie Hirono, in a letter co-signed by 11 other senators
Blumenthal
Harris
Markey
Udall
Wyden
Whitehouse
Murray
Booker
Reed
Gillibrand
Klobuchar
posted by reductiondesign at 7:33 PM on April 30, 2019 [19 favorites]
Blumenthal
Harris
Markey
Udall
Wyden
Whitehouse
Murray
Booker
Reed
Gillibrand
Klobuchar
posted by reductiondesign at 7:33 PM on April 30, 2019 [19 favorites]
Interestingly, of Hirono's fellow Senate Judiciary Committee members, Dianne Feinstein, Patrick Leahy, Dick Durbin, and Chris Coons did not sign off on her letter to the DoJ IG.
And now Sen. Chris Van Hollen is calling for Barr to resign:
And now Sen. Chris Van Hollen is calling for Barr to resign:
On April 20th, I asked Barr, “Did Bob Mueller support your conclusion?” His answer was, “I don’t know whether Mueller supported my conclusion.”posted by Doktor Zed at 7:41 PM on April 30, 2019 [46 favorites]
We now know Mueller stated his concerns on March 27th, and that Barr totally misled me, the Congress, and the public. He must resign.
It sounds like Mueller objected to the media’s coverage, and that he didn’t find Barr’s letter inaccurate.
The letter is explicit that Barr “did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this office’s work and conclusions.” Really what else is left after context, nature and substance?
The whole ‘Mueller objected to media coverage and the letter was accurate’ is Barr spin on the later call.
posted by chris24 at 7:45 PM on April 30, 2019 [23 favorites]
The letter is explicit that Barr “did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this office’s work and conclusions.” Really what else is left after context, nature and substance?
The whole ‘Mueller objected to media coverage and the letter was accurate’ is Barr spin on the later call.
posted by chris24 at 7:45 PM on April 30, 2019 [23 favorites]
Kyle Cheney (Politico)
REMEMBER: Rod ROSENSTEIN said less than three weeks ago that it was "bizarre" to say Barr was misleading anyone. Mueller sent his letter a month ago.
posted by chris24 at 7:49 PM on April 30, 2019 [35 favorites]
REMEMBER: Rod ROSENSTEIN said less than three weeks ago that it was "bizarre" to say Barr was misleading anyone. Mueller sent his letter a month ago.
posted by chris24 at 7:49 PM on April 30, 2019 [35 favorites]
Congressional Democrats’ emoluments lawsuit targeting President Trump’s private business can proceed, judge says (WaPo)
In a 48-page opinion, the judge refused the request of the president’s legal team to dismiss the case and rejected Trump’s narrow definition of emoluments, finding it “unpersuasive and inconsistent.” The lawsuit is one of two landmark cases against Trump relying on the once-obscure emoluments clauses of the Constitution.
[Also, WaPo has a steeply-discounted, $65/yr digital subscription offer right now, with a bonus subscription to give away, 30-day gift passes, & "Unlimited downloads of top-rated e-books from Pulitzer Prize-winning journalists at The Washington Post." This last bit is why I bit; incog doesn't work for that.]
posted by Iris Gambol at 7:50 PM on April 30, 2019 [13 favorites]
In a 48-page opinion, the judge refused the request of the president’s legal team to dismiss the case and rejected Trump’s narrow definition of emoluments, finding it “unpersuasive and inconsistent.” The lawsuit is one of two landmark cases against Trump relying on the once-obscure emoluments clauses of the Constitution.
[Also, WaPo has a steeply-discounted, $65/yr digital subscription offer right now, with a bonus subscription to give away, 30-day gift passes, & "Unlimited downloads of top-rated e-books from Pulitzer Prize-winning journalists at The Washington Post." This last bit is why I bit; incog doesn't work for that.]
posted by Iris Gambol at 7:50 PM on April 30, 2019 [13 favorites]
WaPo, HUD’s top watchdog: Agency is impeding probe into Puerto Rico hurricane aid
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development is “unreasonably” delaying production of email and other records related to the agency’s handling of hurricane relief funding for Puerto Rico, HUD’s top watchdog said Tuesday.posted by zachlipton at 7:56 PM on April 30, 2019 [15 favorites]
...
The president has been far more involved in reviewing disaster relief for Puerto Rico than for Texas, Alabama or other states, according to current and former administration officials.
Trump has repeatedly told aides that the funds for Puerto Rico must be closely watched because the territory’s government is corrupt and the economy was in poor shape before Maria, according to White House officials who requested anonymity to discuss internal deliberations. He has also said he wants the White House to monitor how FEMA is spending the money.
White House lawyers are planning to argue executive privilege on any oversight request that involves presidential deliberations.
(State-politics-filter: In the Wisconsin state legislature, former minority leader Peter Barca left his seat for a position in Tony Evers' administration. Tip McGuire, one of his former staffers, just won the special election to replace him.)
posted by a snickering nuthatch at 8:00 PM on April 30, 2019 [7 favorites]
posted by a snickering nuthatch at 8:00 PM on April 30, 2019 [7 favorites]
I'm actually a little shocked there are Reps and Senators calling for Barr to resign 2 hours after this new report comes out. There's no way this holds up as perjury, and the dissembling was already a known quantity.
I think this is a big deal, but I also think they're overestimating the political impact of this. Testing the waters, perhaps, or just finally found something to use as a megaphone for what they had the right to be screaming a month ago.
posted by Room 101 at 8:03 PM on April 30, 2019 [2 favorites]
I think this is a big deal, but I also think they're overestimating the political impact of this. Testing the waters, perhaps, or just finally found something to use as a megaphone for what they had the right to be screaming a month ago.
posted by Room 101 at 8:03 PM on April 30, 2019 [2 favorites]
Now Politico also confirms the WaPo scoop (with a lot of anonymous DoJ sources): Mueller Complained to Barr About Report Summary
By the way, since we've also been discussing the CI part of the Mueller probe in the megathreads, @nycsouthpaw picked up on this from tonight's "All In" on MSNBC:
posted by Doktor Zed at 8:09 PM on April 30, 2019 [41 favorites]
Special counsel Robert Mueller wrote a letter to Attorney General William Barr last month complaining that a four-page memo Barr wrote characterizing Mueller’s findings “did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance” of the special counsel’s probe, two senior Justice Department officials confirmed to POLITICO on Tuesday.[…]Natasha Bertrand adds, "Something I'm hearing from lots of former DOJ/FBI folks tonight is just how rare & significant it is for a DOJ official, especially an institutionalist like Mueller, to "go to paper" like this. "We are conditioned not to" do that, Chuck Rosenberg told me"
[A senior Justice Department official] said Barr didn’t disclose Mueller’s letter or the conversation about it over the past month because he considered it internal communications between department officials. “Mueller works for Barr,” the official added.
By the way, since we've also been discussing the CI part of the Mueller probe in the megathreads, @nycsouthpaw picked up on this from tonight's "All In" on MSNBC:
Adam Schiff is telling Chris Hayes he hasn’t been getting counterintelligence updates relating to the Russia investigation—that they’ve “gone dark”—for a year and a half.As Schiff put it, "At that point, the most significant counterintelligence investigation in recent history went into a black hole."
[video]
Schiff says two things here—that the briefings stopped shortly after Comey was fired (approx. 2y ago) and that it’s been a year and a half. A committee aide tells me the former is more accurate: it has been about two years since they received a CI briefing re the investigation.
posted by Doktor Zed at 8:09 PM on April 30, 2019 [41 favorites]
Combine the sudden silence on the CI investigation with some recent chatter about election tampering in at least one Florida county in 2016 and I'm finding it hard to believe that the DOJ doesn't have evidence that actual tampering was the cause of DJT's win. What else would they keep so close that nobody would even whisper about? Even the pee tape would be less destabilizing.
posted by wierdo at 8:15 PM on April 30, 2019 [26 favorites]
posted by wierdo at 8:15 PM on April 30, 2019 [26 favorites]
There's no way this holds up as perjury
Perjury is hard to prove but a lot of legal minds on Twitter think it’s worth pursuing.
Also, the AG lied and willfully and repeatedly misled the American public to cover up the president’s crimes. Even without technical perjury, calls for resignation are completely reasonable and in any other administration he would be gone tomorrow.
dissembling was already a known quantity.
Many many Rs have been defending Barr’s conclusion saying if it was so wrong why hasn’t Mueller spoken up. Well he had. Big difference between Ds saying he lied and Mueller.
I also think they're overestimating the political impact of this
This destroys the spin Barr and Trump has put on it. Mueller has now effectively spoken up and said they lied. Again, not Ds, Mueller. For people who are not Trumpettes (who are inconvincible), this just went from possibly partisan to probably factual. And sure, having Mueller confirm what they’re saying does give Ds more cover to scream what was obvious from the beginning.
posted by chris24 at 8:18 PM on April 30, 2019 [17 favorites]
Perjury is hard to prove but a lot of legal minds on Twitter think it’s worth pursuing.
Also, the AG lied and willfully and repeatedly misled the American public to cover up the president’s crimes. Even without technical perjury, calls for resignation are completely reasonable and in any other administration he would be gone tomorrow.
dissembling was already a known quantity.
Many many Rs have been defending Barr’s conclusion saying if it was so wrong why hasn’t Mueller spoken up. Well he had. Big difference between Ds saying he lied and Mueller.
I also think they're overestimating the political impact of this
This destroys the spin Barr and Trump has put on it. Mueller has now effectively spoken up and said they lied. Again, not Ds, Mueller. For people who are not Trumpettes (who are inconvincible), this just went from possibly partisan to probably factual. And sure, having Mueller confirm what they’re saying does give Ds more cover to scream what was obvious from the beginning.
posted by chris24 at 8:18 PM on April 30, 2019 [17 favorites]
As Schiff put it, "At that point, the most significant counterintelligence investigation in recent history went into a black hole."
Benjamin Wittes touched on that too in his in-depth impressions of the Mueller report. Given that the SCO investigation was born out of a counterintelligence investigation but Mueller chose to convey all the CI back to the FBI:
Benjamin Wittes touched on that too in his in-depth impressions of the Mueller report. Given that the SCO investigation was born out of a counterintelligence investigation but Mueller chose to convey all the CI back to the FBI:
...the Mueller investigation was a criminal probe only. It had embedded FBI personnel sending back to the FBI material germane to the FBI’s counterintelligence mission. But Mueller does not appear to have taken on the counterintelligence investigative function himself.posted by peeedro at 8:21 PM on April 30, 2019 [14 favorites]
This leaves me worried. After the blood-letting at the bureau that saw the entire senior leadership replaced precisely as it was engaged with counterintelligence questions involving Trumpworld and Russia, who at the bureau now is going to push such questions? The incentive structure at the FBI cannot favor senior leadership carrying the ball on this. It also cannot favor individual agents allowing themselves to get assigned to matters that would put them in the president’s cross-hairs.
Brian Beutler (Crooked)
Amazingly the people used Mueller's apparent silence to vouch for Barr after he wrote his letter now take Barr at his word again as to the content of his phone call with an actually-not-silent Mueller.
posted by chris24 at 8:23 PM on April 30, 2019 [30 favorites]
Amazingly the people used Mueller's apparent silence to vouch for Barr after he wrote his letter now take Barr at his word again as to the content of his phone call with an actually-not-silent Mueller.
posted by chris24 at 8:23 PM on April 30, 2019 [30 favorites]
We polled @ewarren's student debt cancellation plan and it turns out a majority of those who won't benefit from it support it.
57% of those who have already paid off their student debt support forgiving 42 million Americans' debt.
posted by The Whelk at 9:03 PM on April 30, 2019 [36 favorites]
57% of those who have already paid off their student debt support forgiving 42 million Americans' debt.
posted by The Whelk at 9:03 PM on April 30, 2019 [36 favorites]
Natasha Bertrand adds, "Something I'm hearing from lots of former DOJ/FBI folks tonight is just how rare & significant it is for a DOJ official, especially an institutionalist like Mueller, to "go to paper" like this. "We are conditioned not to" do that, Chuck Rosenberg told me"
Former US attorney Harry Litman: "Exactly. It’s a declaration of war, as I just tried to explain on @donlemon because everybody realizes it’s a loaded bomb that could go off anytime. That’s why I said for the laconic and obedient Mueller, it’s almost like lighting yourself on fire in front of the DOJ. And now it has gone off, 12 hours before Barr has to testify."
Daily Beast: Mueller’s Willing to Testify, but Trump DOJ Is Holding It Up: Dems—The special counsel has indicated he’s fine going up the Hill. But the Trump administration is getting in the way, Dems say.
posted by Doktor Zed at 9:08 PM on April 30, 2019 [13 favorites]
Former US attorney Harry Litman: "Exactly. It’s a declaration of war, as I just tried to explain on @donlemon because everybody realizes it’s a loaded bomb that could go off anytime. That’s why I said for the laconic and obedient Mueller, it’s almost like lighting yourself on fire in front of the DOJ. And now it has gone off, 12 hours before Barr has to testify."
Daily Beast: Mueller’s Willing to Testify, but Trump DOJ Is Holding It Up: Dems—The special counsel has indicated he’s fine going up the Hill. But the Trump administration is getting in the way, Dems say.
Nadler had sent a letter to DOJ following the department’s release of the Mueller Report asking that Mueller appear for questioning no later than May 23. Two sources familiar with the conversations said the Judiciary Committee has been in regular contact with DOJ about setting a date for Mueller’s testimony and that those conversations were ongoing as of this week. Committee sources said it was their impression that Mueller was willing to testify to discuss his findings, though it was unclear whether that would take place in public or behind closed doors.Meantime, Buzzfeed's Zoe Tillman has Barr's written statement for tomorrow's hearing:
But the DOJ has, according to multiple sources, not agreed to a date, citing Mueller’s continued status as a department employee—since the special counsel serves under the attorney general.
Here are AG Barr's prepared opening remarks for his testimony tomorrow before the Senate Judiciary Committee. No direct reference to the reporting tonight that Mueller expressed concern with how Barr was handling the release of information from the report https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/5984167/AG-Written-Statement-for-the-Record.pdfSounds like rank hypocrisy will be the order of the day tomorrow.
Barr ends by saying DOJ's work on all this is basically done, and it's up to the public/political process to respond.
"As I am sure you agree, it is vitally important for the Department of Justice to stand apart from the political process and not to become an adjunct of it."
posted by Doktor Zed at 9:08 PM on April 30, 2019 [13 favorites]
57% of those who have already paid off their student debt support forgiving 42 million Americans' debt.
This was an online internet poll, which is pretty worthless. FiveThirtyEight gives SurveyMonkey a D- rating.
posted by JackFlash at 9:24 PM on April 30, 2019 [10 favorites]
This was an online internet poll, which is pretty worthless. FiveThirtyEight gives SurveyMonkey a D- rating.
posted by JackFlash at 9:24 PM on April 30, 2019 [10 favorites]
Benjamin Wittes touched on that too in his in-depth impressions of the Mueller report. Given that the SCO investigation was born out of a counterintelligence investigation but Mueller chose to convey all the CI back to the FBI
Wittes also describes there how the Mueller probe was a "one-way street for counterintelligence information," which is quite illuminating. All that SIGINT and CI info we were assuming the probe was relying on? They didn't have access. Another way the probe was more narrowly defined than we'd assumed, and maybe hoped.
posted by cudzoo at 10:02 PM on April 30, 2019 [10 favorites]
Wittes also describes there how the Mueller probe was a "one-way street for counterintelligence information," which is quite illuminating. All that SIGINT and CI info we were assuming the probe was relying on? They didn't have access. Another way the probe was more narrowly defined than we'd assumed, and maybe hoped.
posted by cudzoo at 10:02 PM on April 30, 2019 [10 favorites]
Maddow and Daily Beast have confirmed that Mueller, for whatever reason, remains an employee of Attorney General Barr. Despite this, Mueller was still willing to send his employer a letter blaming him for this state of affairs:
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 10:10 PM on April 30, 2019 [13 favorites]
“There is now public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation. This threatens to undermine a central purpose for which the Department appointed the Special Counsel: to assure full public confidence in the outcome of the investigations.”Soon, Mueller will be a private citizen. No doubt, he will feel even more free to speak his mind. Televised live, I hope, on three major networks.
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 10:10 PM on April 30, 2019 [13 favorites]
One hopes.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 10:22 PM on April 30, 2019 [1 favorite]
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 10:22 PM on April 30, 2019 [1 favorite]
The letter is explicit that Barr “did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this office’s work and conclusions.” Really what else is left after context, nature and substance?
Let us once again resort to treating humans as using plain English rather than a Turing-complete computing language. When a human tells his employer “You didn’t fully capture the substance of my conclusions”, he means, you had a job to do, and you seriously fucked up.
Or, you successfully accomplished a different job entirely.
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 10:28 PM on April 30, 2019 [14 favorites]
Let us once again resort to treating humans as using plain English rather than a Turing-complete computing language. When a human tells his employer “You didn’t fully capture the substance of my conclusions”, he means, you had a job to do, and you seriously fucked up.
Or, you successfully accomplished a different job entirely.
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 10:28 PM on April 30, 2019 [14 favorites]
I don't see Barr facing perjury when Sessions still hasn't.
posted by M-x shell at 10:33 PM on April 30, 2019 [6 favorites]
posted by M-x shell at 10:33 PM on April 30, 2019 [6 favorites]
Mueller is not going to color outside the lines. He doesn't feel his duties allow him to speak freely or come to conclusions. He's already made that crystal clear.
The most you'll get from Mueller is testimony confirming what's been written in the report. Done artfully, one could walk people through the evidence so they reach the inescapable conclusion that Trump obstructed justice, but Mueller's not going to voice that conclusion.
posted by xammerboy at 10:34 PM on April 30, 2019 [7 favorites]
The most you'll get from Mueller is testimony confirming what's been written in the report. Done artfully, one could walk people through the evidence so they reach the inescapable conclusion that Trump obstructed justice, but Mueller's not going to voice that conclusion.
posted by xammerboy at 10:34 PM on April 30, 2019 [7 favorites]
Sessions wasn’t the answer to Donald’s prayer for his “Roy Cohn”.
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 10:35 PM on April 30, 2019 [2 favorites]
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 10:35 PM on April 30, 2019 [2 favorites]
Mueller is not going to color outside the lines. He doesn't feel his duties allow him to speak freely or come to conclusions. He's already made that crystal clear.
Mueller’s letter condemning the Attorney General is already coloring outside the lines. Regardless of its polite language, the fact that he wrote and mailed it indicates that he is filled with a righteous fury.
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 10:37 PM on April 30, 2019 [21 favorites]
Mueller’s letter condemning the Attorney General is already coloring outside the lines. Regardless of its polite language, the fact that he wrote and mailed it indicates that he is filled with a righteous fury.
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 10:37 PM on April 30, 2019 [21 favorites]
Sessions wasn’t the answer to Donald’s prayer for his “Roy Cohn”.
Who would have thought one of the most unrepentant old-style racists in the Senate would be the second worst AG of this administration so far?
posted by Justinian at 10:57 PM on April 30, 2019 [26 favorites]
Who would have thought one of the most unrepentant old-style racists in the Senate would be the second worst AG of this administration so far?
posted by Justinian at 10:57 PM on April 30, 2019 [26 favorites]
Shurely DOJ norms will save us, once Barr has set fire to the edifice and pissed on the ashes.
posted by benzenedream at 11:06 PM on April 30, 2019 [9 favorites]
posted by benzenedream at 11:06 PM on April 30, 2019 [9 favorites]
Regardless of its polite language, the fact that he wrote and mailed it indicates that he is filled with a righteous fury.
In reply to Natasha Bertrand's tweet quoted upthread, Harry Litman (who in a previous life worked for Barr):
In reply to Natasha Bertrand's tweet quoted upthread, Harry Litman (who in a previous life worked for Barr):
Exactly. It’s a declaration of war, as I just tried to explain on @donlemon because everybody realizes it’s a loaded bomb that could go off anytime. That’s why I said for the laconic and obedient Mueller, it’s almost like lighting yourself on fire in front of the DOJ.posted by a snickering nuthatch at 11:49 PM on April 30, 2019 [8 favorites]
I'm actually a little shocked there are Reps and Senators calling for Barr to resign 2 hours after this new report comes out. There's no way this holds up as perjury, and the dissembling was already a known quantity.
18 USC 1001 isn't a perjury charge, and requires only "material misstatements". And those "material misstatements" have deprived Congress of their lawful role of oversight.
Martha Stewart is a felon because of it.
posted by mikelieman at 1:22 AM on May 1, 2019 [34 favorites]
18 USC 1001 isn't a perjury charge, and requires only "material misstatements". And those "material misstatements" have deprived Congress of their lawful role of oversight.
Martha Stewart is a felon because of it.
posted by mikelieman at 1:22 AM on May 1, 2019 [34 favorites]
There's no way that would stick and DOJ would have to prosecute him anyway and he's in charge of DOJ.
posted by Justinian at 2:44 AM on May 1, 2019 [2 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 2:44 AM on May 1, 2019 [2 favorites]
It sounds like Mueller objected to the media’s coverage, and that he didn’t find Barr’s letter inaccurate.
And Mueller would write to Barr about media coverage, over which Barr has no control, because why exactly?
posted by schoolgirl report at 3:56 AM on May 1, 2019 [20 favorites]
And Mueller would write to Barr about media coverage, over which Barr has no control, because why exactly?
posted by schoolgirl report at 3:56 AM on May 1, 2019 [20 favorites]
Fun fact from someone on reddit: Remember that in 1989, Barr released a "summary" of a memo from the Office of Legal Counsel, but refused to make the original memo public.
When the memo finally reached the public years later, it was clear that Barr's summary misrepresented the memo and left out key conclusions.
The point is: He's done this before. He was hired specifically because he has no qualms about being dishonest to protect Republican criminals and hide Republican wrongdoing.
Yup.
Yep.
Mm-hmm.
posted by petebest at 4:18 AM on May 1, 2019 [63 favorites]
When the memo finally reached the public years later, it was clear that Barr's summary misrepresented the memo and left out key conclusions.
The point is: He's done this before. He was hired specifically because he has no qualms about being dishonest to protect Republican criminals and hide Republican wrongdoing.
Yup.
Yep.
Mm-hmm.
posted by petebest at 4:18 AM on May 1, 2019 [63 favorites]
Executive time is lit this morn. 61 tweets already. 57 of them Trump retweeting random firefighters/people who hate Joe Biden.
Totally not feeling pressure.
posted by chris24 at 4:31 AM on May 1, 2019 [27 favorites]
Totally not feeling pressure.
posted by chris24 at 4:31 AM on May 1, 2019 [27 favorites]
Re: Barr "testimony": Sounds like rank hypocrisy will be the order of the day tomorrow.
Per the article linked above about Barr's 1989 bullshit that let Bush I invade Panama to steal his drug dealer back, there's some amazing story there that can't be condensed and I urge you to read it for the grisly details.
tl;dr is that Barr is utterly shameless and we should expect no less than table-top tap-dancing with smoke bombs and a shitfountain of "official" "legal" drivel. Expect only BBs to be fired by Democrats, batshittery Hillary's Emails from Republicans, and expect only for Barr to emerge zombie-like through the haze and continue his obstruction.
Which makes yesterday's sit-down about Infrastructure all the more enraging. Seriously Senator Schumer and Speaker Pelosi - you're seeing this, right? Are you high?
posted by petebest at 4:40 AM on May 1, 2019 [19 favorites]
Per the article linked above about Barr's 1989 bullshit that let Bush I invade Panama to steal his drug dealer back, there's some amazing story there that can't be condensed and I urge you to read it for the grisly details.
tl;dr is that Barr is utterly shameless and we should expect no less than table-top tap-dancing with smoke bombs and a shitfountain of "official" "legal" drivel. Expect only BBs to be fired by Democrats, batshittery Hillary's Emails from Republicans, and expect only for Barr to emerge zombie-like through the haze and continue his obstruction.
Which makes yesterday's sit-down about Infrastructure all the more enraging. Seriously Senator Schumer and Speaker Pelosi - you're seeing this, right? Are you high?
posted by petebest at 4:40 AM on May 1, 2019 [19 favorites]
Did something happen to the arrow of time while I slept last night?
posted by wierdo at 5:45 AM on May 1, 2019 [10 favorites]
posted by wierdo at 5:45 AM on May 1, 2019 [10 favorites]
Marcy Wheeler runs down Barr’s prepared statement:
—Bill Barr will tell his first lie before he hits 100 words.posted by Doktor Zed at 6:04 AM on May 1, 2019 [24 favorites]
—As one example: Among the "peripheral third parties" protected by PP redactions is Don Jr.
—Also 3 Trump flunkies who lied but got away with it.
—Barr also hid the parts of the report that say Don Jr (and maybe even Don Sr) didn't get subpoenaed bc they said they'd take the Fifth.
—And given last night's reports, it's clear Mueller believes a lot more of the Stone details can be made public. You know: the ones showing the President himself directed efforts to optimize the effect of the Russian operation?
—In his actual memo, Barr called it a summary of conclusions and results. He's changing what he calls it now to pretend it wasn't a cynical ploy.
—Also, this is his attempt to preempt anger over not releasing the real exec summaries.
—This is likely a preemption of concerns that Barr censored details that make it clear Mueller believed optimizing WikiLeaks releases amounted to a foreign donation--just not one they could prove.
—Same was true of June 9 meeting.
—Mueller chose to make an impeachment referral, not having pressed for Trump's testimony. He did not exhaust his investigation--even Andrew Miller and Mystery Appellant are still pending.
Fun fact from someone on reddit: Remember that in 1989, Barr released a "summary" of a memo from the Office of Legal Counsel, but refused to make the original memo public.
Yeah, this was his main qualification for the job. Along with all the other stuff.
posted by mumimor at 6:10 AM on May 1, 2019 [2 favorites]
Yeah, this was his main qualification for the job. Along with all the other stuff.
posted by mumimor at 6:10 AM on May 1, 2019 [2 favorites]
Washington Post: Barr testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee (with live updates, I think)
posted by exogenous at 6:45 AM on May 1, 2019 [4 favorites]
posted by exogenous at 6:45 AM on May 1, 2019 [4 favorites]
From ProPublica, How Taxpayers Covered a $1,000 Liquor Bill for Trump Staffers (and More) at Trump’s Club. The premium liquor costs are only the beginning of government spending at Mar-a-Lago that emerges in hundreds of pages of receipts and email correspondence between Trump Organization employees and staffers for the State Department, which oversees presidential diplomatic travel and works with the Secret Service and White House. The emails show that the president’s company refused to agree to what was essentially a bulk-purchase agreement with the federal government, and that it charged the maximum allowable federal rate for hotel rooms. The Trump Organization could be obstinate when it came to rates for, say, function rooms at Mar-a-Lago, a problem that was eased when the president signed a law lifting the maximum “micro-purchase” the government can make.
... The documents reveal the intersection between Trump’s conflicting interests. The emails show that “Mar-a-Lago wanted to have the government money without the government rules,” said Charles Tiefer, a law professor at the University of Baltimore who served on the congressionally chartered Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan.
posted by Bella Donna at 6:53 AM on May 1, 2019 [19 favorites]
... The documents reveal the intersection between Trump’s conflicting interests. The emails show that “Mar-a-Lago wanted to have the government money without the government rules,” said Charles Tiefer, a law professor at the University of Baltimore who served on the congressionally chartered Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan.
posted by Bella Donna at 6:53 AM on May 1, 2019 [19 favorites]
House Judiciary Dems: “BREAKING: Letter from Special Counsel Robert Mueller to Attorney General Barr. https://twitter.com/HouseJudiciary/status/1123584968960172033/photo/1”
And on CBS This Morning, Adam Schiff says, “He knew his answer was false. So look, there's no sugar coating this. I think he should step down."
posted by Doktor Zed at 6:55 AM on May 1, 2019 [37 favorites]
And on CBS This Morning, Adam Schiff says, “He knew his answer was false. So look, there's no sugar coating this. I think he should step down."
posted by Doktor Zed at 6:55 AM on May 1, 2019 [37 favorites]
Executive time is lit this morn. 61 tweets already. 57 of them Trump retweeting random firefighters/people who hate Joe Biden.
Totally not feeling pressure.
I'm pretty lukewarm on Biden but I have to say his ability to all out trigger Trump is a rather attractive feature of his potential nomination.
posted by srboisvert at 7:02 AM on May 1, 2019 [34 favorites]
Totally not feeling pressure.
I'm pretty lukewarm on Biden but I have to say his ability to all out trigger Trump is a rather attractive feature of his potential nomination.
posted by srboisvert at 7:02 AM on May 1, 2019 [34 favorites]
Live feed running (PBS News Hour): check
Metachat open: check
"Facts Matter" t-shirt donned: check
posted by tivalasvegas at 7:05 AM on May 1, 2019 [11 favorites]
Metachat open: check
"Facts Matter" t-shirt donned: check
posted by tivalasvegas at 7:05 AM on May 1, 2019 [11 favorites]
Did something happen to the arrow of time while I slept last night?
It's feeling like the tipping point occurred while we slept.
posted by diogenes at 7:13 AM on May 1, 2019 [6 favorites]
It's feeling like the tipping point occurred while we slept.
posted by diogenes at 7:13 AM on May 1, 2019 [6 favorites]
Lindsay Graham is going full "No Collusion" "Page/Strzok" "Her emails" at the opening of this hearing.
posted by pjenks at 7:14 AM on May 1, 2019 [4 favorites]
posted by pjenks at 7:14 AM on May 1, 2019 [4 favorites]
The Mueller letter in its entirely is even worse for Barr than the snippets we saw.
posted by diogenes at 7:17 AM on May 1, 2019 [25 favorites]
posted by diogenes at 7:17 AM on May 1, 2019 [25 favorites]
The timing in in Mueller's letter to Barr is very precise. Notice that the SC explicitly told Barr the introductions and executive summaries were approved for release "early in the afternoon on March 24", before Barr's dishonest summary was released "late in the afternoon on March 24". And then they communicated their concern that Barr had not accurately represented the "context, nature and substance" by "the morning of March 25".
There is no wiggle room there. Barr was intentionally lying the whole time and Mueller called him on it before, during and right after.
posted by bcd at 7:20 AM on May 1, 2019 [62 favorites]
There is no wiggle room there. Barr was intentionally lying the whole time and Mueller called him on it before, during and right after.
posted by bcd at 7:20 AM on May 1, 2019 [62 favorites]
The pre-release yesterday of their "summary" of Mueller's letter to Barr was a leak from the Justice Department to spin the much more damaging information they knew would come out in the actual letter - exactly the same as the "summary" of the Mueller report itself was Justice Department spin on the much more damaging information they knew would come out in the actual report.
It seems Trump finally has an Attorney General who lies for him consistently.
posted by JackFlash at 7:31 AM on May 1, 2019 [13 favorites]
It seems Trump finally has an Attorney General who lies for him consistently.
posted by JackFlash at 7:31 AM on May 1, 2019 [13 favorites]
I can't help but feel this is much more shameful from the DoJ then it would be coming from any other department.
posted by jaduncan at 7:33 AM on May 1, 2019 [17 favorites]
posted by jaduncan at 7:33 AM on May 1, 2019 [17 favorites]
An addendum to my last point that makes it worse. Mueller told Barr the intros and summaries were ready to release to the public way back on the 5th of March. He reiterated that fact early on the afternoon on the 24th, i.e. after Barr's lying press conference and before the release of the lying letter.
Wow.
posted by bcd at 7:38 AM on May 1, 2019 [33 favorites]
Wow.
posted by bcd at 7:38 AM on May 1, 2019 [33 favorites]
@ZoeTillman Barr said that he met with Mueller on March 5 to get a read-out on what his conclusions would be. At that meeting, he reiterated that in order to get the report out soon, he asked they identify 6(e) (grand jury) material, but when he got it, it did not come in that formposted by pjenks at 7:41 AM on May 1, 2019 [7 favorites]
10:33 AM - 1 May 2019
@nycsouthpaw Barr begins his testimony blaming the Mueller team for not identifying grand jury material after being asked (according to Barr), making clear how wide open the breach between them is now.
10:34 AM - 1 May 2019
@ZoeTillman Barr says he learned for the first time at the March 5 meeting with Mueller that Mueller didn't plan on reaching a decision on obstruction. "We were, frankly, surprised," Barr said.
10:38 AM - 1 May 2019
@ClaraJeffery Barr could really get himself into trouble today.
10:33 AM - 1 May 2019
Lindsay Graham is going full "No Collusion" "Page/Strzok" "Her emails" at the opening of this hearing.
Called it. Cake me.
>>I can't help but feel this is much more shameful from the DoJ then it would be coming from any other department.
Without impeachment and jail time for these publicly avaiilable crimes, the rule of law does not stand. Openly defying Congressional oversight is by definition a Constitutional crisis. So, yeah.
posted by petebest at 7:42 AM on May 1, 2019 [23 favorites]
Called it. Cake me.
>>I can't help but feel this is much more shameful from the DoJ then it would be coming from any other department.
Without impeachment and jail time for these publicly avaiilable crimes, the rule of law does not stand. Openly defying Congressional oversight is by definition a Constitutional crisis. So, yeah.
posted by petebest at 7:42 AM on May 1, 2019 [23 favorites]
nangar: Now that Nate's convinced me the movement in Warren's polling numbers is real, I'm wondering if people have been reading her policy proposals.
Warren is running on sound-byte-able policies:
posted by filthy light thief at 7:44 AM on May 1, 2019 [38 favorites]
Warren is running on sound-byte-able policies:
As the wealthiest nation in the history of the world, we can make investments that create economic opportunity, address rural neglect, and a legacy of racial discrimination–if we stop handing out giant tax giveaways to rich people and giant corporations and start asking the people who have gained the most from our country to pay their fair share.That's a half-dozen policies right there, no full papers needed to convey the messages. Yes, there needs to be plans about how to get those things done, but when there's so much news coverage around 280 character tweets, policy papers are not the things that change people's minds (as if they ever were -- the taller presidential candidate tends to win, for example).
That includes an Ultra-Millionaire Tax on America’s 75,000 richest families to produce trillions that can be used to build an economy that works for everyone, including universal childcare, student loan debt relief, and down payments on a Green New Deal and Medicare for All. And we can make a historic investment in housing that would bring down rents by 10% across America and create 1.5 million new jobs.
posted by filthy light thief at 7:44 AM on May 1, 2019 [38 favorites]
Without impeachment and jail time for these publicly avaiilable crimes, the rule of law does not stand. Openly defying Congressional oversight is by definition a Constitutional crisis. So, yeah.
Yes, but outside of that I feel genuine embarrassment on their behalf. Of all departments, they have the most duty to maintain their ethics, and they are manifestly failing to do so. This period is a genuine stain on their reputation, and that is shameful and tragic.
posted by jaduncan at 7:46 AM on May 1, 2019 [10 favorites]
Yes, but outside of that I feel genuine embarrassment on their behalf. Of all departments, they have the most duty to maintain their ethics, and they are manifestly failing to do so. This period is a genuine stain on their reputation, and that is shameful and tragic.
posted by jaduncan at 7:46 AM on May 1, 2019 [10 favorites]
Wow, bold move Barr.
@emptywheel "I told Bob I wasn't going to release summaries."posted by pjenks at 7:47 AM on May 1, 2019 [20 favorites]
Again, he called his own memo a summary of conclusion and results.
I assumed they were copies of the exec summaries we got in the full [redacted] report. Probably a Dem senator should ask for clarification on that though, just in case.
posted by tivalasvegas at 8:28 AM on May 1, 2019 [3 favorites]
posted by tivalasvegas at 8:28 AM on May 1, 2019 [3 favorites]
Here's a page with just the executive summaries.
posted by Mr.Know-it-some at 8:39 AM on May 1, 2019 [4 favorites]
posted by Mr.Know-it-some at 8:39 AM on May 1, 2019 [4 favorites]
Barr was asked by Sen. Whitehouse a few minutes ago if those exec summaries are the same as the ones in the released redacted report, and Barr initially said they were, then backed off—"I think they're the same." Whitehouse has asked that they get back to this to be sure. (I don't understand why the Dems don't press their advantage when Barr slips up like this, but we haven't heard from any of the ones with experience as prosecutors yet.)
Incidentally, I'm forming a working hypothesis that Barr relied on Rosenstein to do most of hands-on dirty work (redactions, etc.). This would fit with the idea that Rosenstein has outlived his usefulness and was burned with the leaks to the WaPo for Friday's article just before he handed in his resignation. And now, even if Rosenstein has a change of heart and wants to tell the whole ugly truth to Congress and/or the media, his reputation for integrity has been so badly soiled that he'll be under suspicion.
posted by Doktor Zed at 8:51 AM on May 1, 2019 [7 favorites]
Incidentally, I'm forming a working hypothesis that Barr relied on Rosenstein to do most of hands-on dirty work (redactions, etc.). This would fit with the idea that Rosenstein has outlived his usefulness and was burned with the leaks to the WaPo for Friday's article just before he handed in his resignation. And now, even if Rosenstein has a change of heart and wants to tell the whole ugly truth to Congress and/or the media, his reputation for integrity has been so badly soiled that he'll be under suspicion.
posted by Doktor Zed at 8:51 AM on May 1, 2019 [7 favorites]
Recessed until 12:50 Eastern for lunch. Takeaways:
Rs mostly grandstanded on various Clinton allegations per usual.
Barr had a hard time not admitting that he lied about what Mueller thought as memorialized in Muller's two letters to him.
Sheldon Whitehouse is kind of a badass.
Barr's trying to thread the needle between not perjuring himself and not pissing off the President; it's not going so well.
posted by tivalasvegas at 8:54 AM on May 1, 2019 [17 favorites]
Rs mostly grandstanded on various Clinton allegations per usual.
Barr had a hard time not admitting that he lied about what Mueller thought as memorialized in Muller's two letters to him.
Sheldon Whitehouse is kind of a badass.
Barr's trying to thread the needle between not perjuring himself and not pissing off the President; it's not going so well.
posted by tivalasvegas at 8:54 AM on May 1, 2019 [17 favorites]
(I don't understand why the Dems don't press their advantage when Barr slips up like these, but we haven't heard from any of the ones with experience as prosecutors yet.)
Anyone with experience in high school debate should know to press their advantage when their opponent slips up like that.
posted by Gelatin at 8:54 AM on May 1, 2019 [4 favorites]
Anyone with experience in high school debate should know to press their advantage when their opponent slips up like that.
posted by Gelatin at 8:54 AM on May 1, 2019 [4 favorites]
I had forgotten the AlfaBank connection with Barr. This user has a lovely breakdown, apologies if it's poor form to paste in its entirety, but to be fair it is a Constitutional crisis ... Information Superhighway Powers Activate!
Should William Barr Recuse Himself From Mueller Report? Legal Experts Say Attorney General's Ties to Russia Are Troubling:
Alfa Bank (!):
Barr employed at Kirkland & Ellis LLP firm (3/2017-2/2019) which represented Alfa Bank.
Alfa Bank owned by Russian oligarch German Khan.
Khan's son-in-law Alexander van der Zwaan indicted by Mueller (2/2018).
Brian Benczkowski (partner at Kirkland & Ellis LLP) implanted at DOJ (7/2018) to infiltrate Trump Tower x Alfa Bank connection investigation.
Investigators found no evidence that the Trump Organization had communicated with Alfa. (...orly?)
Barr earned >$1mm during time at firm.
Deutsche Bank:
Barr has $100,000-250,000 assets at DB.
DB only bank willing to lend Trump money.
DB x Trump ties investigated by two congressional committees.
Deutsche Bank fined $630m over Russia money laundering claims (1/2017)
Deutsche Bank Offices Are Searched in Money Laundering Investigation (11/2018)
Deutsche Bank faces action over $20bn Russian money-laundering scheme (4/2019)
Deutsche Bank fined and fined and fined.
Vector Group:
Vector Group owned by Howard Lorber.
Lorber brought Trump to Moscow in 1990s to seek investments- likely Trump Tower Moscow.
Barr earned $5,001-15,000 in dividends from company.
Och-Ziff Capital Management
Barr employed as Board Director (2016-2018).
Natalia Veselnitskaya, Russian lawyer who met Trump Jr., Kushner, Manafort (6/2016), mentioned Browder/Ziff brothers during meeting.
William Browder concedes, Ziff brothers' connection likely incidental business relation.
Trump Admin:
Barr's daughter, Mary Daly, worked in Deputy AG's office as Director of Opioid Enforcement and Prevention Efforts.
Barr's daughter, Mary Daly, implanted at Treasury Dept's FinCen. Financial crimes. (!)
Barr's son-in-law, Tyler McGaughey, worked in Alexandria, Virginia's US Attorney's office.
Barr's son-in-law, Tyler McGaughey, implanted directly in WH Counsel's office. (!)
Bill Barr To Become Caporegime With Own Family Within Trump Crime Family
posted by petebest at 8:56 AM on May 1, 2019 [41 favorites]
Should William Barr Recuse Himself From Mueller Report? Legal Experts Say Attorney General's Ties to Russia Are Troubling:
Alfa Bank (!):
Deutsche Bank:
Vector Group:
Och-Ziff Capital Management
Trump Admin:
posted by petebest at 8:56 AM on May 1, 2019 [41 favorites]
Matthew Miller, before hearing:
Huge challenge for Democratic Senators & Reps the next two days as they try to pierce Barr’s credibility and extract commitments without giving him the platform to play presidential defense attorney. Going to require very skilled questioning.Matthew Miller, during hearing:
(Sigh)Renato Mariotti:
Today's questioning by Senators helps explain why House Judiciary wants their lawyer to question Barr.posted by a snickering nuthatch at 8:56 AM on May 1, 2019 [13 favorites]
When a smart lawyer like Barr tries to deceive Congress, it's important to ensure that he is asked the right questions.
(not threaded)
Barr is deliberately misleading Congress, so questions to him have to worded carefully so he can't give a highly misleading answer that is technically accurate.
As I predicted yesterday, Barr seized on this poorly worded question as the excuse for his misleading answer.
As always, I find it strange that Senators don't just have their lawyers draft their questions.
posted by jaduncan at 9:05 AM on May 1, 2019 [12 favorites]
posted by jaduncan at 9:05 AM on May 1, 2019 [12 favorites]
(and ideally collectively, at that).
posted by jaduncan at 9:06 AM on May 1, 2019 [5 favorites]
posted by jaduncan at 9:06 AM on May 1, 2019 [5 favorites]
I'm just following summaries on Twitter, but apparently Leahy asked Barr about his earlier testimony where he said that he wasn't aware of concerns from Mueller's team (after Mueller's letter.) Barr responded that he answered that way because he spoke with Mueller, and not unspecified member's of Mueller's team, and the question was about unspecified members of Mueller's team. That's obviously a ridiculous dodge, but it also focuses on the phone call and not the letter. I would think that a letter with "The Special Counsel's Office" in the header would count as being from Mueller's team even if it's signed by Mueller. The letter also includes phrases like "we stated," and "while we understand." So, clearly expressing concerns from "Mueller's team."
Edit: Oh, and apparently the question from his earlier testimony was actually "Did Bob Mueller support your conclusion." So I really don't know what he's trying to pull here.
posted by diogenes at 9:06 AM on May 1, 2019 [5 favorites]
Edit: Oh, and apparently the question from his earlier testimony was actually "Did Bob Mueller support your conclusion." So I really don't know what he's trying to pull here.
posted by diogenes at 9:06 AM on May 1, 2019 [5 favorites]
NBC News, 'Democracy Dollars': Gillibrand's plan to give every voter $600 to donate to campaigns
posted by zachlipton at 9:32 AM on May 1, 2019 [12 favorites]
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., unveiled a plan on Wednesday to give every voter up to $600 in what she calls "Democracy Dollars" that they can donate to federal candidates for office.Candidates would have to agree to opt into a $200/donor limit to receive "Democracy Dollars."
In an exclusive interview with NBC News to discuss the roll out of her first major 2020 policy initiative, Gillibrand said her "Clean Elections Plan" would help reduce the influence of big money in politics.
...
Under Gillibrand's plan, every eligible voter could register for vouchers to donate up to $100 in a primary election and $100 in a general election each cycle, either all at once or in $10 increments to one or more candidates over time. Each participant would get a separate $200 pool for House, Senate and presidential contests for a total maximum donation of $600 for those federal offices. There would be strings attached for both donors and candidates. The money could go only to elections in the donor's state, although they could be used for House candidates outside the voter's district.
posted by zachlipton at 9:32 AM on May 1, 2019 [12 favorites]
diogenes: Barr responded that he answered that way because he spoke with Mueller, and not unspecified member's of Mueller's team, and the question was about unspecified members of Mueller's team.
When I said "Maybe he'll say next that Robert Mueller himself is obviously not a 'member of' the team, but the leader.", I was 100% joking. Joking, writers.
posted by InTheYear2017 at 9:34 AM on May 1, 2019 [27 favorites]
When I said "Maybe he'll say next that Robert Mueller himself is obviously not a 'member of' the team, but the leader.", I was 100% joking. Joking, writers.
posted by InTheYear2017 at 9:34 AM on May 1, 2019 [27 favorites]
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., unveiled a plan on Wednesday to give every voter up to $600 in what she calls "Democracy Dollars" that they can donate to federal candidates for office.
How about $600 in dollar dollars so that people can buy food or pay 0.1% of their medical bills? It's like Yang's $1000/month except minus 40% and it's only once and also you can't use it to desperately try to keep yourself alive
posted by Rust Moranis at 9:36 AM on May 1, 2019 [25 favorites]
How about $600 in dollar dollars so that people can buy food or pay 0.1% of their medical bills? It's like Yang's $1000/month except minus 40% and it's only once and also you can't use it to desperately try to keep yourself alive
posted by Rust Moranis at 9:36 AM on May 1, 2019 [25 favorites]
We're doing Democracy Vouchers in Seattle and, surprisingly, it has not resulted in the inability of the city to do any other thing to improve people's general well-being.
In fact, it's quite nice, and I've used my vouchers to support local candidates who I want to see win.
posted by 0xFCAF at 9:40 AM on May 1, 2019 [15 favorites]
In fact, it's quite nice, and I've used my vouchers to support local candidates who I want to see win.
posted by 0xFCAF at 9:40 AM on May 1, 2019 [15 favorites]
How about $600 in dollar dollars so that people can buy food or pay 0.1% of their medical bills?
Wealth tax and do both? I agree, but the role of money in politics is one of the reasons we’re in this mess.
posted by donatella at 9:41 AM on May 1, 2019 [14 favorites]
Wealth tax and do both? I agree, but the role of money in politics is one of the reasons we’re in this mess.
posted by donatella at 9:41 AM on May 1, 2019 [14 favorites]
Talking Points Memo quotes Attorney General Barr:
1) The Attorney General's policy has decided that a sitting President cannot be charged with a crime.
2) The Special Counsel felt he could not charge the President with a crime because of the Attorney General's policy decision.
3) The Attorney General says that the Special Counsel should not be investigating possible crimes if there is not going to be the possibility of making a criminal charge.
4) Therefore, the Attorney General is opposed to the Special Counsel investigating the President. At all. He just came right out and said it. That's where we're at, folks.
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 9:49 AM on May 1, 2019 [67 favorites]
“And the other thing that was confusing to me is that the investigation carried on for a while as additional episodes were looked into, episodes involving the President,” Barr said. “And so my question is or was, why were those investigated if, at the end of the day, you weren’t going to reach a decision on them?”Let's follow this logic:
Barr hit the same point again later, saying: “I think that if he felt that he shouldn’t go down the path of making a traditional prosecutive decision, then he shouldn’t have investigated. That was the time to pull up.”
1) The Attorney General's policy has decided that a sitting President cannot be charged with a crime.
2) The Special Counsel felt he could not charge the President with a crime because of the Attorney General's policy decision.
3) The Attorney General says that the Special Counsel should not be investigating possible crimes if there is not going to be the possibility of making a criminal charge.
4) Therefore, the Attorney General is opposed to the Special Counsel investigating the President. At all. He just came right out and said it. That's where we're at, folks.
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 9:49 AM on May 1, 2019 [67 favorites]
NYT op-ed, the-last-person-we-want-to-hear-from-but-maybe-he-sounds-a-touch-regretful-or-is-just-obsessed-with-the-sound-of-his-own-voice James Comey, How Trump Co-opts Leaders Like Bill Barr, in which he seems to be writing about himself
But more often, proximity to an amoral leader reveals something depressing. I think that’s at least part of what we’ve seen with Bill Barr and Rod Rosenstein. Accomplished people lacking inner strength can’t resist the compromises necessary to survive Mr. Trump and that adds up to something they will never recover from. It takes character like Mr. Mattis’s to avoid the damage, because Mr. Trump eats your soul in small bites.posted by zachlipton at 9:54 AM on May 1, 2019 [27 favorites]
...
You feel this happening. It bothers you, at least to some extent. But his outrageous conduct convinces you that you simply must stay, to preserve and protect the people and institutions and values you hold dear. Along with Republican members of Congress, you tell yourself you are too important for this nation to lose, especially now.
You can’t say this out loud — maybe not even to your family — but in a time of emergency, with the nation led by a deeply unethical person, this will be your contribution, your personal sacrifice for America. You are smarter than Donald Trump, and you are playing a long game for your country, so you can pull it off where lesser leaders have failed and gotten fired by tweet.
Of course, to stay, you must be seen as on his team, so you make further compromises. You use his language, praise his leadership, tout his commitment to values.
And then you are lost. He has eaten your soul.
That's some pretty mealy-mouthed bullshit, Comey. I have more integrity in my pinky toe.
posted by archimago at 9:58 AM on May 1, 2019 [9 favorites]
posted by archimago at 9:58 AM on May 1, 2019 [9 favorites]
But his outrageous conduct convinces you that you simply must stay, to preserve and protect the people and institutions and values you hold dear.
I guess this is what you tell yourself when all of your Republican peers and colleagues prove themselves to be hypocrites with no moral compass and a bottomless thirst for money and power.
posted by diogenes at 10:00 AM on May 1, 2019 [13 favorites]
I guess this is what you tell yourself when all of your Republican peers and colleagues prove themselves to be hypocrites with no moral compass and a bottomless thirst for money and power.
posted by diogenes at 10:00 AM on May 1, 2019 [13 favorites]
You are smarter than Donald Trump...
These is where so many people go wrong. They look at Trump and go, holy crap this guy is a moron. Ok, maybe there is a bunch of ways you are smarter than him. But Trump is very very very good at somethings. He has a reality distortion field that warps everything around him, and truly is a master eater of souls, time and time again. He is the corrupter. He may not have the kind of smarts that academics have, but he sure has hell has some kind of smarts, and an awful lot of people have seriously misunderestimated him.
posted by Bovine Love at 10:00 AM on May 1, 2019 [37 favorites]
These is where so many people go wrong. They look at Trump and go, holy crap this guy is a moron. Ok, maybe there is a bunch of ways you are smarter than him. But Trump is very very very good at somethings. He has a reality distortion field that warps everything around him, and truly is a master eater of souls, time and time again. He is the corrupter. He may not have the kind of smarts that academics have, but he sure has hell has some kind of smarts, and an awful lot of people have seriously misunderestimated him.
posted by Bovine Love at 10:00 AM on May 1, 2019 [37 favorites]
That's as close to a mea culpa from Comey as we're ever likely to hear.
posted by contraption at 10:01 AM on May 1, 2019 [10 favorites]
posted by contraption at 10:01 AM on May 1, 2019 [10 favorites]
I respect Comey and Mattis both (putting me at odds with many MeFites, I know.) But both of them are useless to us now. I think there is some merit in the approach Comey decries. Pretend to be on Trump's team so that you can get close enough to stab him in the back? The hope that such people are still working behind the scenes to constrain and undermine Trump is my only hope for the country, some days. If the only people who remain in office are true loyalists, then Trump really does control all the levers of power, and it will be really, really hard to dislodge him. Fortunately the Mueller report depicts lots of people ignoring Trump's orders, so I still have hope.
posted by OnceUponATime at 10:07 AM on May 1, 2019 [8 favorites]
posted by OnceUponATime at 10:07 AM on May 1, 2019 [8 favorites]
Don't forget. James Comey is the person who declared Loretta Lynch corrupted by a 15 minute meeting with Bill Clinton in which they did not mention the case being investigated but instead talked about their grandchildren and golf.
And then we have James Comey, the very same person, who spent a two-hour dinner with Trump in which the primary topic of discussion was the investigation and which Comey neglected to tell anyone about until after he was fired.
This sanctimonious narcissist just needs to shut up.
posted by JackFlash at 10:11 AM on May 1, 2019 [73 favorites]
And then we have James Comey, the very same person, who spent a two-hour dinner with Trump in which the primary topic of discussion was the investigation and which Comey neglected to tell anyone about until after he was fired.
This sanctimonious narcissist just needs to shut up.
posted by JackFlash at 10:11 AM on May 1, 2019 [73 favorites]
I know that "He has eaten your soul" is weak sauce when it comes to describing Trump, but from my limited understanding of Comey's world of institutional decorum, it's actually somewhat harsh fighting words.
posted by InTheYear2017 at 10:13 AM on May 1, 2019 [7 favorites]
posted by InTheYear2017 at 10:13 AM on May 1, 2019 [7 favorites]
Comey's idea of "institutional decorum" is to back into the window decor so Trump can't see him
posted by tivalasvegas at 10:15 AM on May 1, 2019 [23 favorites]
posted by tivalasvegas at 10:15 AM on May 1, 2019 [23 favorites]
IMO Comey is both honest and pathetic. It's a depressing read, but it is probably very close to what most fair-minded Republicans have been thinking as they did reprehensible things. He is speaking out of experience, as someone who had both aided and abetted Trump and then at some point reached the limit of what he could deal with. I feel his mention of family is telling.
You don't have to like Comey or agree with him to see that this op-ed may be useful for some Republicans who need to move now. A lot of people within defence and law-enforcement are principled people who sincerely want to do good (but may well have racist and classist points of view), and for them, Trumpism is a challenge. I think Comey is speaking to them, not us. (Though as an army brat, I have family who are closer to Comey than to me in politics, so I know the "them" very well)
posted by mumimor at 10:16 AM on May 1, 2019 [30 favorites]
You don't have to like Comey or agree with him to see that this op-ed may be useful for some Republicans who need to move now. A lot of people within defence and law-enforcement are principled people who sincerely want to do good (but may well have racist and classist points of view), and for them, Trumpism is a challenge. I think Comey is speaking to them, not us. (Though as an army brat, I have family who are closer to Comey than to me in politics, so I know the "them" very well)
posted by mumimor at 10:16 AM on May 1, 2019 [30 favorites]
Mod note: Let's call it good on general "what do we think about Comey" stuff; fair to react some but it'd be easy to get rolling into a pretty repetitive thing we've been over many times.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 10:23 AM on May 1, 2019 [10 favorites]
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 10:23 AM on May 1, 2019 [10 favorites]
Now Warren has joined the chorus of 2020 hopefuls criticizing Barr—and upped the ante to call for impeaching Trump:
"AG Barr is a disgrace, and his alarming efforts to suppress the Mueller report show that he's not a credible head of federal law enforcement. He should resign—and based on the actual facts in the Mueller report, Congress should begin impeachment proceedings against the President."
posted by Doktor Zed at 10:27 AM on May 1, 2019 [61 favorites]
"AG Barr is a disgrace, and his alarming efforts to suppress the Mueller report show that he's not a credible head of federal law enforcement. He should resign—and based on the actual facts in the Mueller report, Congress should begin impeachment proceedings against the President."
posted by Doktor Zed at 10:27 AM on May 1, 2019 [61 favorites]
Attorney General Barr tried to tell Senator Feinstein (D) that there is an important distinction between “firing” the Special Counsel and ordering that the Special Counsel “be removed for conflict.” What is this distinction? Barr says that the latter case implies that the Special Counsel would be replaced, whereas the former implies he would not be replaced. What is the evidence for the existence of these distinct implications? Barr’s Brain. Welcome to C-SPAN 3, the show where everything’s made up and the points don’t matter!
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 10:47 AM on May 1, 2019 [16 favorites]
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 10:47 AM on May 1, 2019 [16 favorites]
Nixon literally fired Archibald Cox, and replaced him!!! Barr wants us to believe that intending to put another guy in instead means it can't be obstruction? Beyond absurd.
posted by BungaDunga at 11:04 AM on May 1, 2019 [27 favorites]
posted by BungaDunga at 11:04 AM on May 1, 2019 [27 favorites]
Attorney General Barr tried to tell Senator Feinstein (D) that there is an important distinction between “firing” the Special Counsel and ordering that the Special Counsel “be removed for conflict.” What is this distinction? Barr says that the latter case implies that the Special Counsel would be replaced, whereas the former implies he would not be replaced. What is the evidence for the existence of these distinct implications?
I may be wrong, but I think Bill Barr is a reasonably intelligent and articulate person, and one way such people go wrong is that as they mature, they see that they can talk their way around a lot of problems because they're dealing with people who aren't as intelligent or articulate. His dismissively neutral affect as he makes some very questionable assertions and leaps of logic is part of the package of flim-flam he has used in the past to smooth out the bumps in his ethically suspect road. It isn't flying here (and FSM knows why it did in his past government service), so he may be in for a rude awakening.
posted by Mental Wimp at 11:06 AM on May 1, 2019 [8 favorites]
I may be wrong, but I think Bill Barr is a reasonably intelligent and articulate person, and one way such people go wrong is that as they mature, they see that they can talk their way around a lot of problems because they're dealing with people who aren't as intelligent or articulate. His dismissively neutral affect as he makes some very questionable assertions and leaps of logic is part of the package of flim-flam he has used in the past to smooth out the bumps in his ethically suspect road. It isn't flying here (and FSM knows why it did in his past government service), so he may be in for a rude awakening.
posted by Mental Wimp at 11:06 AM on May 1, 2019 [8 favorites]
But Trump is very very very good at somethings. He has a reality distortion field that warps everything around him, and truly is a master eater of souls, time and time again. He is the corrupter. He may not have the kind of smarts that academics have, but he sure has hell has some kind of smarts, and an awful lot of people have seriously misunderestimated him.
I think that's an understandable deduction but I totally disagree. He's floated in on a cloud of corruption and sycophancy that are legendarily inept. It's only the tremendously rich and efficient machine of the Republican Party that has kept him from already being tossed in the pokey so far in this administration. (Due to their submission to said corruption and sycophancy.) That's not smarts of any sort other than generic street rules of being a billionaire money laundering sex predator.
posted by petebest at 11:06 AM on May 1, 2019 [14 favorites]
I think that's an understandable deduction but I totally disagree. He's floated in on a cloud of corruption and sycophancy that are legendarily inept. It's only the tremendously rich and efficient machine of the Republican Party that has kept him from already being tossed in the pokey so far in this administration. (Due to their submission to said corruption and sycophancy.) That's not smarts of any sort other than generic street rules of being a billionaire money laundering sex predator.
posted by petebest at 11:06 AM on May 1, 2019 [14 favorites]
Nixon literally fired Archibald Cox, and replaced him!!! Barr wants us to believe that intending to put another guy in instead means it can't be obstruction? Beyond absurd.
Ah yes, the famously benign Saturday Night Reincarnation
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 11:06 AM on May 1, 2019 [23 favorites]
Ah yes, the famously benign Saturday Night Reincarnation
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 11:06 AM on May 1, 2019 [23 favorites]
Sorry if this borders on liveblogging, but boy, Mazie Hirono just did a great job unloading on Barr, finishing with "Please, Mister Attorney General, give us some credit for knowing what the hell's going on here." Highly recommend finding the video if you can.
posted by Rykey at 11:07 AM on May 1, 2019 [35 favorites]
posted by Rykey at 11:07 AM on May 1, 2019 [35 favorites]
Hirono pressed Barr on whether he personally thought it was OK for Trump to do what he did to interfere with the investigation, refused to let him redirect to "it wasn't a crime", and then directly told Barr that he should resign.
posted by tivalasvegas at 11:08 AM on May 1, 2019 [30 favorites]
posted by tivalasvegas at 11:08 AM on May 1, 2019 [30 favorites]
If Hirono had stayed with the “do you think this patently dishonest behavior is fine?” and then let him hang himself with his own rope, she’d have been much better served.
posted by From Bklyn at 11:12 AM on May 1, 2019 [2 favorites]
posted by From Bklyn at 11:12 AM on May 1, 2019 [2 favorites]
Booker is bad at this. They’re all so bad at this. I have no idea how impeachment is supposed to happen when everyone’s questions are actually stammering, grandstanding statements that just end up allowing the witnesses to say nothing.
posted by Room 101 at 11:19 AM on May 1, 2019 [14 favorites]
posted by Room 101 at 11:19 AM on May 1, 2019 [14 favorites]
everyone’s questions are actually stammering, grandstanding statements that just end up allowing the witnesses to say nothing.
This is why Barr is fighting so hard to avoid spending 30 minutes in front of a non-lawmaker at tomorrow's House Judiciary hearing.
posted by diogenes at 11:25 AM on May 1, 2019 [32 favorites]
This is why Barr is fighting so hard to avoid spending 30 minutes in front of a non-lawmaker at tomorrow's House Judiciary hearing.
posted by diogenes at 11:25 AM on May 1, 2019 [32 favorites]
CNN: House Panel Approves Staff to Question William Barr Over AG's Objections
posted by Doktor Zed at 11:41 AM on May 1, 2019 [10 favorites]
"I don't know what he's afraid of," said House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler, a New York Democrat.* I'd really like to know who skipped their votes, on both sides.
The vote was 21 to 14.*[…]
When asked if he thought Barr should step down, as other Democrats have called for, Nadler said that "there are great difficulties for the attorney general at this point."
"Besides the fact that he clearly misled the American people, he seems to have testified non-truthfully to the Senate and the House, which raises major questions," Nadler said.
posted by Doktor Zed at 11:41 AM on May 1, 2019 [10 favorites]
State Dept. policy planning director about Pompeo's China strategy: "The Soviet Union and that competition, in a way it was a fight within the Western family ... it's the first time we will have a great power competitor that is not Caucasian."
Clash-of-civilizations rhetoric has fully metamorphosed into explicit race-war rhetoric.
posted by Rust Moranis at 11:44 AM on May 1, 2019 [21 favorites]
Clash-of-civilizations rhetoric has fully metamorphosed into explicit race-war rhetoric.
posted by Rust Moranis at 11:44 AM on May 1, 2019 [21 favorites]
But Trump is very very very good at somethings. He has a reality distortion field that warps everything around him, and truly is a master eater of souls, time and time again.
This is an indicator of a malignant personality disorder, though, not a skill at manipulating people. These personalities routinely act in such insane and self-serving, norm-violating ways that people are a) shocked at being confronted with such antisocial behavior, and b) at a loss for how to get around it. They spend tons of time in firefighting mode, trying to smooth over problems and recover from the damage incurred by the disordered personality. Meanwhile, the trauma of being subjected to all this has a documentable toll: it literally makes people sick and increasingly unable to navigate in a world which doesn't have predictable boundaries. Trump isn't exhibiting a skill, he's abusing people--literally everyone who is subjected to, and at the mercy of, his behavior. All of us.
posted by Autumnheart at 11:49 AM on May 1, 2019 [64 favorites]
This is an indicator of a malignant personality disorder, though, not a skill at manipulating people. These personalities routinely act in such insane and self-serving, norm-violating ways that people are a) shocked at being confronted with such antisocial behavior, and b) at a loss for how to get around it. They spend tons of time in firefighting mode, trying to smooth over problems and recover from the damage incurred by the disordered personality. Meanwhile, the trauma of being subjected to all this has a documentable toll: it literally makes people sick and increasingly unable to navigate in a world which doesn't have predictable boundaries. Trump isn't exhibiting a skill, he's abusing people--literally everyone who is subjected to, and at the mercy of, his behavior. All of us.
posted by Autumnheart at 11:49 AM on May 1, 2019 [64 favorites]
State Dept. policy planning director about Pompeo's China strategy: "The Soviet Union and that competition, in a way it was a fight within the Western family ... it's the first time we will have a great power competitor that is not Caucasian."
Clash-of-civilizations rhetoric has fully metamorphosed into explicit race-war rhetoric.
It's not even *right*. What, exactly, were the Japanese before and during WWII?
posted by Quindar Beep at 11:50 AM on May 1, 2019 [19 favorites]
Clash-of-civilizations rhetoric has fully metamorphosed into explicit race-war rhetoric.
It's not even *right*. What, exactly, were the Japanese before and during WWII?
posted by Quindar Beep at 11:50 AM on May 1, 2019 [19 favorites]
It's "Mr. Attorney General," right? Not "General Barr"? I know Trump likes to surround himself with loyal generals, but Barr's job isn't a military job.
posted by emelenjr at 11:57 AM on May 1, 2019 [11 favorites]
posted by emelenjr at 11:57 AM on May 1, 2019 [11 favorites]
Did Jon Stewart elect Donald Trump? Evidence from television ratings data (ScienceDirect paywall journal article)
Abstract
To identify the effects of televised political comedy on the 2016 presidential election, we leverage the change in hosts of two popular shows, The Daily Show and The Colbert Report, and both shows' subsequent ratings declines. ... For The Daily Show, we find a strong positive effect on Jon Stewart's departure and Trump's vote share. By our estimate, the transition at The Daily Show spurred a 1.1% increase in Trump's county-level vote share. ... Our results make clear that late-night political comedy can have meaningful effects on presidential elections.
I knew this was Stewart's fault! Ever since he stole the Colbert SuperPAC money and flew off in a blimp he seemed to have turned to e-ville.
posted by petebest at 11:59 AM on May 1, 2019 [13 favorites]
Abstract
To identify the effects of televised political comedy on the 2016 presidential election, we leverage the change in hosts of two popular shows, The Daily Show and The Colbert Report, and both shows' subsequent ratings declines. ... For The Daily Show, we find a strong positive effect on Jon Stewart's departure and Trump's vote share. By our estimate, the transition at The Daily Show spurred a 1.1% increase in Trump's county-level vote share. ... Our results make clear that late-night political comedy can have meaningful effects on presidential elections.
I knew this was Stewart's fault! Ever since he stole the Colbert SuperPAC money and flew off in a blimp he seemed to have turned to e-ville.
posted by petebest at 11:59 AM on May 1, 2019 [13 favorites]
It's "Mr. Attorney General," right? Not "General Barr"? I know Trump likes to surround himself with loyal generals, but Barr's job isn't a military job.
*I* know that and *you* know that but the president may or may not know that. It's got "general" right in the name
posted by tivalasvegas at 12:01 PM on May 1, 2019 [1 favorite]
*I* know that and *you* know that but the president may or may not know that. It's got "general" right in the name
posted by tivalasvegas at 12:01 PM on May 1, 2019 [1 favorite]
It's "Mr. Attorney General," right? Not "General Barr"? I know Trump likes to surround himself with loyal generals, but Barr's job isn't a military job.
People have been (mis)treating Attorney General and Surgeon General as analagous to military rank at least since the administrator of Bush the Lesser. Alberto Gonzales is the first AG I noticed was sometimes called General Gonzales. It's stupid as hell, but it caught on among some people.
posted by Pater Aletheias at 12:05 PM on May 1, 2019 [10 favorites]
People have been (mis)treating Attorney General and Surgeon General as analagous to military rank at least since the administrator of Bush the Lesser. Alberto Gonzales is the first AG I noticed was sometimes called General Gonzales. It's stupid as hell, but it caught on among some people.
posted by Pater Aletheias at 12:05 PM on May 1, 2019 [10 favorites]
Don't forget. James Comey is the person who declared Loretta Lynch corrupted by a 15 minute meeting with Bill Clinton in which they did not mention the case being investigated but instead talked about their grandchildren and golf.
And then we have James Comey, the very same person, who spent a two-hour dinner with Trump in which the primary topic of discussion was the investigation and which Comey neglected to tell anyone about until after he was fired.
The thing is, this more or less makes sense from the perspective that Comey is describing.
Like, the Lynch thing is perhaps how you behave when you are committed to a avoid-even-the-appearance-of-evil comportment, uncompromised professional rectitude. Oh, people may bend the rules a little for a "good cause" or two now and again, but there's always the norm you know you must return to. And you can do this not even to "catch" folks like Lynch and Clintons, but because you think they're innocent and you think can totally vindicate them by the book, using an exacting process you think no one will question.
But of course everyone knows that we can't apply that standard to Donald Trump -- even many of his fans know that (and they love him for it). He's *obviously* corrupt, so clearly the norms are suspended while we're in this unusual situation, they have to be for anyone who is going to stay close to him as President and do the work of preserving the institutions.
And, bam. Double standard. Common enough temptation, more common among those who frequently value victory over principled responsibility, even more common among those who value privilege over society, but Trump represents an entirely new level. It's not just that he doesn't have any principles, it's that he's such a monster that the very conception of there being any way of actually thinking beyond the importance of his own status is something purely absent from his being. Double standards roll out from him like Hawking radiation from a moral black hole, and the only way to avoid it is to be outside the event horizon. And so you flip. You try to put the burden on yourself to be extra fair, as Mueller has with Trump, with an exacting process that you think will be above question.
The decided bulk of the Republican party is inside the event horizon. Some try to maneuver near the boundary, which only indicates that they either don't understand the nature of the beast, or that they had too much affinity for the beast to start with. I won't judge anyone who thinks Comey is the latter too harshly, but I think there's indictions he's the former.
posted by wildblueyonder at 12:06 PM on May 1, 2019 [17 favorites]
And then we have James Comey, the very same person, who spent a two-hour dinner with Trump in which the primary topic of discussion was the investigation and which Comey neglected to tell anyone about until after he was fired.
The thing is, this more or less makes sense from the perspective that Comey is describing.
Like, the Lynch thing is perhaps how you behave when you are committed to a avoid-even-the-appearance-of-evil comportment, uncompromised professional rectitude. Oh, people may bend the rules a little for a "good cause" or two now and again, but there's always the norm you know you must return to. And you can do this not even to "catch" folks like Lynch and Clintons, but because you think they're innocent and you think can totally vindicate them by the book, using an exacting process you think no one will question.
But of course everyone knows that we can't apply that standard to Donald Trump -- even many of his fans know that (and they love him for it). He's *obviously* corrupt, so clearly the norms are suspended while we're in this unusual situation, they have to be for anyone who is going to stay close to him as President and do the work of preserving the institutions.
And, bam. Double standard. Common enough temptation, more common among those who frequently value victory over principled responsibility, even more common among those who value privilege over society, but Trump represents an entirely new level. It's not just that he doesn't have any principles, it's that he's such a monster that the very conception of there being any way of actually thinking beyond the importance of his own status is something purely absent from his being. Double standards roll out from him like Hawking radiation from a moral black hole, and the only way to avoid it is to be outside the event horizon. And so you flip. You try to put the burden on yourself to be extra fair, as Mueller has with Trump, with an exacting process that you think will be above question.
The decided bulk of the Republican party is inside the event horizon. Some try to maneuver near the boundary, which only indicates that they either don't understand the nature of the beast, or that they had too much affinity for the beast to start with. I won't judge anyone who thinks Comey is the latter too harshly, but I think there's indictions he's the former.
posted by wildblueyonder at 12:06 PM on May 1, 2019 [17 favorites]
In 2014 the FBI were sending their agents to the holocaust museum. In this CNN article Mueller is quoted once:
"We send every one of our agents to the Holocaust Museum before they're agents to know and understand what happens when an agency goes rogue," ex-FBI director Robert Mueller explained recently.
He could mean ICE here, who have been ordered by the president to break the law. Reading this letter, maybe his concern is the DOJ.
I think he makes the bed as soon as he wakes up, drum tight. Though this disposition may constrain his ability to call bullshit. Who even knows? This is one of the few quotes I can put in his mouth.
Also, what a great idea, show all the new agents the holocaust, before they are agents.
I look forward to his testimony, which is almost certain to come. When this happens, democrats, don't speechify your questions. Don't shoot for mere soundbites. It's not about you it's about getting answers, so come with the right questions.
posted by adept256 at 12:08 PM on May 1, 2019 [6 favorites]
"We send every one of our agents to the Holocaust Museum before they're agents to know and understand what happens when an agency goes rogue," ex-FBI director Robert Mueller explained recently.
He could mean ICE here, who have been ordered by the president to break the law. Reading this letter, maybe his concern is the DOJ.
I think he makes the bed as soon as he wakes up, drum tight. Though this disposition may constrain his ability to call bullshit. Who even knows? This is one of the few quotes I can put in his mouth.
Also, what a great idea, show all the new agents the holocaust, before they are agents.
I look forward to his testimony, which is almost certain to come. When this happens, democrats, don't speechify your questions. Don't shoot for mere soundbites. It's not about you it's about getting answers, so come with the right questions.
posted by adept256 at 12:08 PM on May 1, 2019 [6 favorites]
(Link for anyone interested in how attorneys general and solicitors general began to be addressed as "General.")
posted by Pater Aletheias at 12:11 PM on May 1, 2019 [7 favorites]
posted by Pater Aletheias at 12:11 PM on May 1, 2019 [7 favorites]
Let Sen Harris organize any questioning from here on out - the look on Barr’s face when she asked if he had reviewed the evidence was very satisfying.
posted by From Bklyn at 12:12 PM on May 1, 2019 [29 favorites]
posted by From Bklyn at 12:12 PM on May 1, 2019 [29 favorites]
That’s like calling the President “Mr. In-Chief.”
posted by Barack Spinoza at 12:17 PM on May 1, 2019 [5 favorites]
posted by Barack Spinoza at 12:17 PM on May 1, 2019 [5 favorites]
People have been (mis)treating Attorney General and Surgeon General as analagous to military rank at least since the administrator of Bush the Lesser. Alberto Gonzales is the first AG I noticed was sometimes called General Gonzales. It's stupid as hell, but it caught on among some people.The Surgeon General case is slightly different, in that Surgeon General does actually have an analogous military rank: they are the operational head of the U.S. Public Health Service Commissioned Corps, a uniformed service with actual commissioned ranks. However it would not be correct to address them as "General" in that sense, since by law the commissioned rank they hold is vice admiral.
posted by Nerd of the North at 12:24 PM on May 1, 2019 [22 favorites]
zachlipton, quoting Comey: But more often, proximity to an amoral leader reveals something depressing. I think that’s at least part of what we’ve seen with Bill Barr and Rod Rosenstein. Accomplished people lacking inner strength can’t resist the compromises necessary to survive Mr. Trump and that adds up to something they will never recover from. It takes character like Mr. Mattis’s to avoid the damage, because Mr. Trump eats your soul in small bites.
So what's his excuse for the shitty trickle of nothingburgers on "Her Emails!"? Why did he throw the election for Trump? Did he have an undiagnosed (at that time) case of the rampant Anti-Clinton Fever?
Meanwhile, another chapter in the ever-growing tome of "How Trump Is A Monster": Trump Administration Has Drastically Dropped Visas For Afghan And Iraqi Interpreters (Quil Lawrence for NPR, May 1, 2019)
posted by filthy light thief at 12:26 PM on May 1, 2019 [22 favorites]
So what's his excuse for the shitty trickle of nothingburgers on "Her Emails!"? Why did he throw the election for Trump? Did he have an undiagnosed (at that time) case of the rampant Anti-Clinton Fever?
Meanwhile, another chapter in the ever-growing tome of "How Trump Is A Monster": Trump Administration Has Drastically Dropped Visas For Afghan And Iraqi Interpreters (Quil Lawrence for NPR, May 1, 2019)
In light of the sacrifice made by Iraqis and Afghans who assisted U.S. forces, Congress created the Special Immigrant Visa program to get them and their families to safety in the U.S. Farley says it was about gratitude and also an incentive for local nationals to help U.S. troops. Now veterans such as Farley, as well as dozens of lawmakers, say they're afraid the promise they made is being broken. Under the Trump administration, the number coming to the U.S. has dropped drastically.Holy fuck, those are grim numbers.
"This administration is hostile to refugees," says Adam Bates, with the International Refugee Assistance Project.
Bates says in Iraq the program has a backlog of more than 100,000 people. Last year about 200 were cleared — down from nearly 10,000 in 2016.
posted by filthy light thief at 12:26 PM on May 1, 2019 [22 favorites]
Mod note: Enough on 'attorney general'. If folks want more, it can be a separate post.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 12:26 PM on May 1, 2019 [5 favorites]
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 12:26 PM on May 1, 2019 [5 favorites]
> As always, I find it strange that Senators don't just have their lawyers draft their questions.
They usually do, but they usually don't have lawyers on staff with much experience examining witnesses.
This is your periodic reminder that the Legislative branch's staffing is obscenely, horribly low. Insufficent legal staffing in hearings is one result. An excessive reliance on external operations - primarily lobbist shops - for legislative drafting is another. Interns should be paid. Work product should be public. Etc on and on and on.
posted by phearlez at 12:27 PM on May 1, 2019 [20 favorites]
They usually do, but they usually don't have lawyers on staff with much experience examining witnesses.
This is your periodic reminder that the Legislative branch's staffing is obscenely, horribly low. Insufficent legal staffing in hearings is one result. An excessive reliance on external operations - primarily lobbist shops - for legislative drafting is another. Interns should be paid. Work product should be public. Etc on and on and on.
posted by phearlez at 12:27 PM on May 1, 2019 [20 favorites]
Palate cleanser: Hillary Clinton reads from the Mueller Report (relevant section starts about 3:15)
posted by tivalasvegas at 12:32 PM on May 1, 2019 [3 favorites]
posted by tivalasvegas at 12:32 PM on May 1, 2019 [3 favorites]
"Why should you?"
The myriad levels of contempt in Barr's final utterrance to the Senate committee are all the bad things: disqualifying, arrogant, evasive, unAmerican, truth-denying, just everything you expect from a minor Screwtape Letters demon choad, not the Attorney General.
Makes one think the term disbarred was created in want of him specifically.
posted by riverlife at 12:33 PM on May 1, 2019 [41 favorites]
The myriad levels of contempt in Barr's final utterrance to the Senate committee are all the bad things: disqualifying, arrogant, evasive, unAmerican, truth-denying, just everything you expect from a minor Screwtape Letters demon choad, not the Attorney General.
Makes one think the term disbarred was created in want of him specifically.
posted by riverlife at 12:33 PM on May 1, 2019 [41 favorites]
More 2020 Dem candidates calling for Barr's resignation:
Cory Booker: "Attorney General Barr answers to the American people—not to President Trump—and over the past 24 hours it’s become clear that he lied to us and mishandled the Mueller Report. He needs to step down. Add your name if you agree: https://coryb.kr/2vyZ63U"
Kirsten Gilliband: "Attorney General Barr needs to resign. Today, he's proven once again that he's more interested in protecting the president than working for the American people. We can't trust him to tell the truth, and these embarrassing displays of propaganda have to stop."
Kamala Harris: "What I just saw from the Attorney General is unacceptable. Barr must resign now."
posted by Doktor Zed at 12:33 PM on May 1, 2019 [45 favorites]
Cory Booker: "Attorney General Barr answers to the American people—not to President Trump—and over the past 24 hours it’s become clear that he lied to us and mishandled the Mueller Report. He needs to step down. Add your name if you agree: https://coryb.kr/2vyZ63U"
Kirsten Gilliband: "Attorney General Barr needs to resign. Today, he's proven once again that he's more interested in protecting the president than working for the American people. We can't trust him to tell the truth, and these embarrassing displays of propaganda have to stop."
Kamala Harris: "What I just saw from the Attorney General is unacceptable. Barr must resign now."
posted by Doktor Zed at 12:33 PM on May 1, 2019 [45 favorites]
Talking Points Memo:
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 12:50 PM on May 1, 2019 [11 favorites]
In an exchange with Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL), Barr analogized Mueller’s complaint to that of an egotistical prosecutor after a “months-long trial.”I consider this an imperfect analogy. A trial can have a guilty verdict, so reporting a verdict of "not guilty" is a good-faith representation of the decision. Mueller was prohibited from charging Trump with obstruction of justice, so describing his report as an exoneration is not a good-faith representation of his decision. Rather, it is an attempt to mislead Congress and to obstruct justice.
“I’m out there saying, ‘here’s the verdict,’ and the prosecutor comes up and taps me on the shoulder and says, ‘the verdict doesn’t really capture all my work,'” Barr said. “‘How about my great cross examination I did? Or how about that third day of trial where I did that?'”
He continued the metaphor later in the exchange with Durbin: “I’m not trying to capture everything, I’m just trying to state the verdict.”
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 12:50 PM on May 1, 2019 [11 favorites]
Barr: "You know, the letter is a bit snitty and I think it was probably written by one of his staff people."
This should set up an interesting cross-examination when Mueller steps up.
And it directly contradicts Barr's claim that he didn't know what Mueller's staff thought about his summary. Remember that earlier today Barr claimed that he didn't lie when he previously denied knowledge of staff complaints about his summary because he only had Mueller's letter not the staff's. Now he his claiming just the opposite, that the staff wrote the letter, not Mueller. He can't have it both ways. One or the other is a flat out lie.
Blumenthal also asked for his written notes of his conversation with Mueller about the report.
Barr: "No."
Blumenthal: "Why not?"
Barr: "Why should you have them?" (Now who's being snitty).
Well, maybe because Barr is a suspect in perjury and these notes would be producible evidence.
It's looking like Barr isn't nearly as smart and people make him out to be. He seems to be just a trash talking mobster lawyer like Michael Cohen.
posted by JackFlash at 1:03 PM on May 1, 2019 [31 favorites]
This should set up an interesting cross-examination when Mueller steps up.
And it directly contradicts Barr's claim that he didn't know what Mueller's staff thought about his summary. Remember that earlier today Barr claimed that he didn't lie when he previously denied knowledge of staff complaints about his summary because he only had Mueller's letter not the staff's. Now he his claiming just the opposite, that the staff wrote the letter, not Mueller. He can't have it both ways. One or the other is a flat out lie.
Blumenthal also asked for his written notes of his conversation with Mueller about the report.
Barr: "No."
Blumenthal: "Why not?"
Barr: "Why should you have them?" (Now who's being snitty).
Well, maybe because Barr is a suspect in perjury and these notes would be producible evidence.
It's looking like Barr isn't nearly as smart and people make him out to be. He seems to be just a trash talking mobster lawyer like Michael Cohen.
posted by JackFlash at 1:03 PM on May 1, 2019 [31 favorites]
More from TPM:
@MaxKennerly: The Attorney General just made an extended argument that, if a person says they were acting with a proper motive, then it is impossible to prove intent. I feel sorry for the criminal-defense lawyers I know, all of whom will now be out of business.
Also, here's a clip of all of Harris's questioning of Barr. Highly recommended viewing.
posted by zachlipton at 1:03 PM on May 1, 2019 [42 favorites]
Because Trump felt “falsely accused” by special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation, which he felt was “propelled by his political opponents,” it was only natural that he would try to stop it, Barr testified.This is the Attorney General giving Trump a free pass to do anything he wants, because his motive will always be "I feel aggrieved by these people who are out to give me" and never anything Barr would view as a corrupt motive.
As the attorney general put it: “That is not a corrupt motive.”
@MaxKennerly: The Attorney General just made an extended argument that, if a person says they were acting with a proper motive, then it is impossible to prove intent. I feel sorry for the criminal-defense lawyers I know, all of whom will now be out of business.
Also, here's a clip of all of Harris's questioning of Barr. Highly recommended viewing.
posted by zachlipton at 1:03 PM on May 1, 2019 [42 favorites]
Teresa Tomlinson (D), former mayor of Columbus, Georgia, is running for Senate in 2020.
posted by Rosie M. Banks at 1:10 PM on May 1, 2019 [9 favorites]
posted by Rosie M. Banks at 1:10 PM on May 1, 2019 [9 favorites]
I think this may be my first POTUS 45 thread post. it may not be the best place but I didn't see a current MetaTalk place for it.
Watching/reading about Barr's testimony conjures a mental picture for me of the GOP as Keystone Kongress asking questions of a Bar-Bar Jinks character.
posted by Altomentis at 1:11 PM on May 1, 2019 [9 favorites]
Watching/reading about Barr's testimony conjures a mental picture for me of the GOP as Keystone Kongress asking questions of a Bar-Bar Jinks character.
posted by Altomentis at 1:11 PM on May 1, 2019 [9 favorites]
From Virginia Heffernan, @page88, a response to the Comey opinion piece via Threadreader: How does Trump corrupt these men? ... Thank you, @comey, for definitively answering one of the central mysteries of our time: How did daft psycho Donald Trump—hardly Ryan Gosling or Stormy Daniels—make grown man swoon?
I compulsively ask this question @realTrumpcast. I asked @elliotcwilliams yesterday. I even cited @comey's decision to hide in curtains rather than deal with his corrosive embrace. And @PreetBharara calling his father to say "This guy is freaking me out" (in more Preet words). ... I'd also like to hear more from cognitively integrated figures like @waltshaub & Sally Yates about how they decisively resisted Trump's efforts to "eat their souls."
It's interesting that ruling-class white men seem to be really the ONLY significant group enchanted by and cognitively vulnerable to Trump's overtures, manipulations & dominance moves. Is it a failure of education in them? Do middle-aged white men just cathect onto Trump as if he were a sadistic father, coach or military commander? Why are they so easily intimidated and seduced? Are people of color and women more alert to abuse and soul-eaters? (One Twitter response was a photo from writing by Hannah Arendt on “suicidal loyalty” in totalitarian movements.)
posted by Bella Donna at 1:14 PM on May 1, 2019 [37 favorites]
I compulsively ask this question @realTrumpcast. I asked @elliotcwilliams yesterday. I even cited @comey's decision to hide in curtains rather than deal with his corrosive embrace. And @PreetBharara calling his father to say "This guy is freaking me out" (in more Preet words). ... I'd also like to hear more from cognitively integrated figures like @waltshaub & Sally Yates about how they decisively resisted Trump's efforts to "eat their souls."
It's interesting that ruling-class white men seem to be really the ONLY significant group enchanted by and cognitively vulnerable to Trump's overtures, manipulations & dominance moves. Is it a failure of education in them? Do middle-aged white men just cathect onto Trump as if he were a sadistic father, coach or military commander? Why are they so easily intimidated and seduced? Are people of color and women more alert to abuse and soul-eaters? (One Twitter response was a photo from writing by Hannah Arendt on “suicidal loyalty” in totalitarian movements.)
posted by Bella Donna at 1:14 PM on May 1, 2019 [37 favorites]
Senator Whitehouse (D) made an superb point that the Special Counsel should not have been made reluctant to charge the President on the basis that the President, being immune from prosecution, would be unable to defend himself in court. In fact, since the President's immunity stems only from Department of Justice policy and not from law, the President would have been easily capable of revoking his immunity in this instance, and having his day in court. I'd hate to see him deprived of this vital human right!
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 1:27 PM on May 1, 2019 [32 favorites]
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 1:27 PM on May 1, 2019 [32 favorites]
Mod note: Couple deleted; sorry, let's not take a general detour into the psychology etc of white men; it can be a separate post if it merits a deeper dive.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 1:33 PM on May 1, 2019 [4 favorites]
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 1:33 PM on May 1, 2019 [4 favorites]
Now he his claiming just the opposite, that the staff wrote the letter, not Mueller. He can't have it both ways. One or the other is a flat out lie. .
Barr's floundering about the letter is a beautiful thing. His multiple, nonsensical, non-reconcilable explanations illustrate how perfectly it screwed him. If your defense relies on a thought experiment about the nature of existence, you're probably in trouble.
posted by diogenes at 2:01 PM on May 1, 2019 [9 favorites]
Barr's floundering about the letter is a beautiful thing. His multiple, nonsensical, non-reconcilable explanations illustrate how perfectly it screwed him. If your defense relies on a thought experiment about the nature of existence, you're probably in trouble.
posted by diogenes at 2:01 PM on May 1, 2019 [9 favorites]
What's the process for impeaching an attorney general? Is it the same as impeaching a president?
posted by Autumnheart at 2:03 PM on May 1, 2019 [1 favorite]
posted by Autumnheart at 2:03 PM on May 1, 2019 [1 favorite]
Metafilter: If your defense relies on a thought experiment about the nature of existence, you're probably in trouble.
posted by Melismata at 2:04 PM on May 1, 2019 [19 favorites]
posted by Melismata at 2:04 PM on May 1, 2019 [19 favorites]
HARRIS: Thank you Mr. Chairman. Attorney General Barr, has the President or anyone at the White House ever asked or suggested that you open an investigation of anyone?
BARR: Uhm ... I wouldn- I woudln't .. uhm ...
HARRIS: Yes or no?
BARR: (off-mic) Could you ask her to repeat that please?
HARRIS: I will repeat it. Has the President or anyone at the White House ever asked or suggested that you open an investigation of anyone, yes or no, please sir?
BARR: Uhm ... (lip-smack) .. The President or anybody else ...
HARRIS: It seems you'd remember something like that, and be able to tell us?
BARR: Yeah, but I'm trying to grapple with the word "suggest", I mean there have been discussions of matters out there that uh .. they have not asked me to open an investigation but...
HARRIS: Perhaps they've suggested?
BARR: I dunno, I wouldn't say "suggest" ...
HARRIS: Hinted?
BARR: I don't know.
HARRIS: Inferred?
BARR: ... (pout, shrug)
HARRIS: You don't know? Ok.
posted by petebest at 2:06 PM on May 1, 2019 [36 favorites]
BARR: Uhm ... I wouldn- I woudln't .. uhm ...
HARRIS: Yes or no?
BARR: (off-mic) Could you ask her to repeat that please?
HARRIS: I will repeat it. Has the President or anyone at the White House ever asked or suggested that you open an investigation of anyone, yes or no, please sir?
BARR: Uhm ... (lip-smack) .. The President or anybody else ...
HARRIS: It seems you'd remember something like that, and be able to tell us?
BARR: Yeah, but I'm trying to grapple with the word "suggest", I mean there have been discussions of matters out there that uh .. they have not asked me to open an investigation but...
HARRIS: Perhaps they've suggested?
BARR: I dunno, I wouldn't say "suggest" ...
HARRIS: Hinted?
BARR: I don't know.
HARRIS: Inferred?
BARR: ... (pout, shrug)
HARRIS: You don't know? Ok.
posted by petebest at 2:06 PM on May 1, 2019 [36 favorites]
What's the process for impeaching an attorney general? Is it the same as impeaching a president?
Yes, except you don’t need the Chief Justice for the trial.
posted by Huffy Puffy at 2:07 PM on May 1, 2019 [8 favorites]
Yes, except you don’t need the Chief Justice for the trial.
posted by Huffy Puffy at 2:07 PM on May 1, 2019 [8 favorites]
Lindsay Graham says he won't call for Mueller to testify. "I'm not going to do any more. Enough already. It's over." (via Kyle Griffin on Twitter.)
posted by StrawberryPie at 2:13 PM on May 1, 2019 [2 favorites]
posted by StrawberryPie at 2:13 PM on May 1, 2019 [2 favorites]
BARR: Yeah, but I'm trying to grapple with the word "suggest", I mean there have been discussions of matters out there that uh .. they have not asked me to open an investigation but...
So 'told' was probably the word they were looking for.
posted by mazola at 2:19 PM on May 1, 2019 [4 favorites]
So 'told' was probably the word they were looking for.
posted by mazola at 2:19 PM on May 1, 2019 [4 favorites]
BREAKING: Attorney General William Barr declines to testify before House panel, says Judiciary Committee aide (WaPo)
Barr has been in a dispute with the committee over its plans to have a counsel question the top law enforcement offical alongside lawmakers on the panel at Thursday’s hearing.posted by Barack Spinoza at 2:51 PM on May 1, 2019 [21 favorites]
The word comes after Barr testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday.
Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee are discussing holding Attorney General William P. Barr in contempt of Congress, according to several lawmakers and officials familiar with the plan.
During a pair of closed-door meetings Tuesday evening and Wednesday morning, the committee decided that it would probably make a push for a Barr contempt citation if he skips a scheduled Thursday hearing or ignores their subpoena for the full report by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III.
BuzzFeed, A 16-Year-Old Unaccompanied Immigrant Boy Has Died In US Government Custody
posted by zachlipton at 2:57 PM on May 1, 2019 [20 favorites]
posted by zachlipton at 2:57 PM on May 1, 2019 [20 favorites]
Not that it's really news, but I feel like this is just one more example in the ongoing series of examples that prove that the fundamental idea of separation of powers in our constitution is broken. It is premised on the idea that the members of each branch will fiercely protect their own prerogatives -- so for example, regardless of affiliation a member of congress would view an attempt by a member of the executive to nullify their right to call them to testify as an affront, and they would act in lockstep with other members of their branch to ensure that the fullest extent of their powers were preserved.
Meanwhile over here in reality, the GOP members of congress will literally hand over every possible privilege or responsibility to the executive at the drop of a fucking hat.
posted by tocts at 2:58 PM on May 1, 2019 [39 favorites]
Meanwhile over here in reality, the GOP members of congress will literally hand over every possible privilege or responsibility to the executive at the drop of a fucking hat.
posted by tocts at 2:58 PM on May 1, 2019 [39 favorites]
Attorney General William Barr declines to testify before House panel, says [House] Judiciary Committee aide
And chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee Lindsey Graham refuses to call Mueller to testify.
The obstruction is an on-going enterprise.
posted by JackFlash at 3:02 PM on May 1, 2019 [26 favorites]
And chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee Lindsey Graham refuses to call Mueller to testify.
The obstruction is an on-going enterprise.
posted by JackFlash at 3:02 PM on May 1, 2019 [26 favorites]
BuzzFeed, A 16-Year-Old Unaccompanied Immigrant Boy Has Died In US Government Custody
“This boy deserved better,” he said in an email. “This should never have happened and there must be a full investigation into the circumstances of this young man’s death, followed by immediate action to ensure other children do not suffer the same fate.”
posted by petebest at 3:14 PM on May 1, 2019 [4 favorites]
“This boy deserved better,” he said in an email. “This should never have happened and there must be a full investigation into the circumstances of this young man’s death, followed by immediate action to ensure other children do not suffer the same fate.”
posted by petebest at 3:14 PM on May 1, 2019 [4 favorites]
The reason each branch of government is expected to jealously guard its prerogatives is that they expect to be dealing with their colleagues more, and over a longer period, than with any momentary alliance they might form with a different branch. Republican legislators have been very eager to sacrifice the conventions that protect the minority party's interests. They don't seem concerned about working under the same constraints in the future, and that worries me.
posted by Joe in Australia at 3:14 PM on May 1, 2019 [18 favorites]
posted by Joe in Australia at 3:14 PM on May 1, 2019 [18 favorites]
Not that it's really news, but I feel like this is just one more example in the ongoing series of examples that prove that the fundamental idea of separation of powers in our constitution is broken.
Possibly a derail, but it's worth mentioning that the authors of the Constitution had (at the time) a deep distrust of persistent political parties for exactly this reason. Madison's Federalist #10 argues that the best solution is to make sure that parties are multitudinous enough that no single one can control any branch of the government (except the executive, I suppose) in its entirety. No aspect of the actual construction of the US (and particularly of its electoral system and political structures), alas, serves to encourage a system with more than two parties, so Federalist #10 is a nice little bit of theory which got left on the cutting-room floor, to our detriment.
Basically, Hamilton said, "Parties are bad, they'll screw up the delicate system of checks and balances," and then Madison said, "Sure, but if there are a lot of different parties, we'll be fine,", and everyone else said, "Whew, dodged that bullet!" and wrote a constitution whose electoral processes encourage coalescence into two parties. And then Hamilton and Madison respectively became the standard-bearers for the Federalists and the Republicans, because hypocrisy is the very lifeblood of politics.
posted by jackbishop at 3:16 PM on May 1, 2019 [32 favorites]
Possibly a derail, but it's worth mentioning that the authors of the Constitution had (at the time) a deep distrust of persistent political parties for exactly this reason. Madison's Federalist #10 argues that the best solution is to make sure that parties are multitudinous enough that no single one can control any branch of the government (except the executive, I suppose) in its entirety. No aspect of the actual construction of the US (and particularly of its electoral system and political structures), alas, serves to encourage a system with more than two parties, so Federalist #10 is a nice little bit of theory which got left on the cutting-room floor, to our detriment.
Basically, Hamilton said, "Parties are bad, they'll screw up the delicate system of checks and balances," and then Madison said, "Sure, but if there are a lot of different parties, we'll be fine,", and everyone else said, "Whew, dodged that bullet!" and wrote a constitution whose electoral processes encourage coalescence into two parties. And then Hamilton and Madison respectively became the standard-bearers for the Federalists and the Republicans, because hypocrisy is the very lifeblood of politics.
posted by jackbishop at 3:16 PM on May 1, 2019 [32 favorites]
Politico, Moderate Dems fret they made a ‘big mistake’ backing Barr
Really though, it's interesting that they would come out and say this, and it says something about how they see the winds blowing in their home states.
posted by zachlipton at 3:31 PM on May 1, 2019 [48 favorites]
Sen. Doug Jones (D-Ala.), who is the most vulnerable Democratic senator up for reelection next year, said he is “greatly, greatly disappointed in what I am seeing in the attorney general.” While Barr did follow through on releasing a redacted version of the Mueller report and didn’t quash the investigation, Jones now has far deeper concerns.@jessicashortall: Dora frets she made a ‘big mistake’ trusting Swiper
“I also thought he would bring this institutional stability to the Department of Justice. And not be the president’s personal lawyer. And he seems like he is moving and has moved toward a less independent role,” Jones said in an interview. “That bothers me for the 12 remaining investigations out there.”
Asked if he regretted his vote, Jones replied: “I’m getting close to that. I haven’t said that yet. But it sure is so disappointing. I’m getting close. You might want to check tomorrow” after he reviews the hearing.
Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), another Barr supporter, said if Mueller’s issues with Barr “proves out, absolutely I have buyer’s remorse. I would have made a big mistake.” Manchin said he will lean on Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) to bring Mueller in for a hearing, though Graham has already said he has no plans to do so.
Really though, it's interesting that they would come out and say this, and it says something about how they see the winds blowing in their home states.
posted by zachlipton at 3:31 PM on May 1, 2019 [48 favorites]
Lindsay Graham says he won't call for Mueller to testify. "I'm not going to do any more. Enough already. It's over." (via Kyle Griffin on Twitter.)
posted by StrawberryPie at 2:13 PM on May 1 [1 favorite +] [!]
This is how you can tell it went really badly for the GOP.
posted by Mental Wimp at 3:34 PM on May 1, 2019 [17 favorites]
posted by StrawberryPie at 2:13 PM on May 1 [1 favorite +] [!]
This is how you can tell it went really badly for the GOP.
posted by Mental Wimp at 3:34 PM on May 1, 2019 [17 favorites]
Daaaaaaaamn...
Mazie Hirono Dickpunches Bill Barr In The Teeth, Doesn't Even Say 'Aloha' (Wonkette)
CSPAN video link
Transcript: (Auto-transcribed from all caps, emphasis mine)
HIRONO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Barr, the American people know you are no different from Rudy Giuliani or Kellyanne Conway, or any of the other people who sacrifice their once decent reputation for the liar who sits in the oval office.
You once turned down a job offer from Donald Trump to represent him as his private attorney. At your confirmation hearing you told snore feinstein said quote the job of attorney general is not the same as representing quote the president so you know the difference but you've chosen to be the president's lawyer and side with him over the interest of the American people.
To start with, you should never have been involved in supervising the Robert Mueller investigation. You wrote a 19-page unsolicited memo, which you admit was not based on any fact, attacking the premise of half of the investigation. And you also should have insisted that deputy attorney general Rod Rosenstein recuse himself. He was not just a witness to some of the president's president's obstructive behavior, we now know he was in frequent personal contact of the president, a subject of the investigation. You should have left it to career officials.
Then, once the report was delivered by the special counsel, you delayed its release for more than two weeks and let the president's personal lawyers look at it before you good evening deigned to let public or the Congress see it. During the time you substituted your own political judgment for the special counsel's legal conclusions in a four page letter to congress and now we know thanks to a free press that Mr. Mueller wrote your letter, objecting to your so-called summary.
When you called Mueller to discuss his letter, the reports are that he thought your summary was giving the press, congress, and the public a misleading impression of his work. He asked you to release the report summaries to correct the misimpression you created but you refused. When you finally did decide to release the report over a congressional recess and on the eve of two major religious holidays, you called a press conference, to once again try to clear Donald Trump before anyone had a chance to read the special counsel's report, and come to their own conclusions.
But when we read the report, we knew Robert Mueller's concerns were valid. And that your version of events was false. You used every advantage of your office to create the impression that the president was cleared of misconduct.
You selectively quoted fragments from the special counsel's rofs, taking some of the most important statements out of context, and ignoring the rest. You put the power and authority of the office of the attorney general and the department of justice, behind a public relations effort to help Donald Trump protect himself. Finally, you lied to Congress.
You told Representative Charlie Cyst that you didn't know what objectives Mueller's team might to be the march so-called summary. You told Senator Chris van Holland that you didn't know if senator Mueller supported your conclusions but you knew you lied and now, we know.
A lot of respected nonpartisan legal experts and elected officials were surprised by your efforts to protect the president. But I wasn't surprised. You did exactly what I thought you'd do, that's why I voted against your confirmation. I expected you would try to protect the president. And indeed, you did. In 1989, this isn't something you hadn't done before.
In 1989, when you refused to show congress an olc opinion that led to the arrest of Manuel Noriega, in 1993, when you recommended pardons for the subjects of the Iran-Contra scandal and last year when you wrote the 19-page memos telling Donald Trump, as President, can't be guilty of obstruction of justice, and then didn't recuse yourself from the matter.
From the beginning, you're addressing an audience of one. That person being Donald Trump. That's why before the bombshell news of yesterday evening, 11 of my senate colleagues and I called on the department of justice inspector general, and office of professional responsibility, to investigate the way you have handled the Mueller report. I wanted them to determine whether your actions complied with the department's policies and practices, and whether you have demonstrated sufficient impartiality to continue to oversee the 14 other criminal matters that the special counsel referred to in other part, to other parts of the Department of Justice.
But now, we know more about your deep involvement in trying to cover up for Donald Trump. Being Attorney General of the United States is a sacred trust. You have betrayed that trust. America deserves better. You should resign.
Senator Hirono is a Badass. Thank $organizing_principle.
posted by petebest at 3:43 PM on May 1, 2019 [94 favorites]
Mazie Hirono Dickpunches Bill Barr In The Teeth, Doesn't Even Say 'Aloha' (Wonkette)
CSPAN video link
Transcript: (Auto-transcribed from all caps, emphasis mine)
HIRONO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Barr, the American people know you are no different from Rudy Giuliani or Kellyanne Conway, or any of the other people who sacrifice their once decent reputation for the liar who sits in the oval office.
You once turned down a job offer from Donald Trump to represent him as his private attorney. At your confirmation hearing you told snore feinstein said quote the job of attorney general is not the same as representing quote the president so you know the difference but you've chosen to be the president's lawyer and side with him over the interest of the American people.
To start with, you should never have been involved in supervising the Robert Mueller investigation. You wrote a 19-page unsolicited memo, which you admit was not based on any fact, attacking the premise of half of the investigation. And you also should have insisted that deputy attorney general Rod Rosenstein recuse himself. He was not just a witness to some of the president's president's obstructive behavior, we now know he was in frequent personal contact of the president, a subject of the investigation. You should have left it to career officials.
Then, once the report was delivered by the special counsel, you delayed its release for more than two weeks and let the president's personal lawyers look at it before you good evening deigned to let public or the Congress see it. During the time you substituted your own political judgment for the special counsel's legal conclusions in a four page letter to congress and now we know thanks to a free press that Mr. Mueller wrote your letter, objecting to your so-called summary.
When you called Mueller to discuss his letter, the reports are that he thought your summary was giving the press, congress, and the public a misleading impression of his work. He asked you to release the report summaries to correct the misimpression you created but you refused. When you finally did decide to release the report over a congressional recess and on the eve of two major religious holidays, you called a press conference, to once again try to clear Donald Trump before anyone had a chance to read the special counsel's report, and come to their own conclusions.
But when we read the report, we knew Robert Mueller's concerns were valid. And that your version of events was false. You used every advantage of your office to create the impression that the president was cleared of misconduct.
You selectively quoted fragments from the special counsel's rofs, taking some of the most important statements out of context, and ignoring the rest. You put the power and authority of the office of the attorney general and the department of justice, behind a public relations effort to help Donald Trump protect himself. Finally, you lied to Congress.
You told Representative Charlie Cyst that you didn't know what objectives Mueller's team might to be the march so-called summary. You told Senator Chris van Holland that you didn't know if senator Mueller supported your conclusions but you knew you lied and now, we know.
A lot of respected nonpartisan legal experts and elected officials were surprised by your efforts to protect the president. But I wasn't surprised. You did exactly what I thought you'd do, that's why I voted against your confirmation. I expected you would try to protect the president. And indeed, you did. In 1989, this isn't something you hadn't done before.
In 1989, when you refused to show congress an olc opinion that led to the arrest of Manuel Noriega, in 1993, when you recommended pardons for the subjects of the Iran-Contra scandal and last year when you wrote the 19-page memos telling Donald Trump, as President, can't be guilty of obstruction of justice, and then didn't recuse yourself from the matter.
From the beginning, you're addressing an audience of one. That person being Donald Trump. That's why before the bombshell news of yesterday evening, 11 of my senate colleagues and I called on the department of justice inspector general, and office of professional responsibility, to investigate the way you have handled the Mueller report. I wanted them to determine whether your actions complied with the department's policies and practices, and whether you have demonstrated sufficient impartiality to continue to oversee the 14 other criminal matters that the special counsel referred to in other part, to other parts of the Department of Justice.
But now, we know more about your deep involvement in trying to cover up for Donald Trump. Being Attorney General of the United States is a sacred trust. You have betrayed that trust. America deserves better. You should resign.
Senator Hirono is a Badass. Thank $organizing_principle.
posted by petebest at 3:43 PM on May 1, 2019 [94 favorites]
This is how you can tell it went really badly for the GOP.
Well, that’s how they may have planned to shut this down from the beginning.
Barr testifies to the Senate, in which any perjury he commits will not be prosecuted by the GOP, Mueller is never called to counter Barr’s assertions, and then Barr refuses to testify to the House.
The GOP then gets to say Congress has done their oversight, there’s nothing there, and we all have to lump it.
posted by darkstar at 3:46 PM on May 1, 2019 [7 favorites]
Well, that’s how they may have planned to shut this down from the beginning.
Barr testifies to the Senate, in which any perjury he commits will not be prosecuted by the GOP, Mueller is never called to counter Barr’s assertions, and then Barr refuses to testify to the House.
The GOP then gets to say Congress has done their oversight, there’s nothing there, and we all have to lump it.
posted by darkstar at 3:46 PM on May 1, 2019 [7 favorites]
Mueller will testify before the House even if the Republican controlled Senate refuses.
posted by Justinian at 3:52 PM on May 1, 2019 [3 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 3:52 PM on May 1, 2019 [3 favorites]
On the one hand, the House Republicans declared Eric Holder in contempt of Congress over the stupid Fast and Furious investigation, so it’s not great to reinforce potential partisan attacks on the AG as a potential ongoing thing.
On the other hand, man, fuck that guy.
posted by Huffy Puffy at 4:10 PM on May 1, 2019 [5 favorites]
On the other hand, man, fuck that guy.
posted by Huffy Puffy at 4:10 PM on May 1, 2019 [5 favorites]
Mod note: Let's not do yet another round of hollering at absent congress persons.
posted by cortex (staff) at 4:25 PM on May 1, 2019 [7 favorites]
posted by cortex (staff) at 4:25 PM on May 1, 2019 [7 favorites]
NBC News, Jacob Soboroff, Emails show Trump admin had 'no way to link' separated migrant children to parents
On the same day the Trump administration said it would reunite thousands of migrant families it had separated at the border with the help of a "central database," an official was admitting privately the government only had enough information to reconnect 60 parents with their kids, according to emails obtained by NBC News.posted by zachlipton at 4:34 PM on May 1, 2019 [32 favorites]
"[I]n short, no, we do not have any linkages from parents to [children], save for a handful," a Health and Human Services official told a top official at Immigration and Customs Enforcement on June 23, 2018. "We have a list of parent alien numbers but no way to link them to children."
On the one hand, the House Republicans declared Eric Holder in contempt of Congress over the stupid Fast and Furious investigation, so it’s not great to reinforce potential partisan attacks on the AG as a potential ongoing thing. we know that they will use powers like that in silly partisan and even outright institution-destroying ways no matter what Democrats do.
Republicans will, of course, use the pretense that they're reacting, because they know it messes with the head of people who are acting in good faith. They're effective psychopaths that way.
We can't be afraid to use contempt powers the way they're supposed to be used because Republicans might abuse them. There's nothing that will stop that, except actually holding them accountable, assuming it's not too late to do that.
posted by wildblueyonder at 4:39 PM on May 1, 2019 [28 favorites]
Republicans will, of course, use the pretense that they're reacting, because they know it messes with the head of people who are acting in good faith. They're effective psychopaths that way.
We can't be afraid to use contempt powers the way they're supposed to be used because Republicans might abuse them. There's nothing that will stop that, except actually holding them accountable, assuming it's not too late to do that.
posted by wildblueyonder at 4:39 PM on May 1, 2019 [28 favorites]
The Russian nesting dolls of corruption are endless:
Per Marcy Wheeler:
posted by bcd at 5:35 PM on May 1, 2019 [31 favorites]
Per Marcy Wheeler:
Can we go back to the fact that Kirkland and Ellis lawyer Brian Benczkowski (now head of Criminal Division) asked Kirkland and Ellis lawyer Bill Barr (now AG) to get a conflict waver so he could oversee prosecution involving K&E client?And, for those keeping score, Brian Benczkowski was previously the lawyer for Alfa Bank over the question of why one of their servers had some sort of backchannel connection to one of Trump servers. (And the nefariousness of that one escaped most non-geek notice, it wasn't just the ongoing connection, but the fact that the connection quickly resumed after changes to the DNS records on Trump's end should have broken it.)
posted by bcd at 5:35 PM on May 1, 2019 [31 favorites]
William Barr Absolved Trump of Obstruction without Having the Faintest Clue What He Obstructed
The most amazing thing is that, when Cory Booker asked Barr if he thought it was right to share polling data with Russians — noting that had Trump done so with a Super PAC, rather than a hostile foreign country, it would be illegal — Barr appeared to have no clue that Paul Manafort had done so. He even asked whom Manafort shared the data with, apparently not knowing he shared it with a guy that Rick Gates said he believes is a Russian spy.Barr Didn’t Even Try to Pretend He’s an Honest Broker for the Justice Department
That’s remarkable, because he basically agreed with Ben Sasse that Deripaska — with whom Manafort was sharing this campaign data — was a “bottom-feeding scum-sucker.”
So the Attorney General absolved the President of obstruction without having the faintest clue what actions the investigation of which Trump successfully obstructed by floating a pardon to Manafort.
Never mind the legal definitions of obstruction of justice or conspiracy, or the procedural standards under which federal prosecutors are supposed to operate, or the superheated politics of our time, Barr told lawmakers that he began to work on his letter exonerating Trump before he received the Mueller report. In response to a question by Sen. Kamala Harris, for example, he even conceded that neither he or Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein have eve reviewed the underlying evidence that the special counsel compiled. Why complicate their cover-up by educating themselves about the facts of the case?posted by T.D. Strange at 5:54 PM on May 1, 2019 [40 favorites]
Robert Mueller will testify to congress about Trump-Russia report, senior Democrat says
The head of the House of Representatives’ judiciary committee, Jerry Nadler, told news agency Reuters it was important the former FBI director testified: “which they've agreed to do subject to setting a date, and we'll see if they do that, sometime in May.”
That will be nice.
Y'know, until today I've never heard his voice. Here's a lecture he gave: Leadership in Context: Transforming the FBI in an Uncertain World. Thank goodness he doesn't sound like a goof, right? He speaks for fifty minutes without notes, all the facts and figures he cites are delivered extemporaneously. I've seen Hillary and Bernie do this. Does anyone recall Bernie speaking for about 8 hours in congress without notes? He was still dropping all these numbers and facts though. Contrast that with what happens when Trump doesn't stick to the script.
posted by adept256 at 6:15 PM on May 1, 2019 [9 favorites]
The head of the House of Representatives’ judiciary committee, Jerry Nadler, told news agency Reuters it was important the former FBI director testified: “which they've agreed to do subject to setting a date, and we'll see if they do that, sometime in May.”
That will be nice.
Y'know, until today I've never heard his voice. Here's a lecture he gave: Leadership in Context: Transforming the FBI in an Uncertain World. Thank goodness he doesn't sound like a goof, right? He speaks for fifty minutes without notes, all the facts and figures he cites are delivered extemporaneously. I've seen Hillary and Bernie do this. Does anyone recall Bernie speaking for about 8 hours in congress without notes? He was still dropping all these numbers and facts though. Contrast that with what happens when Trump doesn't stick to the script.
posted by adept256 at 6:15 PM on May 1, 2019 [9 favorites]
William Barr Absolved Trump of Obstruction without Having the Faintest Clue What He Obstructed
The Post's Philip Bump picked at the same thing, Barr’s conclusions are undercut by his lack of familiarity with details of Mueller’s probe. Barr told Kamala Harris that he never looked at the underlying evidence behind the report, he told Dick Durbin he never looked into the Australian report about Papadopoulos knowing the Russians had dirt on Clinton (and yet he told Lindsey Graham he was concerned about this and his earlier statement questioning whether the investigation was "adequately predicated") and he asked Corey Booker who the polling data was shared with.
I think the better headline is Barr Finds Playing Dumb a Successful Strategy To Avoid Answering Damaging Questions.
posted by peeedro at 6:23 PM on May 1, 2019 [26 favorites]
The Post's Philip Bump picked at the same thing, Barr’s conclusions are undercut by his lack of familiarity with details of Mueller’s probe. Barr told Kamala Harris that he never looked at the underlying evidence behind the report, he told Dick Durbin he never looked into the Australian report about Papadopoulos knowing the Russians had dirt on Clinton (and yet he told Lindsey Graham he was concerned about this and his earlier statement questioning whether the investigation was "adequately predicated") and he asked Corey Booker who the polling data was shared with.
I think the better headline is Barr Finds Playing Dumb a Successful Strategy To Avoid Answering Damaging Questions.
posted by peeedro at 6:23 PM on May 1, 2019 [26 favorites]
NYT, Kenneth Vogel and Iuliia Mendel, Biden Faces Conflict of Interest Questions That Are Being Promoted by Trump and Allies (a horrible headline)
posted by zachlipton at 6:58 PM on May 1, 2019 [9 favorites]
It was a foreign policy role Joseph R. Biden Jr. enthusiastically embraced during his vice presidency: browbeating Ukraine’s notoriously corrupt government to clean up its act. And one of his most memorable performances came on a trip to Kiev in March 2016, when he threatened to withhold $1 billion in United States loan guarantees if Ukraine’s leaders did not dismiss the country’s top prosecutor, who had been accused of turning a blind eye to corruption in his own office and among the political elite.So none of that is new, and Biden says he only learned of his son's role through subsequent news reports. Here's the new bit:
The pressure campaign worked. The prosecutor general, long a target of criticism from other Western nations and international lenders, was soon voted out by the Ukrainian Parliament.
Among those who had a stake in the outcome was Hunter Biden, Mr. Biden’s younger son, who at the time was on the board of an energy company owned by a Ukrainian oligarch who had been in the sights of the fired prosecutor general.
The Trump team’s efforts to draw attention to the Bidens’ work in Ukraine, which is already yielding coverage in conservative media, has been led partly by Rudolph W. Giuliani, who served as a lawyer for Mr. Trump in the investigation by the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III. Mr. Giuliani’s involvement raises questions about whether Mr. Trump is endorsing an effort to push a foreign government to proceed with a case that could hurt a political opponent at home.Of course, because this is the Times, they bury the paragraph saying that there's no actual evidence of wrongdoing by Biden deep in the story:
Mr. Giuliani has discussed the Burisma investigation, and its intersection with the Bidens, with the ousted Ukrainian prosecutor general and the current prosecutor. He met with the current prosecutor multiple times in New York this year. The current prosecutor general later told associates that, during one of the meetings, Mr. Giuliani called Mr. Trump excitedly to brief him on his findings, according to people familiar with the conversations.
...
Mr. Giuliani said he got involved because he was seeking to counter the Mueller investigation with evidence that Democrats conspired with sympathetic Ukrainians to help initiate what became the special counsel’s inquiry.
No evidence has surfaced that the former vice president intentionally tried to help his son by pressing for the prosecutor general’s dismissal. Some of his former associates, moreover, said Mr. Biden never did anything to deter other Obama administration officials who were pushing for the United States to support criminal investigations by Ukrainian and British authorities — and potentially to start its own investigation — into Burisma and its owner, Mykola Zlochevsky, for possible money laundering and abuse of office.They're absolutely setting up a "Mueller proved we didn't collude, but Biden and the Democrats colluded" narrative.
posted by zachlipton at 6:58 PM on May 1, 2019 [9 favorites]
My lukewarm takes:
Very curious as to the notes taken re: Mueller's phone call with Barr. (And how they compare to Muller's notes, since I assume he also was creating a paper trail.) I think that line of questioning was actually what shook him the most, and I can only hope that that was the moment he realized that he'd just disclosed a piece of evidence that would damningly show that he'd just committed multiple acts of perjury.
I also want to know the extent to which Barr can hold up Mueller's testimony before the House. Can he flatly order Mueller not to go? And if he does have the authority to do that, what's the shortest timeframe for a subpoena to be honored?
Politics of it: I think it was a good day for the Democrats. They kept the pressure on, got Barr on the record for some stuff. I have no illusions that anyone's mind or vote was changed, but it moves the ball forward. And keeps all of this in the public eye, in contrast to Trump doing a tweet that then pushes news coverage/unproductive outrage on social media. (Speaking of Trump's tweets, I note that his account just retweeted the WSJ editorial board's take which basically plays the Kavanaugh persecuted-all-my-life angle. So I guess that's the line from theKremlin White House for the moment.)
posted by tivalasvegas at 7:07 PM on May 1, 2019 [9 favorites]
Very curious as to the notes taken re: Mueller's phone call with Barr. (And how they compare to Muller's notes, since I assume he also was creating a paper trail.) I think that line of questioning was actually what shook him the most, and I can only hope that that was the moment he realized that he'd just disclosed a piece of evidence that would damningly show that he'd just committed multiple acts of perjury.
I also want to know the extent to which Barr can hold up Mueller's testimony before the House. Can he flatly order Mueller not to go? And if he does have the authority to do that, what's the shortest timeframe for a subpoena to be honored?
Politics of it: I think it was a good day for the Democrats. They kept the pressure on, got Barr on the record for some stuff. I have no illusions that anyone's mind or vote was changed, but it moves the ball forward. And keeps all of this in the public eye, in contrast to Trump doing a tweet that then pushes news coverage/unproductive outrage on social media. (Speaking of Trump's tweets, I note that his account just retweeted the WSJ editorial board's take which basically plays the Kavanaugh persecuted-all-my-life angle. So I guess that's the line from the
posted by tivalasvegas at 7:07 PM on May 1, 2019 [9 favorites]
Lindsay Graham says he won't call for Mueller to testify. "I'm not going to do any more. Enough already. It's over."
Here's the video of Graham, with much finger-wagging (via ABC).
Schumer, responding with much arm-flapping: "I would plead with my colleague, Lindsey Graham, to reconsider. I would plead with my colleague, Lindsey Graham, to say Mueller is coming; no ands, ifs or buts, so that we can question him, including our side of the aisle. That's what congressional oversight is about. It's not about the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee deciding what should be heard and what not should be heard. That's not the job of the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee." (w/video)
And Nadler explains Barr's unwillingness to appear before the House committee: "He is terrified of having to face a skilled attorney. […] I can understand given how dishonest he has been since March 24th, at the latest. I can understand why he is afraid of facing more effective examination." (w/video via CNN)
posted by Doktor Zed at 7:14 PM on May 1, 2019 [8 favorites]
Here's the video of Graham, with much finger-wagging (via ABC).
Schumer, responding with much arm-flapping: "I would plead with my colleague, Lindsey Graham, to reconsider. I would plead with my colleague, Lindsey Graham, to say Mueller is coming; no ands, ifs or buts, so that we can question him, including our side of the aisle. That's what congressional oversight is about. It's not about the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee deciding what should be heard and what not should be heard. That's not the job of the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee." (w/video)
And Nadler explains Barr's unwillingness to appear before the House committee: "He is terrified of having to face a skilled attorney. […] I can understand given how dishonest he has been since March 24th, at the latest. I can understand why he is afraid of facing more effective examination." (w/video via CNN)
posted by Doktor Zed at 7:14 PM on May 1, 2019 [8 favorites]
Trump's Environment Team Learns to Embrace The Deep State by David Schultz* for Bloomberg Environment
Wherein career government workers grudgingly admit that their new leadership is somewhat competent about dismantling regulations.
posted by carsonb at 7:15 PM on May 1, 2019 [1 favorite]
Wherein career government workers grudgingly admit that their new leadership is somewhat competent about dismantling regulations.
posted by carsonb at 7:15 PM on May 1, 2019 [1 favorite]
new leadership is somewhat competent about dismantling regulations.
Isn't it pretty easy when the government is functionally in flames, though?
Neither Pruitt nor Zinke responded to emailed requests for comment in time for this story.
Coincidence? Ex-Trump Cabinet heads' lobbying gigs challenge 'drain the swamp' message (TheHill)
Pruitt last week registered as a lobbyist for a state regulator covering energy and natural resources. His replacement, EPA head Andrew Wheeler, is a former energy lobbyist.
Zinke has also found a new home at a lobbying firm that deals with energy issues. His successor, newly-confirmed David Bernhardt, was a lobbyist for agriculture and energy clients for multiple years before joining the Trump administration.
... The president requested in 2017 that executive branch appointees sign a pledge that any appointee in an executive agency will not engage in lobbying activities with respect to that agenda for five years after termination.
Ah yes the heady days of almost-attempted-normalcy. Who knew it would degenerate into such madness and malfeasance? Besides everyone here, that is.
posted by petebest at 7:46 PM on May 1, 2019 [2 favorites]
Isn't it pretty easy when the government is functionally in flames, though?
Neither Pruitt nor Zinke responded to emailed requests for comment in time for this story.
Coincidence? Ex-Trump Cabinet heads' lobbying gigs challenge 'drain the swamp' message (TheHill)
Pruitt last week registered as a lobbyist for a state regulator covering energy and natural resources. His replacement, EPA head Andrew Wheeler, is a former energy lobbyist.
Zinke has also found a new home at a lobbying firm that deals with energy issues. His successor, newly-confirmed David Bernhardt, was a lobbyist for agriculture and energy clients for multiple years before joining the Trump administration.
... The president requested in 2017 that executive branch appointees sign a pledge that any appointee in an executive agency will not engage in lobbying activities with respect to that agenda for five years after termination.
Ah yes the heady days of almost-attempted-normalcy. Who knew it would degenerate into such madness and malfeasance? Besides everyone here, that is.
posted by petebest at 7:46 PM on May 1, 2019 [2 favorites]
* I forgot my asterisk: I went to college w/ David Schultz so this link is old-skool brushing against the 'no self-link' rule.
posted by carsonb at 8:04 PM on May 1, 2019 [2 favorites]
posted by carsonb at 8:04 PM on May 1, 2019 [2 favorites]
BuzzFeed, Rosie Gray, “Get Out While You Can”: Once notorious for her racist and bigoted tweets, Katie McHugh saw the dark insides of the white nationalist movement.
This is a long read, but some of the most significant elements are the people who come up along the way. The managing editor of the Daily Caller News Foundation, Dave Brooks, proposed in 2017 to set McHugh, recently fired for being too overly racist for Breitbart, up with Richard Spencer to write for American Renaissance (Spencer didn't have enough money, as it turned out). The Daily Caller fired Brooks last week after being asked for comment for this article.
And then there's Steve Bannon, who tells people to knock it off when they realize their co-worker is a white supremacist:
This is a long read, but some of the most significant elements are the people who come up along the way. The managing editor of the Daily Caller News Foundation, Dave Brooks, proposed in 2017 to set McHugh, recently fired for being too overly racist for Breitbart, up with Richard Spencer to write for American Renaissance (Spencer didn't have enough money, as it turned out). The Daily Caller fired Brooks last week after being asked for comment for this article.
And then there's Steve Bannon, who tells people to knock it off when they realize their co-worker is a white supremacist:
Inside [Breitbart], some took notice. On Aug. 15, 2015, Breitbart Texas editor Brandon Darby emailed McHugh, copying Bannon, Larry Solov, and Alex Marlow — Breitbart’s leadership. “Katie, You just retweeted 9 times in row retweets from Adolf Joe Biden, an open member of the American Nazi Party,” he wrote. “They were tweets defending you. I am very concerned with your racially-tinged tweets, the fact that most of the American Nazi Party members follow you and commune with you, and the fact that most of the Ku Klux Klan accounts follow you and do the same. What is going on here?”posted by zachlipton at 8:13 PM on May 1, 2019 [15 favorites]
“WTF,” Bannon wrote back within minutes. “Katie call me ASAP.”
“I think you are a white supremacist. Am I correct?” Darby wrote. “He is not a parody account at all and you know it.”
“Brandon stop,” Bannon responded.
...
In 2015, McHugh says she witnessed an encounter between Bannon and the white nationalist activist Devin Saucier at Breitbart’s party following CPAC that has stuck in her memory as a sign of just how permissive Bannon was willing to be. At the time, she was good friends with Saucier, who has edited for Taylor’s publication American Renaissance under a pen name, and in 2017 wrote a pseudonymous article titled “Why I Am (Among Other Things) A White Nationalist.” Taylor calls himself a “white advocate” and has written that “When blacks are left entirely to their own devices, Western civilization — any kind of civilization — disappears." McHugh brought Saucier along to the party.
As McHugh recalls it, Bannon looked at Saucier, sizing him up. He asked, “Who do you work for? Peter?” referring to Brimelow. Saucier, smiling, said no. Bannon said, “Far to the right, right?” Saucier responded in the affirmative. “AmRen? American Renaissance?” Saucier said, “Yes, sir,” and Bannon put his hand on his shoulder and said: “Well, we’re all fighting the same fight.”
A spokesperson for Bannon did not comment on the record.
The AP reports Trump has reacted predictably to Barr's performance on Capitol Hill today: Barr, Mueller Trade Barbs As Russia Probe Rift Goes Public
As for the reaction to today's hearings from Trumpland state media, @realdonaldtrump just tweeted "The Collusion Delusion is OVER!" with a clip from Tucker Carlson and "The Mueller Witch Hunt is completely OVER!" with a clip from Hannity. (He'd already retweeted a string of seven tweets by Judicial Watch about assorted conspiracy theories about Obama, Clinton, Mueller, and the FBI this afternoon.)
posted by Doktor Zed at 8:52 PM on May 1, 2019 [6 favorites]
Televisions across the West Wing, including one just off the Oval Office used by the president, were tuned to cable coverage of Barr’s testimony. Trump told advisers he was pleased with Barr’s combative stance with Democratic senators, according to an administration official and a Republican close to the White House who were not authorized to speak publicly about private discussions.Trump wants only two things from his cabinet: total loyalty to himself alone and stubborn belligerence toward his opponents.
Trump tweeted Wednesday that the probe was “The greatest con-job in the history of American Politics!” He has told those around him that, after being disappointed by former Attorney General Jeff Sessions, he has found an attorney general loyal to him.
As for the reaction to today's hearings from Trumpland state media, @realdonaldtrump just tweeted "The Collusion Delusion is OVER!" with a clip from Tucker Carlson and "The Mueller Witch Hunt is completely OVER!" with a clip from Hannity. (He'd already retweeted a string of seven tweets by Judicial Watch about assorted conspiracy theories about Obama, Clinton, Mueller, and the FBI this afternoon.)
posted by Doktor Zed at 8:52 PM on May 1, 2019 [6 favorites]
It's like Yang's $1000/month except minus 40% and it's only once and also you can't use it to desperately try to keep yourself alive
The funny thing is, Yang is already for $100 in Democracy Dollars per year in addition to $1k a month.
posted by Apocryphon at 11:09 PM on May 1, 2019 [2 favorites]
The funny thing is, Yang is already for $100 in Democracy Dollars per year in addition to $1k a month.
posted by Apocryphon at 11:09 PM on May 1, 2019 [2 favorites]
About democracy dollars:
The easiest way to do this is to provide Americans with publicly funded vouchers they can use to donate to politicians that they support. Every American gets $100 a year to give to candidates, use it or lose it. These Democracy Dollars would, by the sheer volume of the US population, drown out the influence of mega-donors. It has been used in Seattle to great effect, and we can take their program national to move towards publicly funded elections.
On the surface this seems like a great idea. I'd much prefer we get rid of citizens united and make the FEC enforce the campaign contribution laws already in place. The money is getting ridiculous, I don't think the answer to billion dollar elections is to put more money in.
I think we need to change the language as well. I see no great distinction between (some) corporate contributions and naked bribery. If the private prison people donate to someone who then goes on to oppose criminal justice reform against all reason, the quid pro quo is the same whatever you call it. That's a bribe.
posted by adept256 at 12:16 AM on May 2, 2019 [10 favorites]
The easiest way to do this is to provide Americans with publicly funded vouchers they can use to donate to politicians that they support. Every American gets $100 a year to give to candidates, use it or lose it. These Democracy Dollars would, by the sheer volume of the US population, drown out the influence of mega-donors. It has been used in Seattle to great effect, and we can take their program national to move towards publicly funded elections.
On the surface this seems like a great idea. I'd much prefer we get rid of citizens united and make the FEC enforce the campaign contribution laws already in place. The money is getting ridiculous, I don't think the answer to billion dollar elections is to put more money in.
I think we need to change the language as well. I see no great distinction between (some) corporate contributions and naked bribery. If the private prison people donate to someone who then goes on to oppose criminal justice reform against all reason, the quid pro quo is the same whatever you call it. That's a bribe.
posted by adept256 at 12:16 AM on May 2, 2019 [10 favorites]
WaPo, Venezuela’s opposition put together a serious plan. For now, it appears to have failed. The part that's most pertinent to this thread is farther down, in which a member of Bolton's staff repeatedly interrupted a recent briefing to demand military options in Venezuela.
On a related note, Trump gave a Fox Business phone interview tonight, in which he said about Venezuela: "We're doing everything we can do, short of, you know, the ultimate. There are people who would like us to do the ultimate."
I'm not entirely sure what "the ultimate" entails exactly, but I'm confident anybody who talks like this should not be in a position of power to decide whether or not to do it.
posted by zachlipton at 12:40 AM on May 2, 2019 [27 favorites]
On a related note, Trump gave a Fox Business phone interview tonight, in which he said about Venezuela: "We're doing everything we can do, short of, you know, the ultimate. There are people who would like us to do the ultimate."
I'm not entirely sure what "the ultimate" entails exactly, but I'm confident anybody who talks like this should not be in a position of power to decide whether or not to do it.
posted by zachlipton at 12:40 AM on May 2, 2019 [27 favorites]
Why Barr Can’t Whitewash the Mueller Report
By Neal K. Katyal (NYTimes Opinion)
Mr. Katyal drafted the special counsel regulations under which Robert Mueller was appointed.
This is someone who has endorsed both Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, so not exactly a lefty, even though he served as Solicitor General under Obama.
By Neal K. Katyal (NYTimes Opinion)
Mr. Katyal drafted the special counsel regulations under which Robert Mueller was appointed.
This is someone who has endorsed both Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, so not exactly a lefty, even though he served as Solicitor General under Obama.
When it comes to investigating a president, the special counsel regulations I had the privilege of drafting in 1998-99 say that such inquiries have one ultimate destination: Congress. That is where this process is going, and has to go. We are in the fifth inning, and we should celebrate a system in which our own government can uncover so much evidence against a sitting president.posted by mumimor at 12:50 AM on May 2, 2019 [16 favorites]
Some commentators have attacked the special counsel regulations as giving the attorney general the power to close a case against the president, as Mr. Barr did with the obstruction of justice investigation into Donald Trump. But the critics’ complaint here is not with the regulations but with the Constitution itself. Article II gives the executive branch control over prosecutions, so there isn’t an easy way to remove the attorney general from the process.
Instead, the idea behind the regulations was to say, “We recognize the constitutional reality that the attorney general controls the prosecution power, so what else can we do?” My colleagues and I (which included many career officials at the Justice Department as well as bipartisan leaders in the House and Senate) settled on two things. First, provide a mechanism to enable an independent investigation, and thereby generate public confidence in the outcome of that investigation. Second, design that mechanism so that if the attorney general interferes with the special counsel’s inquiry, that interference would be reported to Congress and ultimately become public.
William Barr torched his reputation. His testimony compounded the damage. (WaPo Ed Board)
It is long past time the public stopped hearing Mr. Barr’s views on how Mr. Mueller feels, and heard from the special counsel himself. The Justice Department should enable Mr. Mueller to speak publicly and under oath at the earliest opportunity. The special counsel should address not only his substantive findings on the president’s misbehavior but also the attorney general’s manipulation of his work. Not just Mr. Trump should be held accountable for his actions. So should his attorney general.posted by Barack Spinoza at 4:16 AM on May 2, 2019 [22 favorites]
As South Carolina Teachers Walkout, 10,000 Storm State Capitol in Columbia
posted by The Whelk at 5:03 AM on May 2, 2019 [20 favorites]
posted by The Whelk at 5:03 AM on May 2, 2019 [20 favorites]
Today's probably a good day to look back on the fabulously corrupt career of "Big John" Mitchell, whose background check was waived by Hoover at Nixon's behest, who contracted the American Nazi Party to go after political opponents, who probably had his wife sedated to stop her from talking about Nixon, and who was convicted as AG for conspiracy, obstruction of justice and lying under oath.
posted by Harry Caul at 5:34 AM on May 2, 2019 [31 favorites]
posted by Harry Caul at 5:34 AM on May 2, 2019 [31 favorites]
I'm asking seriously, not snarking here, but what "reputation" did Barr have to torch? IIRC literally the only other high profile thing he's ever done in his entire life was covering up for Iran/Contra crimes. His reputation seems to be built wholly on being the sort of person who will lie for those in power and help keep their dirty secrets secret.
if anything I'd argue that Barr's reputation is improved by his performance yesterday. Yes, it was a bit rough, but he never went off script, he never admitted wrongdoing, and he kept to his lies that Trump was 100% innocent. Isn't that what is reputation is all about?
posted by sotonohito at 5:36 AM on May 2, 2019 [14 favorites]
if anything I'd argue that Barr's reputation is improved by his performance yesterday. Yes, it was a bit rough, but he never went off script, he never admitted wrongdoing, and he kept to his lies that Trump was 100% innocent. Isn't that what is reputation is all about?
posted by sotonohito at 5:36 AM on May 2, 2019 [14 favorites]
Colorado Sen. Michael Bennet announces 2020 campaign
Sure, what’s one more bland white guy. Who can even tell the difference at this point.
posted by T.D. Strange at 5:39 AM on May 2, 2019 [12 favorites]
Sure, what’s one more bland white guy. Who can even tell the difference at this point.
posted by T.D. Strange at 5:39 AM on May 2, 2019 [12 favorites]
Michael Bennet just launched his campaign and already he's lying on behalf of capital!
So.... Yeah, if Bennet's position is that up until 2016 everything was fine and dandy and doggoneit we just need to go back to the heady glory days of 2016 when everyone was great and opportunity abounded, then he's plotting to help keep your wages as flat as they've been for the past 45 or so years. Any honest examination of the economic problems facing most Americans has to begin with the great wage freeze that started in the 1970's and has never been lifted.
posted by sotonohito at 6:04 AM on May 2, 2019 [28 favorites]
“If we continue to go down the path we’re going, and this isn’t just about President Trump, it’s about the politics that existed before he got there ... we’re going to be the first generation of Americans to leave less opportunity, not more, to the next generation.”Every single generation of Americans since the mid 1970's has had less opportunity than their parents. That's when wages stopped rising with GDP and 100% of growth started going to the upper 1% instead of growth being split between the classes.
So.... Yeah, if Bennet's position is that up until 2016 everything was fine and dandy and doggoneit we just need to go back to the heady glory days of 2016 when everyone was great and opportunity abounded, then he's plotting to help keep your wages as flat as they've been for the past 45 or so years. Any honest examination of the economic problems facing most Americans has to begin with the great wage freeze that started in the 1970's and has never been lifted.
posted by sotonohito at 6:04 AM on May 2, 2019 [28 favorites]
The Pod Save America guys recently interviewed Cornell somebody, a pollster for the Obama campaign, who opened up with saying that this race at this point resembled 2004. I sort of didn't hear what he said for a while after that because I was panic vomiting, so I'm sorry I can't offer you a deeper analysis.
Something Lovett said though which rang true is that possibly, given the huge number of undecided of likely democratic voters (like 35% in some poll they were talking about) is that nobody has caught the mood of the public just yet.
Which, I think that Harris and Warren are on their way to doing that. Clips of Harris skewering Barr got a lot of attention.
But, and this got addressed by the Pod too, there's this idea that maybe Harris and Warren aren't electable because we're scared by 2016. And it just seems like we need one of these candidates to take this issue head on and be all "we have nothing to fear but fear itself" because I think that's what the party really needs now.
posted by angrycat at 6:05 AM on May 2, 2019 [23 favorites]
Something Lovett said though which rang true is that possibly, given the huge number of undecided of likely democratic voters (like 35% in some poll they were talking about) is that nobody has caught the mood of the public just yet.
Which, I think that Harris and Warren are on their way to doing that. Clips of Harris skewering Barr got a lot of attention.
But, and this got addressed by the Pod too, there's this idea that maybe Harris and Warren aren't electable because we're scared by 2016. And it just seems like we need one of these candidates to take this issue head on and be all "we have nothing to fear but fear itself" because I think that's what the party really needs now.
posted by angrycat at 6:05 AM on May 2, 2019 [23 favorites]
I'm asking seriously, not snarking here, but what "reputation" did Barr have to torch?
Republicans like James Comey and Ben Wittes have spent decades deluding themselves that their Republican peers were honorable men serving their country with the nobles of values (despite evidence to the contrary). Barr has punctured that delusion. It pains them because it damages their own reputation. It's now clear to everybody that they have been working hand-in-hand with (and constantly defending) men whose values are the opposite of everything they claimed. It doesn't say great things about their judgement or character, so they are claiming that Barr somehow changed, when really he just revealed himself and the whole corrupt facade that "noble" Republicans built their lives around.
posted by diogenes at 6:06 AM on May 2, 2019 [29 favorites]
Republicans like James Comey and Ben Wittes have spent decades deluding themselves that their Republican peers were honorable men serving their country with the nobles of values (despite evidence to the contrary). Barr has punctured that delusion. It pains them because it damages their own reputation. It's now clear to everybody that they have been working hand-in-hand with (and constantly defending) men whose values are the opposite of everything they claimed. It doesn't say great things about their judgement or character, so they are claiming that Barr somehow changed, when really he just revealed himself and the whole corrupt facade that "noble" Republicans built their lives around.
posted by diogenes at 6:06 AM on May 2, 2019 [29 favorites]
This is probably wishful thinking, but I truly hope if and when Mueller testifies in the House, at least one or two Democrats press him on the judgment calls he made that, in aggregate, were extremely deferential to Trump (e.g. not indicting DJT Jr, not pressing for interviews with Trump and several other parties who likely obstructed, etc. etc.)
Because, imho, Mueller deferred to the Trumpublican perspective as much as he as he possibly could without making a total travesty of the inquiry. I know others share this opinion, and I hope when Mueller testifies, there are additional perspectives advocated other than the obvious "You investigated the most wonderful investigation ever Mr. Mueller, please tell us about the bad Mr. Barr and the bad Mr. Trump!" and "While I respect your career of service Mr. Mueller, this investigation is the worst thing ever to have happened to American democracy."
But I'm not holding my breath.
posted by johnny jenga at 6:09 AM on May 2, 2019 [8 favorites]
Because, imho, Mueller deferred to the Trumpublican perspective as much as he as he possibly could without making a total travesty of the inquiry. I know others share this opinion, and I hope when Mueller testifies, there are additional perspectives advocated other than the obvious "You investigated the most wonderful investigation ever Mr. Mueller, please tell us about the bad Mr. Barr and the bad Mr. Trump!" and "While I respect your career of service Mr. Mueller, this investigation is the worst thing ever to have happened to American democracy."
But I'm not holding my breath.
posted by johnny jenga at 6:09 AM on May 2, 2019 [8 favorites]
psst Harry Caul, that link appears to be borked; here's the Wikipedia for John Mitchell, the AG too crimey even for Washington, with still some exciting times such as
Allegedly, Mitchell also played a central role in covert attempts to sabotage the 1968 Paris Peace Accords ... which could have ended the Vietnam War.
posted by petebest at 6:10 AM on May 2, 2019 [7 favorites]
Allegedly, Mitchell also played a central role in covert attempts to sabotage the 1968 Paris Peace Accords ... which could have ended the Vietnam War.
posted by petebest at 6:10 AM on May 2, 2019 [7 favorites]
I imagine that part of what Barr is now losing is reputation by proxy. Even if his performance for Bush/Reagan had been identical in substance (I don't know if he was even called to testify in those matters), he was doing it for less embarrassing, more "respectable" leaders. If you're someone who actually cares even a little about obstruction of justice, it's a lot harder to ignore Trump doing it because he was so inelegant about it. Thus, Barr's word games are even more ridiculous.
posted by InTheYear2017 at 6:28 AM on May 2, 2019 [9 favorites]
posted by InTheYear2017 at 6:28 AM on May 2, 2019 [9 favorites]
So the House Judiciary Committee is meeting without its planned witness. Rep. Steve Cohen (TN-09) has brought some visual aids - a bucket of KFC & a ceramic chicken. He is eating the KFC.
posted by scalefree at 6:30 AM on May 2, 2019 [20 favorites]
posted by scalefree at 6:30 AM on May 2, 2019 [20 favorites]
"not indicting DJT Jr, not pressing for interviews with Trump and several other parties who likely obstructed, etc. etc."
Mueller has explained that he didn't try to subpoena Trump because he thought the court fight over the subpoena would take too long. Potentially the rest of Trump's term. Besides, we all know what Trump's lawyers would coach him to say under oath. It's what he always says under oath, and what he said in answer to the written questions: "I don't recall." If he says anything else he would perjure himself, but he has proven to be good at sticking to that one line script in other depositions in past lawsuits.
As for Don Jr, various law enforcement timypes have explained that prosecutors don't generally bother to subpoena people who state their intention to plead the 5th. Of course, that statement in itself could be politically damaging. But Marcy Wheeler seems to think Mueller mentioned it in the report, and that Barr redacted it as grand jury information. If that's the case, not sure what else Mueller could do (except admit this happened when asked about it in Congressional testimony... hope someone asks.) If he had subpoenad Jr and Jr had pled the 5th, that too would have been redacted as Grand Jury info. In fact... do we know that did not happen?
The same may apply to some of the "other parties" you mention.
posted by OnceUponATime at 6:32 AM on May 2, 2019 [8 favorites]
Mueller has explained that he didn't try to subpoena Trump because he thought the court fight over the subpoena would take too long. Potentially the rest of Trump's term. Besides, we all know what Trump's lawyers would coach him to say under oath. It's what he always says under oath, and what he said in answer to the written questions: "I don't recall." If he says anything else he would perjure himself, but he has proven to be good at sticking to that one line script in other depositions in past lawsuits.
As for Don Jr, various law enforcement timypes have explained that prosecutors don't generally bother to subpoena people who state their intention to plead the 5th. Of course, that statement in itself could be politically damaging. But Marcy Wheeler seems to think Mueller mentioned it in the report, and that Barr redacted it as grand jury information. If that's the case, not sure what else Mueller could do (except admit this happened when asked about it in Congressional testimony... hope someone asks.) If he had subpoenad Jr and Jr had pled the 5th, that too would have been redacted as Grand Jury info. In fact... do we know that did not happen?
The same may apply to some of the "other parties" you mention.
posted by OnceUponATime at 6:32 AM on May 2, 2019 [8 favorites]
If you're someone who actually cares even a little about obstruction of justice, it's a lot harder to ignore Trump doing it because he was so inelegant about it. Thus, Barr's word games are even more ridiculous.
Yeah but no sitting republican politician cares about that at all, based on how they’ve acted for the last .... decade
posted by The Whelk at 6:32 AM on May 2, 2019 [2 favorites]
Yeah but no sitting republican politician cares about that at all, based on how they’ve acted for the last .... decade
posted by The Whelk at 6:32 AM on May 2, 2019 [2 favorites]
The best bit about that Cohen picture is with that giant thing of fried chicken in his gob he actually looks like he has a beard like Colonel Sanders, thus rendering the illusion that the KFC Master himself has come to oversee the proceedings and mock Barr's demerits
posted by angrycat at 6:34 AM on May 2, 2019 [2 favorites]
posted by angrycat at 6:34 AM on May 2, 2019 [2 favorites]
Marcy Wheeler thinks it’s pretty clear that under the redactions it shows that Junior and maybe even Trump said they’d take the 5th at the Grand Jury.
posted by chris24 at 6:35 AM on May 2, 2019 [9 favorites]
posted by chris24 at 6:35 AM on May 2, 2019 [9 favorites]
I flagged your comment as fantastic, Angrycat. I love Warren's policy proposals, and Harris is someone I'd want on my side in a fight (and she's my Senator and I love her) - it might come down to a coin flip when I fill out my ballot, hahah. But I agree, we need someone to step up and say "electability is a bunch of BS - remember how unelectable someone named Barack Hussein Obama was supposed to be?"
As far as Barr is concerned, it shows to me that there is no bottom. He was so obviously inept and corrupt, and under normal circumstances both Hirono and Harris could have delivered a death blow to the administration - but the Republicans now are not the ones of the Reagan and Bush I years, who were corrupt but not brainwashed. The Republican party has gone beyond "cult" to, basically, an embodiment of the Stepford Wives where everyone is now a robot. Or a modern-day Jonestown where people are willing to die for a leader because they've been that indoctrinated. That is what chills my blood more than anything - seeing people so bought in that they can't be reached.
posted by Rosie M. Banks at 6:38 AM on May 2, 2019 [17 favorites]
As far as Barr is concerned, it shows to me that there is no bottom. He was so obviously inept and corrupt, and under normal circumstances both Hirono and Harris could have delivered a death blow to the administration - but the Republicans now are not the ones of the Reagan and Bush I years, who were corrupt but not brainwashed. The Republican party has gone beyond "cult" to, basically, an embodiment of the Stepford Wives where everyone is now a robot. Or a modern-day Jonestown where people are willing to die for a leader because they've been that indoctrinated. That is what chills my blood more than anything - seeing people so bought in that they can't be reached.
posted by Rosie M. Banks at 6:38 AM on May 2, 2019 [17 favorites]
But Marcy Wheeler seems to think Mueller mentioned it in the report, and that Barr redacted it as grand jury information.
boop beep Congress should have the full unredacted report by now. The fact that there's any discussion of redactions at least amongst Congressmembers or fine let's make it the "Gang of Eight" is another blatant outrage by TurmpCo.
posted by petebest at 6:41 AM on May 2, 2019 [4 favorites]
boop beep Congress should have the full unredacted report by now. The fact that there's any discussion of redactions at least amongst Congressmembers or fine let's make it the "Gang of Eight" is another blatant outrage by TurmpCo.
posted by petebest at 6:41 AM on May 2, 2019 [4 favorites]
OnceUponATime and chris24, I agree Mueller had compelling reasons for many of his decisions limiting the scope and depth of the investigation, and I probably picked the wrong examples in my comment. It's also plausible Mueller had to be this deferential to the Trump DOJ to avoid getting shitcanned.
But I'd like him to explain his reasoning in public testimony, because Congress and the public should know if this wasn't a truly independent special counsel investigation. And I doubt he'll volunteer much of his thinking unless a committee member presses him on it.
posted by johnny jenga at 6:49 AM on May 2, 2019 [4 favorites]
But I'd like him to explain his reasoning in public testimony, because Congress and the public should know if this wasn't a truly independent special counsel investigation. And I doubt he'll volunteer much of his thinking unless a committee member presses him on it.
posted by johnny jenga at 6:49 AM on May 2, 2019 [4 favorites]
JJ, I absolutely agree that he needs to explain his reasoning. But given that he took the extraordinary step of writing a unclassified FOIA-able letter to Barr to call him on his bullshit that got leaked, I’m inclined to assume he was acting fairly in the country’s best interests until shown otherwise. Yes, he abided by DOJ regulations and didn’t go rogue to charge Trump, but he clearly went beyond the minimum required of him by writing his report for Congress and the people, and not just for Barr, in making basically an impeachment referral. “I’d love to charge but can’t, but here ya go Congress” is effectively what he said.
posted by chris24 at 6:54 AM on May 2, 2019 [22 favorites]
posted by chris24 at 6:54 AM on May 2, 2019 [22 favorites]
After reading "Klobuchar got Barr to admit WH quashed paper ballot trail;" with no further context, I had to dig a bit to find this in an NPR interview yesterday:
KLOBUCHAR: ... I tried to pass a Secure Elections Act, which was a bipartisan bill with Senator Lankford. The White House was actually making calls to senators to stop that bill from advancing. That bill would have required backup paper ballots for any federal election funding. It would have required audits. It would have required better information sharing. It was going to pass the Senate, and they stopped it. I think that's pretty damning evidence. And so I want to also ask him about his views, if they're the same as the FBI director's, that in fact Russia's going to try this again in a big way in 2020.
So the White House is against paper ballots for *some reason*. Given his personal lawyer's striking assertion that Turmp will NOT give up power (think there's a Constitutional a crisis now? Boy howdy), it seems this should have been covered at least a bit more in the same hearing with the "snitty" language and that Sen. Hirono @$%-whuppin'.
On the other hand, we apprently still think "bipartisan" can mean something other than "ludicrous and performative". n.b. Barr's ruined "reputation".
posted by petebest at 7:01 AM on May 2, 2019 [24 favorites]
KLOBUCHAR: ... I tried to pass a Secure Elections Act, which was a bipartisan bill with Senator Lankford. The White House was actually making calls to senators to stop that bill from advancing. That bill would have required backup paper ballots for any federal election funding. It would have required audits. It would have required better information sharing. It was going to pass the Senate, and they stopped it. I think that's pretty damning evidence. And so I want to also ask him about his views, if they're the same as the FBI director's, that in fact Russia's going to try this again in a big way in 2020.
So the White House is against paper ballots for *some reason*. Given his personal lawyer's striking assertion that Turmp will NOT give up power (think there's a Constitutional a crisis now? Boy howdy), it seems this should have been covered at least a bit more in the same hearing with the "snitty" language and that Sen. Hirono @$%-whuppin'.
On the other hand, we apprently still think "bipartisan" can mean something other than "ludicrous and performative". n.b. Barr's ruined "reputation".
posted by petebest at 7:01 AM on May 2, 2019 [24 favorites]
The New York Times is affected by, cursed with, a tool of evil because of, and (as ex-Public Editor Liz Spayd would have us believe) seemingly somehow caught unawares by, having outsized influence on political matters. That said, this buried snippet from yesterday's Political section recap of the Barr rumble is making my eye twitch:
Barr Defends Handling of Mueller Report Against Withering Rebukes
Democrats skipped over the fact that Mr. Mueller accused Mr. Trump of no crime and instead focused on the evidence within his report that they still saw as proof of wrongdoing.
Intentionally ignorant? Purposefully provocative? Perhaps I've got this whole Mueller Report thing upside-down; maybe everything's all on the up-and-up with that Trump guy!
True, it's only one sentence and there was a fair amount of contextual both-sidesing, so what's one egregious Fox News talking point in a front-page article? It is just the one, right? I mean, the FBI found no clear link to Russia, except for all the clear links, so - all good then?
on a somewhat related note, please be advised the former fucking fuck thread has closed. A new one would be super-swell to haz.
posted by petebest at 7:19 AM on May 2, 2019 [13 favorites]
Barr Defends Handling of Mueller Report Against Withering Rebukes
Democrats skipped over the fact that Mr. Mueller accused Mr. Trump of no crime and instead focused on the evidence within his report that they still saw as proof of wrongdoing.
Intentionally ignorant? Purposefully provocative? Perhaps I've got this whole Mueller Report thing upside-down; maybe everything's all on the up-and-up with that Trump guy!
True, it's only one sentence and there was a fair amount of contextual both-sidesing, so what's one egregious Fox News talking point in a front-page article? It is just the one, right? I mean, the FBI found no clear link to Russia, except for all the clear links, so - all good then?
on a somewhat related note, please be advised the former fucking fuck thread has closed. A new one would be super-swell to haz.
posted by petebest at 7:19 AM on May 2, 2019 [13 favorites]
Republicans now are not the ones of the Reagan and Bush I years, who were corrupt but not brainwashed.
I disagree. There was plenty of evidence of corruption, criminal behavior, and malfeasance, including the old "install someone hostile to an agency's mission" trick in the person of, among others, SCOTUS appointee Neil Gorsuch's mother, Anne Gorshuch Burford. Reagan raised taxes (to his credit!), an act that later doomed his successor's re-election bid. His supporters didn't care -- they liked his image of a tough guy. The only difference was they didn't have Fox News to tune out the unflattering reporting that inevitably follows Republican governance -- but they did have a couple decades of the "liberal media" propaganda campaign to help them tune out reality. Yes, they're more of a cult now, but the seeds were sown by then.
posted by Gelatin at 7:24 AM on May 2, 2019 [4 favorites]
I disagree. There was plenty of evidence of corruption, criminal behavior, and malfeasance, including the old "install someone hostile to an agency's mission" trick in the person of, among others, SCOTUS appointee Neil Gorsuch's mother, Anne Gorshuch Burford. Reagan raised taxes (to his credit!), an act that later doomed his successor's re-election bid. His supporters didn't care -- they liked his image of a tough guy. The only difference was they didn't have Fox News to tune out the unflattering reporting that inevitably follows Republican governance -- but they did have a couple decades of the "liberal media" propaganda campaign to help them tune out reality. Yes, they're more of a cult now, but the seeds were sown by then.
posted by Gelatin at 7:24 AM on May 2, 2019 [4 favorites]
Nadler today: Democrats, he said, would continue to negotiate for more access to the full Mueller report over the next few days but would have "no choice" but to hold Barr in contempt of Congress if the Justice Department fails to negotiate in "good faith."
How are we still in the "let's wait and see if they are operating in good faith" phase?
posted by diogenes at 7:34 AM on May 2, 2019 [29 favorites]
How are we still in the "let's wait and see if they are operating in good faith" phase?
posted by diogenes at 7:34 AM on May 2, 2019 [29 favorites]
@Lawrence caught Lindsey Graham complaining about FBI officials saying the same negative things about Donald Trump in 2016 that Lindsey Graham was saying about Donald Trump in 2016.
posted by young_simba at 7:48 AM on May 2, 2019 [18 favorites]
posted by young_simba at 7:48 AM on May 2, 2019 [18 favorites]
How are we still in the "let's wait and see if they are operating in good faith" phase?
Honestly it seems like thats a more comfortable place to stay bc the next phase is the "welp, our institutions have failed and there is apparently no actual recourse to the president hiring an AG to cover up the cover up of his own crimes" ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
posted by Exceptional_Hubris at 7:54 AM on May 2, 2019 [11 favorites]
Honestly it seems like thats a more comfortable place to stay bc the next phase is the "welp, our institutions have failed and there is apparently no actual recourse to the president hiring an AG to cover up the cover up of his own crimes" ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
posted by Exceptional_Hubris at 7:54 AM on May 2, 2019 [11 favorites]
Nancy Pelosi just accused bar of a crime on live tv: "What he did was lying to congress, and that is a crime"
This was shortly after she connected his smug stonewalling to the general conservative agenda and attacks on the ACA.
posted by Exceptional_Hubris at 8:02 AM on May 2, 2019 [44 favorites]
This was shortly after she connected his smug stonewalling to the general conservative agenda and attacks on the ACA.
posted by Exceptional_Hubris at 8:02 AM on May 2, 2019 [44 favorites]
So, about the New York Times: the head of their editorial department is James Bennet. If that spelling sounds familiar, it should, because he’s the brother of new Presidential candidate Michael Bennet. And James has said that as long as Michael is running for national office, James will recuse himself from overseeing the editorial page.
posted by Huffy Puffy at 8:13 AM on May 2, 2019 [4 favorites]
posted by Huffy Puffy at 8:13 AM on May 2, 2019 [4 favorites]
Nancy Pelosi just accused bar of a crime on live tv: "What he did was lying to congress, and that is a crime"
This was shortly after she connected his smug stonewalling to the general conservative agenda and attacks on the ACA.
Elections, consequences, etc. and this is one of many reasons to be thankful we flipped the House. Think of the excrement creek we'd be up without so much as a raft, let alone a paddle, if the House stayed red. We'd be genuinely on the way to a fascist dictatorship, at least in the red states.
If we can flip the Senate in 2020, then it probably won't matter that much which Democrat gets elected President. (Yes, I know, Joe Manchin yakety blah, but a Democratic Senate with Manchin is a jillion times better than a Republican Senate and can get some constructive things done.) Plus a Democratic Senate + Democratic House = if the worst happens and Trump squeaks by into the WH again, he could be actually, for-reals impeached (Manchin or no Manchin) and delivered into the waiting arms of New York AG James.
posted by Rosie M. Banks at 8:20 AM on May 2, 2019 [15 favorites]
This was shortly after she connected his smug stonewalling to the general conservative agenda and attacks on the ACA.
Elections, consequences, etc. and this is one of many reasons to be thankful we flipped the House. Think of the excrement creek we'd be up without so much as a raft, let alone a paddle, if the House stayed red. We'd be genuinely on the way to a fascist dictatorship, at least in the red states.
If we can flip the Senate in 2020, then it probably won't matter that much which Democrat gets elected President. (Yes, I know, Joe Manchin yakety blah, but a Democratic Senate with Manchin is a jillion times better than a Republican Senate and can get some constructive things done.) Plus a Democratic Senate + Democratic House = if the worst happens and Trump squeaks by into the WH again, he could be actually, for-reals impeached (Manchin or no Manchin) and delivered into the waiting arms of New York AG James.
posted by Rosie M. Banks at 8:20 AM on May 2, 2019 [15 favorites]
Plus a Democratic Senate + Democratic House = if the worst happens and Trump squeaks by into the WH again, he could be actually, for-reals impeached (Manchin or no Manchin) and delivered into the waiting arms of New York AG James.
A two-thirds supermajority is needed to convict in the Senate.
Control of the Senate, however, would prevent the Republicans from their bad-faith investigatory shenanigans, though, no matter who is President.
posted by Gelatin at 8:24 AM on May 2, 2019 [4 favorites]
A two-thirds supermajority is needed to convict in the Senate.
Control of the Senate, however, would prevent the Republicans from their bad-faith investigatory shenanigans, though, no matter who is President.
posted by Gelatin at 8:24 AM on May 2, 2019 [4 favorites]
I don't have much faith in a trustable presidential election happening, or any election result being honored by Trump and McConnell. This is a slow roll of delay and stall until the next national emergency, over security/fraud/elections/coup (any excuse really) is declared. Impeachment, started yesterday, is the only alternate action that fights against this not-in-good-faith GOP dictatorship plan.
posted by Harry Caul at 8:36 AM on May 2, 2019 [23 favorites]
posted by Harry Caul at 8:36 AM on May 2, 2019 [23 favorites]
I'm with Harry. They're crafty and we've been tunneled under before. Assuming elections will just get us in a better place isn't magical thinking but there's a lot of "ifs" in there that we can't necessarily count on.
posted by Brainy at 8:42 AM on May 2, 2019 [3 favorites]
posted by Brainy at 8:42 AM on May 2, 2019 [3 favorites]
but the Republicans now are not the ones of the Reagan and Bush I years, who were corrupt but not brainwashed.
This is something I've thought about for a while. Back in Reagan's day, the GOP pols were in on the scam, and though they were happy to benefit from it, they didn't believe the propaganda that had been and was being fed to their base since the Nixon administration. You know, the dog-whistling racial and sexual hate messages. Now we have GOP politicians that grew up on those messages and believe them. This is why dog-whistling won't cut it any more and you need a bullhorn like Trump now. And it's why the GOP pols will support Trump to end, because they believe in the hate messages he spews and will defend those views to the bitter end, the country be damned.
posted by Mental Wimp at 8:43 AM on May 2, 2019 [20 favorites]
This is something I've thought about for a while. Back in Reagan's day, the GOP pols were in on the scam, and though they were happy to benefit from it, they didn't believe the propaganda that had been and was being fed to their base since the Nixon administration. You know, the dog-whistling racial and sexual hate messages. Now we have GOP politicians that grew up on those messages and believe them. This is why dog-whistling won't cut it any more and you need a bullhorn like Trump now. And it's why the GOP pols will support Trump to end, because they believe in the hate messages he spews and will defend those views to the bitter end, the country be damned.
posted by Mental Wimp at 8:43 AM on May 2, 2019 [20 favorites]
Moore Won’t Withdraw for Fed Job (WSJ (via))
Stephen Moore told the Wall Street Journal that he wouldn’t withdraw from consideration for a position on the Federal Reserve Board, despite growing doubts among Republican senators about his prospects for confirmation if nominated.
Said Moore: “I’m not pulling out.”
[comment redacted]
posted by petebest at 8:50 AM on May 2, 2019 [9 favorites]
Stephen Moore told the Wall Street Journal that he wouldn’t withdraw from consideration for a position on the Federal Reserve Board, despite growing doubts among Republican senators about his prospects for confirmation if nominated.
Said Moore: “I’m not pulling out.”
[comment redacted]
posted by petebest at 8:50 AM on May 2, 2019 [9 favorites]
High Midterm Turnout Extended Across Racial Groups
“More than half of U.S. eligible voters cast a ballot in 2018, the highest turnout rate for a midterm election in recent history, (... Historical data in this analysis starts in 1978, the first year the Census Bureau gathered citizenship data for its survey of voters) ... The increased turnout was particularly pronounced among Hispanics and Asians, making last year’s midterm voters the most racially and ethnically diverse ever.”
“This was a stark reversal from the previous midterm year, when turnout had decreased – from 45.5% in 2010 to 41.9% in 2014.”
(Bonus fun check out the hockey-stick graph which accompanies the article.)
Some say that's known as a Mandate To Impeach. Still baffled as to why that's not abundantly clear to Democratic Leadership.
posted by petebest at 8:57 AM on May 2, 2019 [13 favorites]
“More than half of U.S. eligible voters cast a ballot in 2018, the highest turnout rate for a midterm election in recent history, (... Historical data in this analysis starts in 1978, the first year the Census Bureau gathered citizenship data for its survey of voters) ... The increased turnout was particularly pronounced among Hispanics and Asians, making last year’s midterm voters the most racially and ethnically diverse ever.”
“This was a stark reversal from the previous midterm year, when turnout had decreased – from 45.5% in 2010 to 41.9% in 2014.”
(Bonus fun check out the hockey-stick graph which accompanies the article.)
Some say that's known as a Mandate To Impeach. Still baffled as to why that's not abundantly clear to Democratic Leadership.
posted by petebest at 8:57 AM on May 2, 2019 [13 favorites]
Slate's Dahlia Lithwick makes it plain: William Barr Thinks Donald Trump Is Above the Law—In his testimony before Congress, the attorney general is again repeating the line that the president’s frustration justifies all his actions.
posted by Doktor Zed at 8:57 AM on May 2, 2019 [31 favorites]
We know that Donald Trump hates the media, and he hates being criticized, and he believes that his own suffering justifies all of his actions. We’ve known that for a long time. But for the attorney general to expressly adopt the view that the president can’t obstruct justice if he’s doing it because the press is annoying him is an appalling next step in the descent into establishing an imperial presidency, unchecked by either Congress or a free media. Every president believes the media gives him a raw deal. Barr just put the Justice Department’s imprimatur on the claim that such feelings put the president above the law.And let's not forget this exchange yesterday between Richard Blumenthal and Barr:
Richard Blumenthal: Have you had any conversations with the White House about any of the ongoing investigations spun off from the Mueller probe?Also, in light of Barr describing Mueller's letter "a bit snitty", Wired's Garrett M. Graff: "I’ve read just about every word Bob Mueller has ever said publicly or published. He’s written precisely one letter like the angry one he sent to Barr: It excoriated Scotland for letting the Pan Am 103 bomber out of prison." (Wired: Pan Am Flight 103: Robert Mueller’s 30-Year Search for Justice)
Bill Barr: I don’t recall.
Blumenthal: Will you recuse yourself?
Barr: No.
posted by Doktor Zed at 8:57 AM on May 2, 2019 [31 favorites]
Said Moore: “I’m not pulling out.”
If I have any accelerationist tendencies, it's for things like this to cause the opposition to lay their name next to a vote for or against patently disqualified nominees.
Moore is such an extreme joke that I wonder how he got to have gray hair while still being called an economist. Who keeps these people in the profession? Think tanks, sure, but that's not economics work (which probably isn't required for the Fed job, but still). He really seems like, "seriously, anybody else would be better qualified."
posted by rhizome at 9:11 AM on May 2, 2019 [2 favorites]
If I have any accelerationist tendencies, it's for things like this to cause the opposition to lay their name next to a vote for or against patently disqualified nominees.
Moore is such an extreme joke that I wonder how he got to have gray hair while still being called an economist. Who keeps these people in the profession? Think tanks, sure, but that's not economics work (which probably isn't required for the Fed job, but still). He really seems like, "seriously, anybody else would be better qualified."
posted by rhizome at 9:11 AM on May 2, 2019 [2 favorites]
Nancy Pelosi just accused bar of a crime on live tv: "What he did was lying to congress, and that is a crime"
Here's a video. She didn't seem prepared for the obvious follow up, "Should he go to jail for that?"
posted by peeedro at 9:15 AM on May 2, 2019 [6 favorites]
Here's a video. She didn't seem prepared for the obvious follow up, "Should he go to jail for that?"
posted by peeedro at 9:15 AM on May 2, 2019 [6 favorites]
TPM brings the money quote:
TPM LiveWire: Barr: "If in fact a proceeding was non well-founded, if it was a groundless proceeding, if it was based on false allegations, the President does not have to sit there, constitutionally, and allow it to run its course."
(with video, so you know you're not hallucinating what I just typed)
Let's review, shall we, children?
If the POTUS "knows" that allegations made towards him and his administration are false, he is not required to prove how he "knows" this in a court of law or similarly-empowered body. He is not held to the evidentiary standards that you or I would need to clear. He does not have to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations in any way.
Rather, he is "constitutionally empowered" to halt the investigation on his own recognizance and knowledge of the "facts."
“The president could terminate that proceeding and it would not be a corrupt intent because he was being falsely accused,” Barr claimed.
This is not Alex Jones saying this. This is not a homeless man behind a 7-Eleven saying this. This is said POTUS's hand-picked choice for the nation's highest law enforcement official saying this.
Barr and everyone who voted to confirm him should resign. Not that a single GOP Senator would have the slightest doubt in Barr's integrity and independence, of course...
I would say that we are now officially in a banana republic, but some would quibble with me about the word "now."
posted by delfin at 9:28 AM on May 2, 2019 [70 favorites]
TPM LiveWire: Barr: "If in fact a proceeding was non well-founded, if it was a groundless proceeding, if it was based on false allegations, the President does not have to sit there, constitutionally, and allow it to run its course."
(with video, so you know you're not hallucinating what I just typed)
Let's review, shall we, children?
If the POTUS "knows" that allegations made towards him and his administration are false, he is not required to prove how he "knows" this in a court of law or similarly-empowered body. He is not held to the evidentiary standards that you or I would need to clear. He does not have to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations in any way.
Rather, he is "constitutionally empowered" to halt the investigation on his own recognizance and knowledge of the "facts."
“The president could terminate that proceeding and it would not be a corrupt intent because he was being falsely accused,” Barr claimed.
This is not Alex Jones saying this. This is not a homeless man behind a 7-Eleven saying this. This is said POTUS's hand-picked choice for the nation's highest law enforcement official saying this.
Barr and everyone who voted to confirm him should resign. Not that a single GOP Senator would have the slightest doubt in Barr's integrity and independence, of course...
I would say that we are now officially in a banana republic, but some would quibble with me about the word "now."
posted by delfin at 9:28 AM on May 2, 2019 [70 favorites]
Opinion pieces in the NYT and WaPo are of limited, some say no, value. Still:
William Barr has shamelessly corrupted the debate over the Mueller report (WaPo)
It’s not good enough that a redacted version of the report was eventually made public. For 27 days, the debate over Mueller’s findings was twisted by Barr’s poisonous distortions that implied a full exoneration of President Trump. Many public statements and much punditry were devoted to insisting that Trump’s opponents owed the president an apology, that the Russia matter was never what it was cracked up to be, that the president was free and clear.
... Recovering from Barr’s original sin is well-nigh impossible. Of course, we now know what the report said. Congress can investigate, and the House can even impeach. But the political context for such decisions is irreparably warped. It will take enormous work to overcome that first impression Barr so deviously created.
...We have a president who was plainly elected with Russian help, and Republican senators want to go after FBI agents whose only transgression was to be worried about the intervention of a hostile power in our politics.
... It was [D-MD] Van Hollen who — two weeks after Mueller had registered his complaint — had asked Barr an un-senatorially direct question: “Did Bob Mueller support your conclusion?”
Barr replied: “I don’t know whether Bob Mueller supported my conclusion.”
Lawyers might argue over whether this was an outright lie, but to call Barr’s answer misleading and obfuscatory is rather kind. Trump must have been very proud of his attorney general.
As impeachment is a political quesiton and not a legal one, it is clear that Trump has succeeded in murdering his collusion charges illegally and in full public view. Democrats can work around this but they have to want to, and for whatever reasons they do not appear to want to. Yet?
posted by petebest at 9:36 AM on May 2, 2019 [7 favorites]
William Barr has shamelessly corrupted the debate over the Mueller report (WaPo)
It’s not good enough that a redacted version of the report was eventually made public. For 27 days, the debate over Mueller’s findings was twisted by Barr’s poisonous distortions that implied a full exoneration of President Trump. Many public statements and much punditry were devoted to insisting that Trump’s opponents owed the president an apology, that the Russia matter was never what it was cracked up to be, that the president was free and clear.
... Recovering from Barr’s original sin is well-nigh impossible. Of course, we now know what the report said. Congress can investigate, and the House can even impeach. But the political context for such decisions is irreparably warped. It will take enormous work to overcome that first impression Barr so deviously created.
...We have a president who was plainly elected with Russian help, and Republican senators want to go after FBI agents whose only transgression was to be worried about the intervention of a hostile power in our politics.
... It was [D-MD] Van Hollen who — two weeks after Mueller had registered his complaint — had asked Barr an un-senatorially direct question: “Did Bob Mueller support your conclusion?”
Barr replied: “I don’t know whether Bob Mueller supported my conclusion.”
Lawyers might argue over whether this was an outright lie, but to call Barr’s answer misleading and obfuscatory is rather kind. Trump must have been very proud of his attorney general.
As impeachment is a political quesiton and not a legal one, it is clear that Trump has succeeded in murdering his collusion charges illegally and in full public view. Democrats can work around this but they have to want to, and for whatever reasons they do not appear to want to. Yet?
posted by petebest at 9:36 AM on May 2, 2019 [7 favorites]
From the context I think this was as part of of a National Prayer Day Speech Trump was giving (about an hour ago).
@ZackFord (Think Progress reporter).
@ZackFord (Think Progress reporter).
Trump just confirmed that physicians will now be able to use their religious beliefs to deny people care, including the LGBTQ community.posted by Buntix at 9:37 AM on May 2, 2019 [8 favorites]
Trump ALSO just once again committed to allowing adoption and foster agencies receive taxpayer funding while discrimination against same-sex families.
Annnnnnnnnnd Moore just withdrew from Fed consideration according to CNN.
The question is if it's because Trump knew his nomination was doomed or because Moore just put that he doesn't think rates should be cut (going against Trump's desires for the Fed).
posted by Lord Chancellor at 9:38 AM on May 2, 2019 [14 favorites]
The question is if it's because Trump knew his nomination was doomed or because Moore just put that he doesn't think rates should be cut (going against Trump's desires for the Fed).
posted by Lord Chancellor at 9:38 AM on May 2, 2019 [14 favorites]
She didn't seem prepared for the obvious follow up, "Should he go to jail for that?"
I'm increasingly worried at the lack of message control and planning from the top of the Democratic Party. They should now be at the ready with an answer to this question, whenever asked. She — Pelosi — should be ready to go with an answer. This is disconcerting, to say the least.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 9:39 AM on May 2, 2019 [20 favorites]
I'm increasingly worried at the lack of message control and planning from the top of the Democratic Party. They should now be at the ready with an answer to this question, whenever asked. She — Pelosi — should be ready to go with an answer. This is disconcerting, to say the least.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 9:39 AM on May 2, 2019 [20 favorites]
Yesterday Lindsey Graham went on offense for Trump and Barr reading out FBI agent Strzok's texts. The huckleberry showboater goes blue in an attempt to shock the audience, but it just turns into a viral meme.
"Trump is a fucking idiot" (Youtube)
posted by JackFlash at 9:42 AM on May 2, 2019 [15 favorites]
"Trump is a fucking idiot" (Youtube)
posted by JackFlash at 9:42 AM on May 2, 2019 [15 favorites]
None of them want to be the person. Everybody is standing around waiting for someone else to take the lead.
Nadler went right up to the line this morning, before realizing what he was doing and defaulting to more "negotiations" with Barr.
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 9:43 AM on May 2, 2019 [5 favorites]
Nadler went right up to the line this morning, before realizing what he was doing and defaulting to more "negotiations" with Barr.
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 9:43 AM on May 2, 2019 [5 favorites]
Everybody is standing around waiting for someone else to take the lead.
Given the historic vote turnout that got Dems into power in the House seven months ago - through all the supression and outright theft of Republicans - this is super duper sad. Just feed it to AOC and get out of the way maybe?
posted by petebest at 9:49 AM on May 2, 2019 [9 favorites]
Given the historic vote turnout that got Dems into power in the House seven months ago - through all the supression and outright theft of Republicans - this is super duper sad. Just feed it to AOC and get out of the way maybe?
posted by petebest at 9:49 AM on May 2, 2019 [9 favorites]
She didn't seem prepared for the obvious follow up, "Should he go to jail for that?"
I'm increasingly worried at the lack of message control and planning from the top of the Democratic Party. They should now be at the ready with an answer to this question, whenever asked. She — Pelosi — should be ready to go with an answer. This is disconcerting, to say the least.
Timely piece by Brian Beutler: Democrats Green Light Trump's Authoritarian Ambitions
I'm increasingly worried at the lack of message control and planning from the top of the Democratic Party. They should now be at the ready with an answer to this question, whenever asked. She — Pelosi — should be ready to go with an answer. This is disconcerting, to say the least.
Timely piece by Brian Beutler: Democrats Green Light Trump's Authoritarian Ambitions
If Trump wants the Justice Department to investigate the Bidens on the basis of whatever Giuliani cooked up with Ukrainian prosecutors, Barr is precisely the kind of attorney general who will make it happen. If that turns into a dead end, he will find something else. Other Trump loyalists—including Peter Schweizer, who cooked up the Uranium One conspiracy theory ahead of the last election—would like DOJ to investigate whether the Chinese government has leverage over the Bidens. Any port in the storm.posted by zombieflanders at 9:50 AM on May 2, 2019 [15 favorites]
All of these developments form the backdrop of a scheme to knock out the Democratic candidate Trump is known to fear the most. Trump associates have been unusually frank, without seeming coy, about their concern that Biden could defeat Trump in the general election, and they would apparently like to neutralize the threat by embroiling Biden in a politically motivated criminal investigation.
This isn’t a clever strategy, but it is blunt and chilling, and, if successful, can and will be repeated to hobble whichever Democrat Trump fears second most, and ultimately on whichever Democrat wins the party’s 2020 presidential nomination.
[...]
Democrats could easily avoid this trap by initiating impeachment proceedings now, not just on the basis of this new reporting, but the conduct detailed in the Mueller report, and the more quotidian and routine ways Trump flouts his oath of office.
They have instead chosen to communicate to Trump that all of these improprieties are acceptable—and less than a month after the Mueller report became public, their paralysis has uncorked Trump’s authoritarian desires. On Wednesday, Barr revealed that he and Trump have discussed at least some of the criminal investigations Mueller spun off to other components of the Justice Department—investigations Barr has refused to recuse himself from. Barr has also conscripted the department’s inspector general into a “review” of the origins of the Russia investigation that Trump clearly expects will yield criminal charges, however frivolous. If Democrats are too helpless to help their own candidates, how are they to help people caught up in that investigation, or the victims of the criminal behavior Mueller referred out to other prosecutors? And the worst part is that Barr has been Trump’s attorney general for only two and a half months—which means they’re just getting started.
CNBC: Stephen Moore withdraws from Fed consideration, Trump says
Of course, he did this by tweet: "Steve Moore, a great pro-growth economist and a truly fine person, has decided to withdraw from the Fed process. Steve won the battle of ideas including Tax Cuts.... ....and deregulation which have produced non-inflationary prosperity for all Americans. I’ve asked Steve to work with me toward future economic growth in our Country." (Pretty unlikely Trump was the author of this, but "a truly fine person" is just the sort of faint praise he'd use when throwing someone under a bus.)
Two hours ago, on Bloomberg: “LATEST: Trump’s pick for the Fed, Stephen Moore, says he is “all in” despite growing Senate objections” But then he sealed his fate in that interview: “I am not so sure I agree with the White House that we should cut rates by an entire percentage point.”
posted by Doktor Zed at 9:51 AM on May 2, 2019 [8 favorites]
Of course, he did this by tweet: "Steve Moore, a great pro-growth economist and a truly fine person, has decided to withdraw from the Fed process. Steve won the battle of ideas including Tax Cuts.... ....and deregulation which have produced non-inflationary prosperity for all Americans. I’ve asked Steve to work with me toward future economic growth in our Country." (Pretty unlikely Trump was the author of this, but "a truly fine person" is just the sort of faint praise he'd use when throwing someone under a bus.)
Two hours ago, on Bloomberg: “LATEST: Trump’s pick for the Fed, Stephen Moore, says he is “all in” despite growing Senate objections” But then he sealed his fate in that interview: “I am not so sure I agree with the White House that we should cut rates by an entire percentage point.”
posted by Doktor Zed at 9:51 AM on May 2, 2019 [8 favorites]
Before Dems can justifiably say "Barr should go to jail" they need to be able to point out an instance of Barr intentionally saying something incorrect... but Barr's got a special talent for being super misleading while being technically correct. I can't affirmatively say that he didn't perjure himself, but any claim that he did should be backed up with a specific instance of an honest-to-goodness (heh) lie.
posted by a snickering nuthatch at 9:53 AM on May 2, 2019 [3 favorites]
posted by a snickering nuthatch at 9:53 AM on May 2, 2019 [3 favorites]
Matt Yglesias puts it more bluntly and succinctly: I hope Democrats understand that whoever they nominate in 2020 is going to end up as the subject of a criminal investigation initiated by the White House and approved by AG Barr and FBI Director Wray.
posted by zombieflanders at 9:55 AM on May 2, 2019 [68 favorites]
posted by zombieflanders at 9:55 AM on May 2, 2019 [68 favorites]
Barr ignored a Congressional subpoena to produce the Mueller report; jail him for that.
posted by reductiondesign at 9:57 AM on May 2, 2019 [40 favorites]
posted by reductiondesign at 9:57 AM on May 2, 2019 [40 favorites]
Alabama Lawmakers Move To Outlaw Abortion In Challenge To Roe V. Wade (Debbie Elliott for NPR, May 1, 2019)
posted by filthy light thief at 10:13 AM on May 2, 2019 [20 favorites]
In what would likely become the most restrictive abortion ban in the country, the Alabama House Tuesday passed a bill that would make it a crime for doctors to perform abortions at any stage of a pregnancy, unless a woman's life is threatened. The legislation is part of a broader anti-abortion strategy to prompt the U.S. Supreme Court to reconsider the right to abortion.Emphasis mine -- that's a really narrow window.
Other states, including neighboring Georgia and Mississippi, have passed laws that prohibit abortion once a fetal heartbeat can be detected. But Alabama's ban would apply even earlier.Interesting twist.
"When a woman is pregnant, an abortion is no longer legal," says Collins, explaining the bill.
The bill criminalizes abortion, meaning doctors would face felony jail time up to 99 years if convicted. The only exceptions are for a serious health risk to the pregnant woman, or a lethal anomaly of the fetus. There are no exceptions for cases of rape or incest. A woman would not be held criminally liable for having an abortion.
Collins says the bill follows a constitutional amendment approved by Alabama voters last year that recognizes the "rights of unborn children." It defies the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark decision that protects a woman's right to abortion.Meanwhile, Pastors Sign Letter Saying “We’re Committed Christians in Support of Abortion” (Micaiah Bilger for Life News, April 2, 2019)
"This bill is simply about Roe v. Wade," says Collins. "The decision that was made back in 1973 would not be the same decision that was decided upon today if you relooked at the issue."
A group of Jamaican pastors and Christian leaders urged their country’s political leaders to legalize abortions this week, claiming they want to “hold out the compassion of Christ” to pregnant women in need.Pastors citing scientific facts, and urging compassion? More of this, please! (Oh, and that article goes on to push back against these pastors, as you might expect from the source of the article.)
The 19 “committed Christians” made their case for abortion in an open letter published in the Jamaica Observer Tuesday. They supported a parliamentary committee recommendation to legalize abortions up to 12 weeks. Abortions currently are illegal in Jamaica except in a few rare circumstances.
“We recognise that terminating a pregnancy is never an easy decision, but we hold out the compassion of Christ to all women faced with this decision,” the pastors wrote.
They argued that, prior to 12 weeks, the unborn child is not developed enough to deserve protection under the law.
“Science tells us that at six weeks the embryo is so tiny it can fit within our small finger nail; at eight weeks it weighs 1/30th of an ounce,” they wrote. “At 12 weeks, now called a foetus, it is four inches long and weighs one ounce. It has all its organs, but none are functioning.”
posted by filthy light thief at 10:13 AM on May 2, 2019 [20 favorites]
The Times has something and it's both incendiary and also inconsequential and honestly, I can't tell which side leaked it. It seems like it's both fuel for the "we had serious concerns" but also, like they point out in the article, could booster spying accusations.
F.B.I. Sent Investigator Posing as Assistant to Meet With Trump Aide in 2016posted by Brainy at 10:16 AM on May 2, 2019 [5 favorites]
WASHINGTON — The conversation at a London bar in September 2016 took a strange turn when the woman sitting across from George Papadopoulos, a Trump campaign adviser, asked a direct question: Was the Trump campaign working with Russia?
The woman had set up the meeting to discuss foreign policy issues. But she was actually a government investigator posing as a research assistant, according to people familiar with the operation. The F.B.I. sent her to London to as part of the counterintelligence inquiry opened that summer to better understand the Trump campaign’s links to Russia.
The American government’s affiliation with the woman, who said her name was Azra Turk, is one previously unreported detail of an operation that has become a political flash point in the face of accusations by President Trump and his allies that American law enforcement and intelligence officials spied on his campaign to undermine his electoral chances. Last year, he called it “Spygate.”
The decision to use Ms. Turk in the operation aimed at a presidential campaign official shows the level of alarm inside the F.B.I. during a frantic period when the bureau was trying to determine the scope of Russia’s attempts to disrupt the 2016 election, but could also give ammunition to Mr. Trump and his allies for their spying claims.
Matt Yglesias puts it more bluntly and succinctly: I hope Democrats understand that whoever they nominate in 2020 is going to end up as the subject of a criminal investigation initiated by the White House and approved by AG Barr and FBI Director Wray.
Though despite BENGHAZEEEEE and emails and so on, they couldn't get anything to actually stick to Hillary Clinton. And Harris and Warren are pretty much Girl Scouts, so I hope any potential investigation gets laughed out of the halls of Congress and the thankfully blue House.
posted by Rosie M. Banks at 10:20 AM on May 2, 2019 [2 favorites]
Though despite BENGHAZEEEEE and emails and so on, they couldn't get anything to actually stick to Hillary Clinton. And Harris and Warren are pretty much Girl Scouts, so I hope any potential investigation gets laughed out of the halls of Congress and the thankfully blue House.
posted by Rosie M. Banks at 10:20 AM on May 2, 2019 [2 favorites]
On the plus side, finding a nominee in 2020 who is _not_ a criminal will be much easier for the Democrats than for the Republicans.
On the minus side, Trump and Barr are now apparently the sole arbiters of what an actual crime is.
posted by delfin at 10:21 AM on May 2, 2019 [14 favorites]
On the minus side, Trump and Barr are now apparently the sole arbiters of what an actual crime is.
posted by delfin at 10:21 AM on May 2, 2019 [14 favorites]
Barr's got a special talent for being super misleading while being technically correct. I can't affirmatively say that he didn't perjure himself, but any claim that he did should be backed up with a specific instance of an honest-to-goodness (heh) lie.
While Barr hasn't technically lied, he's lied. While Trump didn't technically partner with Russia, he colluded. While we debate what an emolument is, Trump takes them. The public forum is not a court of law, and I'm tired of Democrats pretending it is, especially when it prevents the larger truth from being a part of the national discussion. There are far too many people that will believe Trump does not deserve to be in jail simply because Democrats won't say so.
We need to stop being stymied by legal parsing and call out the reality of the situation: Trump fixed the election. Trump takes bribes. Trump obstructed justice. Trump imprisons children.
posted by xammerboy at 10:32 AM on May 2, 2019 [27 favorites]
While Barr hasn't technically lied, he's lied. While Trump didn't technically partner with Russia, he colluded. While we debate what an emolument is, Trump takes them. The public forum is not a court of law, and I'm tired of Democrats pretending it is, especially when it prevents the larger truth from being a part of the national discussion. There are far too many people that will believe Trump does not deserve to be in jail simply because Democrats won't say so.
We need to stop being stymied by legal parsing and call out the reality of the situation: Trump fixed the election. Trump takes bribes. Trump obstructed justice. Trump imprisons children.
posted by xammerboy at 10:32 AM on May 2, 2019 [27 favorites]
Vox, Dara Lind, Exclusive: Civil servants say they’re being used as pawns in a dangerous asylum program, in which asylum officers speak out about the Remain in Mexico policy.
The first time that one immigration officer interviewed an asylum seeker under new Trump administration protocols, the officer went back to their hotel room, turned up the shower as hot as it would go, and tried to wash off the feeling of being manipulated.posted by zachlipton at 10:35 AM on May 2, 2019 [17 favorites]
The officer had just listened to the Central American’s story of threats from drug cartels during his journey through Mexico en route to the US, and believed the man’s life was in danger. “This was a guy truly afraid he was going to be murdered, and frankly, he might be,” the officer told Vox.
But the officer “wasn’t even allowed to make an argument” that the asylum seeker should be allowed to stay in the US to pursue his case. They signed — feeling they had no choice — a form stating the migrant wasn’t likely to be persecuted in Mexico, and therefore could be safely returned.
...
But the union members who spoke to Vox said that decisions to let an asylum seeker stay are often reviewed — and blocked or overturned — by asylum headquarters. Decisions to send the asylum seeker back to Mexico, on the other hand, don’t appear to get reviewed at all. (USCIS did not respond to specific questions about the review process.)
...
But the asylum officers who spoke to Vox under the auspices of their union believe they’ve already seen that future — they see a US asylum system that has all but turned its back on people fleeing persecution in their home countries. And even if the specific “return to Mexico” policy is held up in court, they worry a fundamental norm has been broken that can’t be repaired.
Annnnnnnnnnd Moore just withdrew from Fed consideration according to CNN.
Hmm, Cain and now Moore.
So R senators actually have no trouble standing up to Trump, they just don’t for racism, fascism and corruption because they’re fine with that.
posted by chris24 at 10:37 AM on May 2, 2019 [23 favorites]
Hmm, Cain and now Moore.
So R senators actually have no trouble standing up to Trump, they just don’t for racism, fascism and corruption because they’re fine with that.
posted by chris24 at 10:37 AM on May 2, 2019 [23 favorites]
Quinta Jurecic in The Atlantic with a run-down on reasons for impeachment.
posted by suelac at 10:48 AM on May 2, 2019 [17 favorites]
Taken as a whole, the picture is of a man who has no concept of the public interest as separate from his own, who has no ability to lead the country morally or even interest in doing so, who has repeatedly breached, in ways large and small, his obligation to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed” and “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.”I don't always agree with the Lawfare crowd on foreign policy issues, but I can appreciate their willingness to take a stand (more so than the Democratic establishment, apparently).
posted by suelac at 10:48 AM on May 2, 2019 [17 favorites]
Before Dems can justifiably say "Barr should go to jail" they need to be able to point out an instance of Barr intentionally saying something incorrect
JFC!
Flashback: April 10.
VAN HOLLEN: Did Bob Mueller support your conclusion?
BARR: I don't know whether Bob Mueller supported my conclusion.
This was after Barr received Mueller's letter in which Mueller told Barr that he did not support his conclusions!
posted by diogenes at 10:50 AM on May 2, 2019 [32 favorites]
JFC!
Flashback: April 10.
VAN HOLLEN: Did Bob Mueller support your conclusion?
BARR: I don't know whether Bob Mueller supported my conclusion.
This was after Barr received Mueller's letter in which Mueller told Barr that he did not support his conclusions!
posted by diogenes at 10:50 AM on May 2, 2019 [32 favorites]
Colorado Sen. Michael Bennet announces 2020 campaign
Teen Vogue's Celeste Pewter:
Teen Vogue's Celeste Pewter:
WE NEED A DEM SENATE.posted by Doktor Zed at 10:50 AM on May 2, 2019 [5 favorites]
This is what the current field looks like, btw:
*Bennet
*Biden
*Booker
*Buttigieg
*Castro
*Delaney
*Gabbard
*Gillibrand
*Gravel
*Harris
*Hickenlooper
*Inslee
*Klobuchar
*Messam
*Moulton
*O'Rourke
*Ryan
*Swalwell
*Warren
*Williamson
*Yang
I’m kind of tired of how much the ‘Dems are in disarray’ media narrative is being rebroadcast in here every time a politician or an article doesn’t use the exact right language to call out or attack Trump and his criminal actions.
posted by Drumhellz at 10:51 AM on May 2, 2019 [31 favorites]
posted by Drumhellz at 10:51 AM on May 2, 2019 [31 favorites]
If Trump wants the Justice Department to investigate the Bidens on the basis of whatever Giuliani cooked up with Ukrainian prosecutors, Barr is precisely the kind of attorney general who will make it happen. If that turns into a dead end, he will find something else. Other Trump loyalists—including Peter Schweizer, who cooked up the Uranium One conspiracy theory ahead of the last election—would like DOJ to investigate whether the Chinese government has leverage over the Bidens. Any port in the storm.
I agree with this but I also want to say... We should not be surprised if we see some more ACTUAL inappropriate behavior turn up on the Democratic side too. I want to avoid false equivalencies here, but Mueller spun off an indictment for Greg Craig, who formerly worked in the White House Counsel's office under Obama, along with all those Trump guys. He didn't indict Tony Podesta, but Podesta did have to close up shop, after Mueller showed he'd been hired to help Manafort lobby for Yanukovych. There's no evidence that Hillary Clinton drew any kind of money out of the Clinton Foundation or had any special role in approving the sale of uranium to a Russian-owned company, BUT the Clinton Foundation really did get some big donations from some shady Russian guys, and it probably wasn't out of the goodness of their hearts. Likewise I think it was kind of inappropriate for Hunter Biden to take a role on board of an energy company owned by a Ukrainian oligarch, while his dad was Vice President. He probably could have found a job with an American company. Presumably he took this one because Burisma Holdings paid better?
My takeaway from stories like these is that these oligarchs are ALWAYS trying to buy influence, with EVERYONE. And up 'til now, a lot of people have thought that it's okay to take their money, as long as you don't promise them anything in return. (I feel like the Clintons might actually enjoy the irony of taking money money from these mega-rich crooks and using it to help cure AIDS, and giving the crooks the finger when they come asking for favors in return. But even if this is what you really do, once you take the money, it's going to be hard for people to believe there wasn't some kind of hidden quid pro quo. Same thing if you're taking money from American billionaires, unfortunately.)
What I got from the Mueller report is that crazy rich foreigners offering you gifts and favors and jobs and insisting that of course they expect nothing in return is actually a thing that happens to you all the time if you have a powerful job in Washington, or are related to someone who does. But once you accept those gifts, you have a relationship with those people, and that relationship can gradually evolve without you being fully aware of how you came to owe these people favors. And at the back of your mind is the knowledge that the money or help would dry up if you ever pissed off your benefactor too much. In other words, the quid is compromising even without the pro quo.
And to some extent I think this is what was happening with the Trump campaign too. The relationship between Don Jr and the Agalarovs was like this, leading to the Trump Tower Meeting. Just old friends who help each other out sometimes. Just a courtesy to accept a meeting on their behalf. The Agalarovs had been cultivating that relationship since 2013 and the Miss Universe pageant, never explicitly asking for anything, just being friendly and helpful. I think this is sort of what was going on with the NRA, too and the free trip to Russia offered by Maria Butina, and with the donations to Republican PACs from Len Blavatnik. I think this is more or less what was going on with Jill Stein, and even with Michael Flynn. This is how the Russian government exerts influence. This is a part of their foreign policy. Mueller described how Putin would encourage the oligarchs to individually reach out through their personal networks, their business contacts. This is a strategy.
Of course in the case of the Trump campaign it went well beyond that. Besides what Jr and Flynn got up to, there were plans for a Trump Tower Moscow. Manafort was sharing campaign strategy and polling data with Konstantin Killimnik. Trump himself started repeating Russia propaganda messages and pushing for policy concessions toward Russia, etc. So Trump is far more culpable than most of the other people mentioned in this comment. He didn't make excuses to himself about the ethics of accepting political or financial "gifts" from these people... He didn't even consider the ethics. He gladly did favors for them in return.
But I think we need to admit that even taking the jobs, the trips, the charitable donations, the lobbying contracts, offered by these people without making any promises or doing any favors in return is still problematic. I don't by any means think that Hunter Biden taking that job should disqualify Joe Biden from office, and I don't think Joe Biden did anything wrong at all. But I think going forward, guys like Hunter Biden should not take jobs like that. The Clinton Foundation should not take donations from Russian oligarchs. Tony Podesta should not do lobbying work for people like Manafort and Yanukovych. We have to be smarter than this. We can't afford to fall this trick anymore. Our politicians and their families have to learn from all this to beware of oligarchs bearing gifts.
posted by OnceUponATime at 10:54 AM on May 2, 2019 [45 favorites]
I agree with this but I also want to say... We should not be surprised if we see some more ACTUAL inappropriate behavior turn up on the Democratic side too. I want to avoid false equivalencies here, but Mueller spun off an indictment for Greg Craig, who formerly worked in the White House Counsel's office under Obama, along with all those Trump guys. He didn't indict Tony Podesta, but Podesta did have to close up shop, after Mueller showed he'd been hired to help Manafort lobby for Yanukovych. There's no evidence that Hillary Clinton drew any kind of money out of the Clinton Foundation or had any special role in approving the sale of uranium to a Russian-owned company, BUT the Clinton Foundation really did get some big donations from some shady Russian guys, and it probably wasn't out of the goodness of their hearts. Likewise I think it was kind of inappropriate for Hunter Biden to take a role on board of an energy company owned by a Ukrainian oligarch, while his dad was Vice President. He probably could have found a job with an American company. Presumably he took this one because Burisma Holdings paid better?
My takeaway from stories like these is that these oligarchs are ALWAYS trying to buy influence, with EVERYONE. And up 'til now, a lot of people have thought that it's okay to take their money, as long as you don't promise them anything in return. (I feel like the Clintons might actually enjoy the irony of taking money money from these mega-rich crooks and using it to help cure AIDS, and giving the crooks the finger when they come asking for favors in return. But even if this is what you really do, once you take the money, it's going to be hard for people to believe there wasn't some kind of hidden quid pro quo. Same thing if you're taking money from American billionaires, unfortunately.)
What I got from the Mueller report is that crazy rich foreigners offering you gifts and favors and jobs and insisting that of course they expect nothing in return is actually a thing that happens to you all the time if you have a powerful job in Washington, or are related to someone who does. But once you accept those gifts, you have a relationship with those people, and that relationship can gradually evolve without you being fully aware of how you came to owe these people favors. And at the back of your mind is the knowledge that the money or help would dry up if you ever pissed off your benefactor too much. In other words, the quid is compromising even without the pro quo.
And to some extent I think this is what was happening with the Trump campaign too. The relationship between Don Jr and the Agalarovs was like this, leading to the Trump Tower Meeting. Just old friends who help each other out sometimes. Just a courtesy to accept a meeting on their behalf. The Agalarovs had been cultivating that relationship since 2013 and the Miss Universe pageant, never explicitly asking for anything, just being friendly and helpful. I think this is sort of what was going on with the NRA, too and the free trip to Russia offered by Maria Butina, and with the donations to Republican PACs from Len Blavatnik. I think this is more or less what was going on with Jill Stein, and even with Michael Flynn. This is how the Russian government exerts influence. This is a part of their foreign policy. Mueller described how Putin would encourage the oligarchs to individually reach out through their personal networks, their business contacts. This is a strategy.
Of course in the case of the Trump campaign it went well beyond that. Besides what Jr and Flynn got up to, there were plans for a Trump Tower Moscow. Manafort was sharing campaign strategy and polling data with Konstantin Killimnik. Trump himself started repeating Russia propaganda messages and pushing for policy concessions toward Russia, etc. So Trump is far more culpable than most of the other people mentioned in this comment. He didn't make excuses to himself about the ethics of accepting political or financial "gifts" from these people... He didn't even consider the ethics. He gladly did favors for them in return.
But I think we need to admit that even taking the jobs, the trips, the charitable donations, the lobbying contracts, offered by these people without making any promises or doing any favors in return is still problematic. I don't by any means think that Hunter Biden taking that job should disqualify Joe Biden from office, and I don't think Joe Biden did anything wrong at all. But I think going forward, guys like Hunter Biden should not take jobs like that. The Clinton Foundation should not take donations from Russian oligarchs. Tony Podesta should not do lobbying work for people like Manafort and Yanukovych. We have to be smarter than this. We can't afford to fall this trick anymore. Our politicians and their families have to learn from all this to beware of oligarchs bearing gifts.
posted by OnceUponATime at 10:54 AM on May 2, 2019 [45 favorites]
Sounds like Moore might have been removed from consideration because Trump wanted to juice the economy yet again before elections, and Moore disagreed. It will be interesting to measure to what extent the next pick agrees with building economic policies around an election-based Four-Year Plan.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 10:55 AM on May 2, 2019 [5 favorites]
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 10:55 AM on May 2, 2019 [5 favorites]
Trump just confirmed that physicians will now be able to use their religious beliefs to deny people care, including the LGBTQ community.
Yes. WSJ, Stephanie Armour, White House Unveils Rules to Protect Health Workers’ Religious, Moral Beliefs
Yes. WSJ, Stephanie Armour, White House Unveils Rules to Protect Health Workers’ Religious, Moral Beliefs
The Trump administration will require hospitals and health organizations to do more to shield medical workers with moral or religious objections to medical procedures such as abortion, assisted suicide or sterilization.posted by zachlipton at 10:55 AM on May 2, 2019 [10 favorites]
A rule released Thursday by the Department of Health and Human Services significantly broadens the agency’s enforcement ability and strengthens protections for health care workers who say that certain medical procedures violate their beliefs. Critics say it will curtail access to care for many women, as well as gay and transgender patients
The rule will expand the administration’s enforcement ability and could prompt many health organizations to inform workers about federal protections regarding their personal faith or convictions. It also will help shield health-care workers who object to administering certain vaccines, for example, or object to referring patients for help with directives that govern end-of-life care.
...
“This rule allows anyone from a doctor to a receptionist to entities like hospitals and pharmacies to deny a patient critical—and sometimes lifesaving—care,” said Fatima Goss Graves, president of the National Women’s Law Center. “Personal beliefs should never determine the care a patient receives.”
Senate fails to override Trump’s veto of resolution demanding end to U.S. involvement in Yemen
posted by zachlipton at 11:03 AM on May 2, 2019 [10 favorites]
posted by zachlipton at 11:03 AM on May 2, 2019 [10 favorites]
Reuters: How is a finding of contempt of Congress enforced?
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 11:19 AM on May 2, 2019 [43 favorites]
The Supreme Court said in 1821 that Congress has "inherent authority" to arrest and detain recalcitrant witnesses.Unlikely, eh? As unlikely as an Executive Branch that chooses to ignore subpoenas without explanation? Maybe we need a few more unlikely things to happen if we want to deal with the unlikely things that have already happened. 🤔
In 1927, 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.
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 11:19 AM on May 2, 2019 [43 favorites]
OnceUponATime: But I think we need to admit that even taking the jobs, the trips, the charitable donations, the lobbying contracts, offered by these people without making any promises or doing any favors in return is still problematic. I don't by any means think that Hunter Biden taking that job should disqualify Joe Biden from office, and I don't think Joe Biden did anything wrong at all. But I think going forward, guys like Hunter Biden should not take jobs like that. The Clinton Foundation should not take donations from Russian oligarchs. Tony Podesta should not do lobbying work for people like Manafort and Yanukovych. We have to be smarter than this. We can't afford to fall this trick anymore. Our politicians and their families have to learn from all this to beware of oligarchs bearing gifts.
I flagged your comment as fantastic, OnceUponATime. If we're going to be the party of anti-corruption, we have to keep our noses squeaky clean, and not just because it's a contrast to the Republicans and/or it keeps us out of jail - it makes us look honest and above-board and trustworthy. No taking money from shady foreigners even for the noblest of purposes. That way lies Both-Sides-Ism and consequent apathy and cynicism.
Even if Elizabeth Warren doesn't get the nomination, she's setting a good example by being the anti-big donor, anti-corruption, anti-Wall Street candidate. Sure, that means that mainstream media and big donors and even shady foreigners will hate and fear her and try to squash her flat - but as we know, Warren is good at persisting. We need her, we need someone like AOC who won because of who she was and not what money she took from donors. The more Warrens and AOCs and the fewer old style Third Way types the better. It's like Kirsten Gillibrand doing the right thing despite the tremendous blowback she still faces - doing the difficult right thing makes us look better and more trustworthy in the long run and helps stop the "Both Sides!" "Lesser of Two Evils!" type of stuff that leads to voter apathy and distrust.
posted by Rosie M. Banks at 11:24 AM on May 2, 2019 [14 favorites]
I flagged your comment as fantastic, OnceUponATime. If we're going to be the party of anti-corruption, we have to keep our noses squeaky clean, and not just because it's a contrast to the Republicans and/or it keeps us out of jail - it makes us look honest and above-board and trustworthy. No taking money from shady foreigners even for the noblest of purposes. That way lies Both-Sides-Ism and consequent apathy and cynicism.
Even if Elizabeth Warren doesn't get the nomination, she's setting a good example by being the anti-big donor, anti-corruption, anti-Wall Street candidate. Sure, that means that mainstream media and big donors and even shady foreigners will hate and fear her and try to squash her flat - but as we know, Warren is good at persisting. We need her, we need someone like AOC who won because of who she was and not what money she took from donors. The more Warrens and AOCs and the fewer old style Third Way types the better. It's like Kirsten Gillibrand doing the right thing despite the tremendous blowback she still faces - doing the difficult right thing makes us look better and more trustworthy in the long run and helps stop the "Both Sides!" "Lesser of Two Evils!" type of stuff that leads to voter apathy and distrust.
posted by Rosie M. Banks at 11:24 AM on May 2, 2019 [14 favorites]
So the point of what I said is that while Barr (incredibly obviously; do I actually have to say this?!) is not acting ethically, he may not have perjured himself. Like I said, if one would like to say that he did, one should point out the lie in specific. TO BE CLEAR, this comment and the previous exist because people upthread were wondering about why Pelosi wasn't ready to say that Barr should go to jail for criming. I think the answer is that he may not have been proven to have crimed yet. Of course there may be another example that would be a lie, or there may come out evidence at some point that Pelosi is not yet aware of that inculpates him.
Which brings us to someone then pointing out a potential lie in specific:
This was after Barr received Mueller's letter in which Mueller told Barr that he did not support his conclusions!
Maybe the legal system will think this is a lie (I don't know, IANAL), and of course it's (obviously why do I have to say this) misleading. But it might not be a lie in the go-directly-to-jail sense. Read the letter and look at what Barr said again with a smart alec word-parsing hat on. The letter doesn't say Mueller didn't support Barr's conclusions. The Mueller letter shows that Mueller disagreed with Barr's characterization of Mueller's work, not about Barr's conclusions. Barr's only conclusions in his own letter to Congress were the AG/DAG determinations re obstruction of justice. Both Mueller and Barr decline to prosecute Trump for obstruction of justice. Barr knew that Mueller disagreed with Barr's reasoning, but he cannot be said to know that Mueller disagreed with his conclusion.
posted by a snickering nuthatch at 11:26 AM on May 2, 2019 [5 favorites]
Which brings us to someone then pointing out a potential lie in specific:
This was after Barr received Mueller's letter in which Mueller told Barr that he did not support his conclusions!
Maybe the legal system will think this is a lie (I don't know, IANAL), and of course it's (obviously why do I have to say this) misleading. But it might not be a lie in the go-directly-to-jail sense. Read the letter and look at what Barr said again with a smart alec word-parsing hat on. The letter doesn't say Mueller didn't support Barr's conclusions. The Mueller letter shows that Mueller disagreed with Barr's characterization of Mueller's work, not about Barr's conclusions. Barr's only conclusions in his own letter to Congress were the AG/DAG determinations re obstruction of justice. Both Mueller and Barr decline to prosecute Trump for obstruction of justice. Barr knew that Mueller disagreed with Barr's reasoning, but he cannot be said to know that Mueller disagreed with his conclusion.
posted by a snickering nuthatch at 11:26 AM on May 2, 2019 [5 favorites]
And up 'til now, a lot of people have thought that it's okay to take their money, as long as you don't promise them anything in return.
The Supreme Court has explicitly stated as much with their ruling in McDonnell v United States.
posted by Big Al 8000 at 11:29 AM on May 2, 2019 [4 favorites]
The Supreme Court has explicitly stated as much with their ruling in McDonnell v United States.
posted by Big Al 8000 at 11:29 AM on May 2, 2019 [4 favorites]
I agree that we need a Dem senate, but Bennet was re-elected in '16 and the Senate doesn't have any sort of resign-to-run rules, so when he doesn't win the nomination, he goes back to his seat. It's Cory Gardner (R-CO) who's up in '20 in and he already has a slew of Democratic challengers.
posted by danielleh at 11:35 AM on May 2, 2019 [6 favorites]
posted by danielleh at 11:35 AM on May 2, 2019 [6 favorites]
Maine has never had felony disenfranchisement. It allows citizens to vote, incl. from prison.
I talked to Maine's Secretary of State, who runs elections, on how things work. And on why he thinks suffrage can be a “sliver of light” for incarcerated people.
posted by The Whelk at 11:39 AM on May 2, 2019 [27 favorites]
I talked to Maine's Secretary of State, who runs elections, on how things work. And on why he thinks suffrage can be a “sliver of light” for incarcerated people.
posted by The Whelk at 11:39 AM on May 2, 2019 [27 favorites]
It looks like Stephen Moore thought he was still going to get a confirmation vote until the President announced that Stephen Moore had decided to withdraw from the process, via tweet.
Good.
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 12:00 PM on May 2, 2019 [24 favorites]
Good.
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 12:00 PM on May 2, 2019 [24 favorites]
No taking money from shady foreigners even for the noblest of purposes. That way lies Both-Sides-Ism and consequent apathy and cynicism.
Fiat justitia ruat cælum.
posted by tivalasvegas at 12:18 PM on May 2, 2019 [6 favorites]
Fiat justitia ruat cælum.
posted by tivalasvegas at 12:18 PM on May 2, 2019 [6 favorites]
Though despite BENGHAZEEEEE and emails and so on, they couldn't get anything to actually stick to Hillary Clinton.
At this point though, do they really need to? With Barr in office, a purge of the Justice Department, and compliant Supremes, Trump can declare a "national emergency" and Barr will follow through with indictments or even arrests.
Remember what Trump's number one promise to his supporters was- what he has them chanting at rallies. Arresting Clinton will be the culmination of their dreams, and it won't matter if the House or lower judges object.
The only block to this is Trump's cowardice and indecision, which we've seen scuttle his plans before. But still I put the odds of at least indictments by this time next year as a near certainty.
posted by happyroach at 1:09 PM on May 2, 2019 [11 favorites]
At this point though, do they really need to? With Barr in office, a purge of the Justice Department, and compliant Supremes, Trump can declare a "national emergency" and Barr will follow through with indictments or even arrests.
Remember what Trump's number one promise to his supporters was- what he has them chanting at rallies. Arresting Clinton will be the culmination of their dreams, and it won't matter if the House or lower judges object.
The only block to this is Trump's cowardice and indecision, which we've seen scuttle his plans before. But still I put the odds of at least indictments by this time next year as a near certainty.
posted by happyroach at 1:09 PM on May 2, 2019 [11 favorites]
Democrats introduced a really broad new labor rights bill today called the PRO Act that honestly has so much I can't list it all in this comment, but you can check out a detailed summary here. It's everything from banning right-to-work laws and forced arbitration to broadening the definition of employees (as opposed to independent contractors) to new union protections, backed out of the gate by 100 House members and 40 Senators, including most 2020 contenders.
It is, of course, completely unpassable, but if you want to see what the wishlist looks like these days, there you go.
posted by zachlipton at 1:45 PM on May 2, 2019 [48 favorites]
It is, of course, completely unpassable, but if you want to see what the wishlist looks like these days, there you go.
posted by zachlipton at 1:45 PM on May 2, 2019 [48 favorites]
Rosie M. Banks: Though despite BENGHAZEEEEE and emails and so on, they couldn't get anything to actually stick to Hillary Clinton. And Harris and Warren are pretty much Girl Scouts, so I hope any potential investigation gets laughed out of the halls of Congress and the thankfully blue House.
But sadly, no one needs to make anything stick, there just has to be enough misogyny in the press to repeat the Anti-Clinton briganding with any female candidate. Or just keep pushing stories like Who Wore It Better instead of Why Her Politics and Actions Make Her A Better Candidate.
So we're still stuck hoping (or pushing) for better coverage this time, because the prior media coverage biases helped the criminal win over the highly qualified candidate.
Some good news/bad news on the opioid epidemic: Opioid Executive John Kapoor Found Guilty In Landmark Bribery Case (Gabrielle Emanuel for WGBH, May 2, 2019)
Bloomberg coverage from Janelle Lawrence, Jef Feeley, and Riley Griffin has more details
posted by filthy light thief at 3:05 PM on May 2, 2019 [7 favorites]
But sadly, no one needs to make anything stick, there just has to be enough misogyny in the press to repeat the Anti-Clinton briganding with any female candidate. Or just keep pushing stories like Who Wore It Better instead of Why Her Politics and Actions Make Her A Better Candidate.
So we're still stuck hoping (or pushing) for better coverage this time, because the prior media coverage biases helped the criminal win over the highly qualified candidate.
Some good news/bad news on the opioid epidemic: Opioid Executive John Kapoor Found Guilty In Landmark Bribery Case (Gabrielle Emanuel for WGBH, May 2, 2019)
Brad Bailey, a criminal defense attorney in Boston and former federal prosecutor, who has been following this case, said the 10-week trial represented a rare instance in which the federal government used criminal charges to go after corporate executives.Emphasis mine.
"That's always unusual. That's always an attention grabber," said Bailey. "The big issue is the use of racketeering charges, which had been originally designed to go after the mafia.” By charging Kapoor and his co-defendants with racketeering, Bailey said the federal government was essentially saying that the practices at Insys Therapeutics resembled organized crime.
While the criminal charges set this case apart, the schemes detailed in this trial mirror the aggressive tactics that other pharmaceutical companies have allegedly used to push the sale of opioids.
...
Leo Beletsky, a professor of law and health sciences at Northeastern University, says “a lot of what pharmaceutical companies did in the context of the opioid crisis that we are dealing with now was not, in fact, illegal. It was maybe unethical, but it was not illegal."
While bribing doctors to write prescriptions and fabricating diagnoses is illegal, paying a physician to promote a product to their peers is a common practice in the pharmaceutical industry. Off-label prescribing is also legal and common, although sales representatives are not technically supposed to advocate for off-label uses of a medication.
Beletsky says by focusing on individuals and their illegal schemes, this trial overlooked broader issues, such as drug companies legally spending billions of dollars to maximize the use of their medications.
For Beletsky, the answer lies in regulation. "We need to think much more deeply about how we regulate the pharmaceutical industry and how we prevent these kinds of practices from occurring in the first place," he says.
However, experts say that, currently, there are not major legislative efforts to regulate the pharmaceutical industry. For now, the pushback against marketing strategies that allegedly fueled the opioid crisis remains in the courts.
Bloomberg coverage from Janelle Lawrence, Jef Feeley, and Riley Griffin has more details
The judge denied a U.S. request that Kapoor be placed under house arrest before he’s sentenced. The maximum penalty is 20 years behind bars.So there's some legislated power here, but not very much, and it requires that people be convicted of certain crimes first.
...
Kapoor remains the majority shareholder in another pharmaceutical company, Akorn Inc. Akorn shares fell 1.8 percent in New York. The stock is down more than 20 percent this year.
The verdict could jeopardize Kapoor’s 22 percent stake in Akorn. The Department of Health and Human Services has power to bar persons convicted of certain crimes from holding a 5 percent or greater stake in a company that receives federal health-care dollars.
posted by filthy light thief at 3:05 PM on May 2, 2019 [7 favorites]
BUT the Clinton Foundation really did get some big donations from some shady Russian guys
I'll let someone else decide who and whether there are donations from "shady" Russian guys. But I will remind you that the only reason you know about all of the donations to the Clinton Foundation is because they voluntarily post them on their web site.
By law, there is no requirement for public charities to disclose their donors since some donors may want to remain anonymous, but the Clinton Foundation voluntarily discloses all donors because they presumably have nothing to hide. They do not allow "shady Russian guys" to make anonymous donations.
posted by JackFlash at 3:23 PM on May 2, 2019 [29 favorites]
I'll let someone else decide who and whether there are donations from "shady" Russian guys. But I will remind you that the only reason you know about all of the donations to the Clinton Foundation is because they voluntarily post them on their web site.
By law, there is no requirement for public charities to disclose their donors since some donors may want to remain anonymous, but the Clinton Foundation voluntarily discloses all donors because they presumably have nothing to hide. They do not allow "shady Russian guys" to make anonymous donations.
posted by JackFlash at 3:23 PM on May 2, 2019 [29 favorites]
NBC Gary Grumbach: Per @AlexNBCNews, one source familiar tells NBC News the House Judiciary Committee has begun discussions directly with Mueller’s team about coming to testify before the committee but nothing has been finalized at this point, and no date has been set.
Ted Lieu tells CNN, “If we can’t gather the facts, then we’re going to launch an Article III impeachment. Under Nixon, what happened to him, Article III was obstructed congress. If we can’t gather facts, that may be the only tool we have left, and we’ll use it if we have no other tools left.”
posted by Doktor Zed at 3:33 PM on May 2, 2019 [45 favorites]
Ted Lieu tells CNN, “If we can’t gather the facts, then we’re going to launch an Article III impeachment. Under Nixon, what happened to him, Article III was obstructed congress. If we can’t gather facts, that may be the only tool we have left, and we’ll use it if we have no other tools left.”
posted by Doktor Zed at 3:33 PM on May 2, 2019 [45 favorites]
William Barr plays devil’s advocate (Alexandra Petri, WaPo)
There is no second day of the testimony of William P. Barr because William P. Barr has decided not to appear before the House Judiciary Committee. So, to him, it comes as a surprise to find himself in a limousine on his way to testify.posted by Johnny Wallflower at 3:54 PM on May 2, 2019 [23 favorites]
“Testify where?” he asks, sounding a bit snitty. It is dark in the car. The figure in the front does not turn, but Barr thinks he sees something red and luminous — like eyes, but not quite like eyes — glinting in the rearview mirror. “I told the House ‘no.’ ”
“After seeing your performance yesterday,” the driver says, “my boss wanted you to come testify on his behalf, as well.”
“Your boss?”
“Call him Individual-0, if you like.” He holds up a tiny plastic bag with what look like some dirty coffee grounds in it. “Here, do you want the remnants of the credibility of the Justice Department? If not, I’m going to toss it next to the little chunk that is all that remains of John Kelly’s soul." […]
Who is the client?”
“What would you say if it were the Night King?”
“I would say he was within his rights to try to protect himself and that the creation of an army of wights was well within the scope of his power and a logical step for a man who believes he has done nothing wrong.”
“What would you say if it were Sauron?”
“A man is entitled to try to hang on to his jewelry. I’ve always felt strongly in favor of the rights of the Lidless Eye of Flame as an institution.”
“Then you should have no trouble."
the Clinton Foundation voluntarily discloses all donors
I really hate fact checking this because I have come to deeply admire Hillary Clinton and you're right that they generally do that, but in this case, per the NYT, they didn't disclose the donation, and that's part of why it become a thing.
But I have to fact check myself too because it was not shady Russian guys, but Canadians who were doing business with shady Russian guys, who made the donations.
(That NYT story is slanted and based partly on reporting from a Breitbart guy, but I don't think the Clintons have denied the facts above. If they have explained why those donations weren't reported, it's not in the NYT article or this BBC story, and its hard to find other facts in all the right wing chaff about this.)
I think the most important part of that NYT article is this, which explains the point I was trying to make earlier:
"A person with knowledge of the Clinton Foundation’s fund-raising operation, who requested anonymity to speak candidly about it, said that for many people, the hope is that money will in fact buy influence: “Why do you think they are doing it — because they love them?” But whether it actually does is another question."
There's no evidence that the Clintons asked for that money or did anything in return for it, or spent it on anything other than helping the poor and sick. But it's not completely harmless, even so.
I think the Clintons were probably aware of the hypothetical downsides to accepting donations like this, but thought the very real, non-hypothetical benefits of the good work they could do with that money outweighed those downsides. I probably would have thought the same. But now that I see what this kind of influence campaign can do, writ large, I feel differently about it. Such donations should not be accepted in the future.
posted by OnceUponATime at 4:01 PM on May 2, 2019 [8 favorites]
I really hate fact checking this because I have come to deeply admire Hillary Clinton and you're right that they generally do that, but in this case, per the NYT, they didn't disclose the donation, and that's part of why it become a thing.
But I have to fact check myself too because it was not shady Russian guys, but Canadians who were doing business with shady Russian guys, who made the donations.
(That NYT story is slanted and based partly on reporting from a Breitbart guy, but I don't think the Clintons have denied the facts above. If they have explained why those donations weren't reported, it's not in the NYT article or this BBC story, and its hard to find other facts in all the right wing chaff about this.)
I think the most important part of that NYT article is this, which explains the point I was trying to make earlier:
"A person with knowledge of the Clinton Foundation’s fund-raising operation, who requested anonymity to speak candidly about it, said that for many people, the hope is that money will in fact buy influence: “Why do you think they are doing it — because they love them?” But whether it actually does is another question."
There's no evidence that the Clintons asked for that money or did anything in return for it, or spent it on anything other than helping the poor and sick. But it's not completely harmless, even so.
I think the Clintons were probably aware of the hypothetical downsides to accepting donations like this, but thought the very real, non-hypothetical benefits of the good work they could do with that money outweighed those downsides. I probably would have thought the same. But now that I see what this kind of influence campaign can do, writ large, I feel differently about it. Such donations should not be accepted in the future.
posted by OnceUponATime at 4:01 PM on May 2, 2019 [8 favorites]
Zero doubt in my mind people give to the Clinton foundation in hopes of gaining influence. On some level it may even (have) influence(d) her decision-making. She should have gotten out of the business of running that charity earlier than she did, but the important part is that she did disentangle herself and the foundation was never a piggy bank. Not that that means anything in this world apparently.
Definitely, though, politicians should think more carefully in the future about exactly how they should pursue charitable causes.
posted by Room 101 at 4:09 PM on May 2, 2019 [2 favorites]
Definitely, though, politicians should think more carefully in the future about exactly how they should pursue charitable causes.
posted by Room 101 at 4:09 PM on May 2, 2019 [2 favorites]
Per @AlexNBCNews, one source familiar tells NBC News the House Judiciary Committee has begun discussions directly with Mueller’s team
Maybe it goes without saying, but this is important because the House Judiciary Committee had previously been negotiating with the DOJ and not Mueller's team.
posted by diogenes at 4:25 PM on May 2, 2019 [13 favorites]
Maybe it goes without saying, but this is important because the House Judiciary Committee had previously been negotiating with the DOJ and not Mueller's team.
posted by diogenes at 4:25 PM on May 2, 2019 [13 favorites]
Impeachment roundup, edition #249572:
HuffPost, Are House Democrats Running Out The Clock On Impeachment?
But a recent poll shows a 2/3rds majority of Americans are against starting impeachment proceedings. One potential nuance: "When asked whether Congress should do hearings 'to determine whether or not to bring impeachment charges against Trump' it's much closer" (47-51), which perhaps suggests confusion by poll respondents on the difference between conviction and the start of the process. In any case, if you're wondering why Democrats are saying what they are, this poll is a pretty good clue.
Dive into the topic even more with an excellent new episode of the Deconstructed podcast featuring Mehdi Hasan in conversation with Tom Steyer ("Need to Impeach") and Ezra Klein (who thinks impeachment is bad politics). A transcript is available behind the link too. As Hasan points out, the public didn't support impeachment of Nixon either, until the articles of impeachment were published. And he summons the West Wing's Joey Lucas to make his point: "You say that these numbers mean dial it down. I say they mean dial it up. You haven’t gotten through."
posted by zachlipton at 4:36 PM on May 2, 2019 [12 favorites]
HuffPost, Are House Democrats Running Out The Clock On Impeachment?
Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has repeatedly said Trump is “not worth it” and that impeachment is “too good” for the president ― lines she repeated Thursday during a closed-door meeting with House Democrats. But at this point, the put-downs seem more like a backhanded way of dismissing impeachment than a serious sentiment.But Quinta Jurecic takes us through All of the Impeachable Offenses, because there are a lot of impeachable offenses that are well beyond the scope of the Mueller report, just dozens and dozens of examples.
...
But the practical effect of more investigations ― particularly if they don’t yield anything more damning than what’s in the Mueller report ― could be sending voters the message that Mueller’s findings weren’t sufficient to impeach Trump. And it could set the stage for Congress to run out the clock and defer to voters to remove him from office.
But a recent poll shows a 2/3rds majority of Americans are against starting impeachment proceedings. One potential nuance: "When asked whether Congress should do hearings 'to determine whether or not to bring impeachment charges against Trump' it's much closer" (47-51), which perhaps suggests confusion by poll respondents on the difference between conviction and the start of the process. In any case, if you're wondering why Democrats are saying what they are, this poll is a pretty good clue.
Dive into the topic even more with an excellent new episode of the Deconstructed podcast featuring Mehdi Hasan in conversation with Tom Steyer ("Need to Impeach") and Ezra Klein (who thinks impeachment is bad politics). A transcript is available behind the link too. As Hasan points out, the public didn't support impeachment of Nixon either, until the articles of impeachment were published. And he summons the West Wing's Joey Lucas to make his point: "You say that these numbers mean dial it down. I say they mean dial it up. You haven’t gotten through."
posted by zachlipton at 4:36 PM on May 2, 2019 [12 favorites]
Barr knew that Mueller disagreed with Barr's reasoning, but he cannot be said to know that Mueller disagreed with his conclusion.
This is not a distinction on which I'd want to stake *my* innocence. Especially if I'm putting on my smart alec word-parsing hat on.
In a field like the law, conclusions and reasoning are not independent: they can't be if conclusions are established by reasoning (and if they're not, what's the use of the law?).
It is of course technically possible to reach the same conclusion via different reasoning, but where it's known that there's a substantial disagreement over reasoning, the much more likely state of affairs is that a disagreement over conclusions will follow as well. When you poach eggs, you'd be surprised if they come out the same as someone who set out to fry theirs.
Also, Robert Reich suggests there are at least 5 Barr lies from his congressional testimony.
posted by wildblueyonder at 4:56 PM on May 2, 2019 [8 favorites]
This is not a distinction on which I'd want to stake *my* innocence. Especially if I'm putting on my smart alec word-parsing hat on.
In a field like the law, conclusions and reasoning are not independent: they can't be if conclusions are established by reasoning (and if they're not, what's the use of the law?).
It is of course technically possible to reach the same conclusion via different reasoning, but where it's known that there's a substantial disagreement over reasoning, the much more likely state of affairs is that a disagreement over conclusions will follow as well. When you poach eggs, you'd be surprised if they come out the same as someone who set out to fry theirs.
Also, Robert Reich suggests there are at least 5 Barr lies from his congressional testimony.
posted by wildblueyonder at 4:56 PM on May 2, 2019 [8 favorites]
Re: charities. This is your regularly scheduled reminder that the President scammed money from veterans and supported Duncan Hunter, another guy who thinks stealing from wounded vets is A-OK.
posted by benzenedream at 5:03 PM on May 2, 2019 [18 favorites]
posted by benzenedream at 5:03 PM on May 2, 2019 [18 favorites]
Listening to the latest Pod Save America, I am fired up about impeachment (Barr or Trump or both) and plan to call my congress critter, who has made equivocal noises about it. Any suggestions/scripts people have used would be appreciated.
posted by obliquity of the ecliptic at 6:01 PM on May 2, 2019 [3 favorites]
posted by obliquity of the ecliptic at 6:01 PM on May 2, 2019 [3 favorites]
Julia Harte, Reuters: "Exclusive: Foreign government leases at Trump World Tower stir more emoluments concerns"
The U.S. State Department allowed at least seven foreign governments to rent luxury condominiums in New York’s Trump World Tower in 2017 without approval from Congress, according to documents and people familiar with the leases, a potential violation of the U.S. Constitution’s emoluments clause.posted by OnceUponATime at 6:10 PM on May 2, 2019 [16 favorites]
"When asked whether Congress should do hearings 'to determine whether or not to bring impeachment charges against Trump' it's much closer" (47-51), which perhaps suggests confusion by poll respondents on the difference between conviction and the start of the process.
I don't think it suggests it, I think it's just confirmation of what we already know. The right talks about Clinton having been impeached as if "impeached" is synonymous with "convicted", and they have done so since the '90s. At this point, the general public's understanding of the meaning of the word "impeached" is completely contrary to what it actually means, but there's no real putting that genie back in the bottle.
posted by tocts at 6:19 PM on May 2, 2019 [6 favorites]
I don't think it suggests it, I think it's just confirmation of what we already know. The right talks about Clinton having been impeached as if "impeached" is synonymous with "convicted", and they have done so since the '90s. At this point, the general public's understanding of the meaning of the word "impeached" is completely contrary to what it actually means, but there's no real putting that genie back in the bottle.
posted by tocts at 6:19 PM on May 2, 2019 [6 favorites]
There's a story that's been brewing among foreign policy writers that hasn't entirely gotten the attention it deserves—it's frankly terrifying—, so here goes an attempt at an explanation, if you'd be so kind as to allow me to borrow four blockquote tags. The story starts with the State Department's Director of Policy Planning, Kiron Skinner. Skinner gave a talk recently, and what's come out of that is pretty revealing. I'll let Masha Gessen introduce Skinner:
But it's worth reading a new Paul Musgrave essay today that digs deeper, focusing not on the blatant inaccuracy of the statement, but rather seeing this this as The Slip That Revealed the Real Trump Doctrine. I find it dangerous to proclaim anything to be the real Trump Doctrine, as even the word "doctrine" gives the man way too much credit for the nonsense that comes out of his mouth, but Skinner has real credentials and is tapping into a consistent and dangerous worldview:
posted by zachlipton at 6:48 PM on May 2, 2019 [43 favorites]
A large part of Skinner’s job is listening to what the President says and trying to make sense of it. She said as much. “The President provides the hunches and instincts,” she said, “and it’s my job, and that of Secretary Pompeo, to turn those hunches and instincts into hypotheses.” She called the hypotheses the “Trump Doctrine” and the “Pompeo Corollary.” Slaughter, logically, asked what the Trump Doctrine was. “That’s a tough one,” Skinner responded, without a hint of irony. “It is, in a kind of broad way, a set of pillars that address twenty-first-century realities.”Geesen's short piece is worth reading in full—it sets up a meaningful parallel between this policy process and how governance works in Russia—, but it's a different turn of phrase from Skinner's talk that's worth digging into. Skinner discussed our relationship with China, and happened to say this (more context available here):
The pillars were: the “return to national sovereignty”; national interest; reciprocity in international relations and trade; “burden sharing,” particularly in defense; and “new regional partnerships” for what she described as “particular crises.”
...
It came time for Slaughter to ask about the Pompeo Corollary. Skinner seemed almost surprised to have to answer the question. “The Pompeo Corollary,” she said, “is trying to find the diplomatic angle in all aspects of what the President is attempting to do—in security, society, the economy, energy, and the international system, and in each of those, looking at, what’s the role of diplomacy?” she said. “We are working on that, and it’s a lot of fun!” No one, including Skinner, seemed to smile.
It’s the first time that we will have a great power competitor that is not CaucasianIt's too easy to treat this as just the Trump administration's standard racist talk. Daniel Drezner shreds the argument first: Let’s grade the State Department’s director of policy planning on her grand strategy musings!. He notes that this is a bunch of nonsense in a number of respects. For example, we've fought multiple major wars against people who weren't white, including that whole Pearl Harbor thing. "Does this mean India or Japan or South Korea should also be approached differently, because they are not white civilizations?! Why use race as your unit of analysis?" Drezner lives for ripping apart ignorant claims, and he does it with his customary aplomb.
But it's worth reading a new Paul Musgrave essay today that digs deeper, focusing not on the blatant inaccuracy of the statement, but rather seeing this this as The Slip That Revealed the Real Trump Doctrine. I find it dangerous to proclaim anything to be the real Trump Doctrine, as even the word "doctrine" gives the man way too much credit for the nonsense that comes out of his mouth, but Skinner has real credentials and is tapping into a consistent and dangerous worldview:
To the extent that there is a Trump Doctrine, Skinner nailed it: It’s the belief that culture and identity are fundamental to whether great-power relations will be cooperative or conflictual.And what is the logical result of that doctrine?
Her comment about China’s uniqueness as a nonwhite great power, then, wasn’t a stray observation, regrettable but analytically ignorable. Instead, it reflected her core, if implicit, thesis: that countries’ ability to cooperate resulted from their cultural compatibility. The Soviet Union, at its core, was literally familiar to the United States and the West. China is too alien. And thus there is no room for cooperation, only a choice of whether the United States or China will dominate the other.Musgrave points out that this argument has always relied on our willingness to redefine concepts like "western civilization" and "whiteness" to encompass and exclude whoever we want at the moment; anything can become a clash of civilizations if we keep declaring another group to belong to another civilization (the extent to which Skinner's theory is made of silly putty becomes even more clear after you read that President Hoover insisted the Russians were "Asiatic" in 1945). He further makes a case that it's easy for this to become a self-fulfilling prophecy: if we insist that this is an inevitable civilizational conflict on racial grounds, it risks becoming one. And, well, "If the Trump Doctrine really has resurrected civilizational thinking as its central plank, then the consequence could be sparking a rivalry that could risk civilization itself."
This is a bold claim. It’s also wrong. And it’s not based on any evidence. Rather, it flows from deeply misguided assumptions about international relations—but those assumptions have proved extraordinarily seductive to many people. Even though Skinner’s choice of words attracted widespread condemnation, that is, they reflected a worldview that’s pervasive and powerful in mainstream American thinking (even if her terminology was archaic).
posted by zachlipton at 6:48 PM on May 2, 2019 [43 favorites]
Don't Fall Into the 'Electability' Trap, Leah Hunt-Hendrix and Sean McElwee, Crooked Media.
posted by nangar at 7:11 PM on May 2, 2019 [17 favorites]
...there is widespread support across party lines for reigning in corporate power and taxing the wealthy, but it is elite media and institutions, funded by corporations, that cast these views as extreme...“moderate” may simply be a euphemism for what corporations want.The article also talks about attitudes to female candidates, some analysis of polling data.
It...makes little sense to equate electability with centrism or moderation. What if, instead of attempting to navigate “other people’s” biases, we put our energy into supporting the candidates that wanted to solve our society’s biggest problems? What if, instead of trying to outsmart the electoral process, and anticipate what others want, we put our efforts into fighting for the people who we know will serve us best? We should make our primary about ideas and solutions, rather than myths and misguided assumptions, not just because those assumptions have led us astray in the past, but because the future of our country depends on not making the same mistakes again.
posted by nangar at 7:11 PM on May 2, 2019 [17 favorites]
Thankfully, the Chinese typically take the long view and are quite happy to slowly take the place of the US without resorting to a shooting war. They're also probably pretty happy with Trump making that a whole lot easier by hobbling both public power and the private soft power we have heretofore enjoyed that helped keep the status quo ante in place despite our government spending most of the 21st century pissing away our influence and structural advantages.
If Trump is kept away from the nukes, I'm not too worried about China (or any other major power) in the short term.
We may find ourselves in a pickle 20 years from now if the Republicans continue to work against the national interest as they have been. Since it will be equally painful for the rest of the world, they have largely stepped in and papered over the holes left by our self destruction so that the transition is economically manageable. Trump seems to have made them rethink the level of commitment they will maintain going forward.
posted by wierdo at 7:30 PM on May 2, 2019 [14 favorites]
If Trump is kept away from the nukes, I'm not too worried about China (or any other major power) in the short term.
We may find ourselves in a pickle 20 years from now if the Republicans continue to work against the national interest as they have been. Since it will be equally painful for the rest of the world, they have largely stepped in and papered over the holes left by our self destruction so that the transition is economically manageable. Trump seems to have made them rethink the level of commitment they will maintain going forward.
posted by wierdo at 7:30 PM on May 2, 2019 [14 favorites]
With regard to articles in the Turmp era that hinge on information like that referenced in this quote:
A person with knowledge of the Clinton Foundation’s fund-raising operation, who requested anonymity to speak candidly about it,
That could be anyone in these threads. We have knowledge of the Foundation's fund-raising, and might have requested anonymity. There is a place for the discussion of anonymous sources and one of those discussion points is that we have no idea what the actual context is for this information. The reporter presumably has more knowledge but then we're asking them to vet both the information and the person which is a lot more work and frankly doesn't happen sometimes. As OUAT ponted out in the comment, the story is slanted. I'd also hasten to point out the NYT is well within the top 3 Clinton Derangement Peddlers by weight as well as volume.
The article itself is nausea-inducing because of - well, if you're a MegaThread™ regular, you'll know why - but here's a paragraph specific to their sourcing:
Some of the connections between Uranium One and the Clinton Foundation were unearthed by Peter Schweizer, a former fellow at the right-leaning Hoover Institution and author of the forthcoming book “Clinton Cash.” Mr. Schweizer provided a preview of material in the book to The Times, which scrutinized his information and built upon it with its own reporting.
As shown here the paragraph links to an article about the unearthing book which begins:
The book does not hit shelves until May 5, but already the Republican Rand Paul has called its findings “big news” that will “shock people” and make voters “question” the candidacy of Hillary Rodham Clinton.
“Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich,” by Peter Schweizer — a 186-page investigation of donations made to the Clinton Foundation by foreign entities — is proving the most anticipated and feared book of a presidential cycle still in its infancy.
Still, as we are essentially as far out from 2020 as this article was from 2016, it's fascinating that the comment about "shady Russian donations" was in fact referencing the Uranium One (deal? business? situation?) that Senate Republicans routinely harangue DoJ personnel to investigate thoroughly. IIRC it was Whitaker's crapulent testimony in which they last trotted it out, which was maybe three months ago?
I'm not interested in re-anythinging the prior election for POTUS but the person who's been on my shortlist for POTUS that's most in danger of being knifed by the liberal media in the manner of the Clinton Derangement Toxification has a lot more rich and powerful enemies than HRC did. (On the plus side, they don't have Bill either.) This is exactly the kind of article they'd lead with.
posted by petebest at 7:32 PM on May 2, 2019 [1 favorite]
A person with knowledge of the Clinton Foundation’s fund-raising operation, who requested anonymity to speak candidly about it,
That could be anyone in these threads. We have knowledge of the Foundation's fund-raising, and might have requested anonymity. There is a place for the discussion of anonymous sources and one of those discussion points is that we have no idea what the actual context is for this information. The reporter presumably has more knowledge but then we're asking them to vet both the information and the person which is a lot more work and frankly doesn't happen sometimes. As OUAT ponted out in the comment, the story is slanted. I'd also hasten to point out the NYT is well within the top 3 Clinton Derangement Peddlers by weight as well as volume.
The article itself is nausea-inducing because of - well, if you're a MegaThread™ regular, you'll know why - but here's a paragraph specific to their sourcing:
Some of the connections between Uranium One and the Clinton Foundation were unearthed by Peter Schweizer, a former fellow at the right-leaning Hoover Institution and author of the forthcoming book “Clinton Cash.” Mr. Schweizer provided a preview of material in the book to The Times, which scrutinized his information and built upon it with its own reporting.
As shown here the paragraph links to an article about the unearthing book which begins:
The book does not hit shelves until May 5, but already the Republican Rand Paul has called its findings “big news” that will “shock people” and make voters “question” the candidacy of Hillary Rodham Clinton.
“Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich,” by Peter Schweizer — a 186-page investigation of donations made to the Clinton Foundation by foreign entities — is proving the most anticipated and feared book of a presidential cycle still in its infancy.
Still, as we are essentially as far out from 2020 as this article was from 2016, it's fascinating that the comment about "shady Russian donations" was in fact referencing the Uranium One (deal? business? situation?) that Senate Republicans routinely harangue DoJ personnel to investigate thoroughly. IIRC it was Whitaker's crapulent testimony in which they last trotted it out, which was maybe three months ago?
I'm not interested in re-anythinging the prior election for POTUS but the person who's been on my shortlist for POTUS that's most in danger of being knifed by the liberal media in the manner of the Clinton Derangement Toxification has a lot more rich and powerful enemies than HRC did. (On the plus side, they don't have Bill either.) This is exactly the kind of article they'd lead with.
posted by petebest at 7:32 PM on May 2, 2019 [1 favorite]
A recent poll shows a 2/3rds majority of Americans are against starting impeachment proceedings.
Okay, but we just saw how hearings swayed public opinion on Barr. The verdict of the American public is in. Barr is a liar.
How do you think the American public will react to watching Trump explain his plans to build Trump Tower Moscow? His lying about his business dealings during his elections? His elegant explanations for why his hotels don't bring in emoluments? His reasons for not reuniting asylum seeking children with their families?
Most Americans aren't even aware of this stuff. They should be. They should have the chance to see Trump answer pressing questions in his own words.
posted by xammerboy at 7:34 PM on May 2, 2019 [37 favorites]
Okay, but we just saw how hearings swayed public opinion on Barr. The verdict of the American public is in. Barr is a liar.
How do you think the American public will react to watching Trump explain his plans to build Trump Tower Moscow? His lying about his business dealings during his elections? His elegant explanations for why his hotels don't bring in emoluments? His reasons for not reuniting asylum seeking children with their families?
Most Americans aren't even aware of this stuff. They should be. They should have the chance to see Trump answer pressing questions in his own words.
posted by xammerboy at 7:34 PM on May 2, 2019 [37 favorites]
WaPo has a steeply-discounted, $65/yr digital subscription offer right now, with a bonus subscription to give away, 30-day gift passes, & "Unlimited downloads of top-rated e-books from Pulitzer Prize-winning journalists at The Washington Post."
Via FB today, here's a steeper discount - $25 per year for basic digital, or $45 for deluxe digital for World Press Freedom Day (May 3rd), a UNESCO celebration, which has been celebrated since 1998 (Wikipedia).
posted by filthy light thief at 7:38 PM on May 2, 2019 [8 favorites]
Via FB today, here's a steeper discount - $25 per year for basic digital, or $45 for deluxe digital for World Press Freedom Day (May 3rd), a UNESCO celebration, which has been celebrated since 1998 (Wikipedia).
posted by filthy light thief at 7:38 PM on May 2, 2019 [8 favorites]
Leftist update
Nazi Jovi Val gets egged in union square
Unions, Progressives, Socialists, take to the streets for May Day
posted by The Whelk at 7:51 PM on May 2, 2019 [20 favorites]
Nazi Jovi Val gets egged in union square
Unions, Progressives, Socialists, take to the streets for May Day
posted by The Whelk at 7:51 PM on May 2, 2019 [20 favorites]
A recent poll shows a 2/3rds majority of Americans are against starting impeachment proceedings.
From that twitter thread, "This nuance makes me wonder if large segments of the public hear "impeachment" and think, "removal without trial," which probably feels unfair to many"
Made me think of how many clarifications and deep-dives we've taken on the impeachment process in this very dedicated, very knowledgable environment. People who's main source of political news is overhearing conversations at work are likely not prepared to discuss impeachment.
That's a pretty good argument for the Dems to get things underway - educate, inform, and as an added bonus ITMFA. (Also to end the Constitutional crisis, restore the rule of law, serve justice, and the other things.) The things many non-racist non-misogynist people would learn! It would be a big help to undo some of the brainwashing and "white noise" (sorry) of Fox.
posted by petebest at 8:04 PM on May 2, 2019 [9 favorites]
From that twitter thread, "This nuance makes me wonder if large segments of the public hear "impeachment" and think, "removal without trial," which probably feels unfair to many"
Made me think of how many clarifications and deep-dives we've taken on the impeachment process in this very dedicated, very knowledgable environment. People who's main source of political news is overhearing conversations at work are likely not prepared to discuss impeachment.
That's a pretty good argument for the Dems to get things underway - educate, inform, and as an added bonus ITMFA. (Also to end the Constitutional crisis, restore the rule of law, serve justice, and the other things.) The things many non-racist non-misogynist people would learn! It would be a big help to undo some of the brainwashing and "white noise" (sorry) of Fox.
posted by petebest at 8:04 PM on May 2, 2019 [9 favorites]
Robert Reich's list of lies seems again to make the mistake that causing people to imagine or infer incorrect things counts as perjury. None of the lawyers I follow on twitter seem to give much credence to the idea that Barr perjured himself. And some push back against it pretty hard:
Susan Hennessey:
I say this not because Barr is a great guy. No, we just have to appreciate that Barr knows how to weave illusions from technically correct statements, but that still leaves some remedies: either sit him in front of a skilled questioner for long enough, or stop trying to get him for crime and impeach him instead for being a disgrace.
posted by a snickering nuthatch at 8:04 PM on May 2, 2019 [17 favorites]
Susan Hennessey:
Barr should be condemned for actively misleading Congress. A normal AG would resign over it. But this is silly road to go down. SCOTUS unanimously held that literally true answers cannot be perjury even where designed to mislead & there's no real materiality argument under §1001.Her colleagues Quinta Jurecic and Mikhaila Fogel go all Betteridge's Law on the idea in Is There a Perjury Case Against Barr?
Your quarrel is with Bronston v. United States, 409 U.S. 352 (1973), not me, friends.
I say this not because Barr is a great guy. No, we just have to appreciate that Barr knows how to weave illusions from technically correct statements, but that still leaves some remedies: either sit him in front of a skilled questioner for long enough, or stop trying to get him for crime and impeach him instead for being a disgrace.
posted by a snickering nuthatch at 8:04 PM on May 2, 2019 [17 favorites]
I really hate fact checking this because I have come to deeply admire Hillary Clinton and you're right that they generally do that, but in this case, per the NYT, they didn't disclose the donation, and that's part of why it become a thing.
It is astonishing that we still have to repeatedly debunk right-wing slanders that keep popping up on this site. But debunk we must lest the rot contaminate other innocent people with the slander.
The donations in question were disclosed on the Clinton Foundation web site. You can read about it on the Clinton Foundation web site. However, the donations from Canadian Frank Giustra are listed as being from the Canadian charity the Clinton Giustra Foundation.
Frank Giustra had been a member of the board on the Clinton Foundation for years. In 2005, Clinton and Giustra partnered to create a charity for Canadians that became the Clinton Giustra Foundation, similar to the way Warren Buffett and Bill Gates partnered in their foundation. So when you say "shady Russians", you are referring to a born and bred Canadian.
So what is the connection to Russians. Well, Giustra was the owner of Uranium One which was sold to Russian owners. Oh, but Guistra had sold all of his shares in Uranium One to other Canadian investors years before the Russians bought the company. Before Obama was even elected president. Before Clinton became Secretary of State. He had no connection to the sale of the company to the Russians. He did not own a single share.
So there you have it. The donations that the Breitbart story questioned were not from Russians. They were from a wealthy Canadian. And they were disclosed by the Clinton Foundation, but in the name of the Giustra charity, not Giustra personally. And the Russians became involved years after Giustra sold his shares of the company.
So that's the basis of the claim that "the Clinton Foundation really did get some big donations from some shady Russian guys." Well, okay, they weren't Russians, they were a Canadian. Well, okay, they weren't shady because they had nothing to do with the Uranium One deal. Well, okay.
posted by JackFlash at 8:26 PM on May 2, 2019 [100 favorites]
It is astonishing that we still have to repeatedly debunk right-wing slanders that keep popping up on this site. But debunk we must lest the rot contaminate other innocent people with the slander.
The donations in question were disclosed on the Clinton Foundation web site. You can read about it on the Clinton Foundation web site. However, the donations from Canadian Frank Giustra are listed as being from the Canadian charity the Clinton Giustra Foundation.
Frank Giustra had been a member of the board on the Clinton Foundation for years. In 2005, Clinton and Giustra partnered to create a charity for Canadians that became the Clinton Giustra Foundation, similar to the way Warren Buffett and Bill Gates partnered in their foundation. So when you say "shady Russians", you are referring to a born and bred Canadian.
So what is the connection to Russians. Well, Giustra was the owner of Uranium One which was sold to Russian owners. Oh, but Guistra had sold all of his shares in Uranium One to other Canadian investors years before the Russians bought the company. Before Obama was even elected president. Before Clinton became Secretary of State. He had no connection to the sale of the company to the Russians. He did not own a single share.
So there you have it. The donations that the Breitbart story questioned were not from Russians. They were from a wealthy Canadian. And they were disclosed by the Clinton Foundation, but in the name of the Giustra charity, not Giustra personally. And the Russians became involved years after Giustra sold his shares of the company.
So that's the basis of the claim that "the Clinton Foundation really did get some big donations from some shady Russian guys." Well, okay, they weren't Russians, they were a Canadian. Well, okay, they weren't shady because they had nothing to do with the Uranium One deal. Well, okay.
posted by JackFlash at 8:26 PM on May 2, 2019 [100 favorites]
A recent poll shows a 2/3rds majority of Americans are against starting impeachment proceedings.
Actually the Quinnipiac poll had 2/3rds against impeachment, but it was 47-51 for starting an impeachment inquiry.
29. Do you think that Congress should investigate to determine whether or not to bring impeachment charges against President Trump, or don't you think so?
posted by chris24 at 9:33 PM on May 2, 2019 [10 favorites]
Actually the Quinnipiac poll had 2/3rds against impeachment, but it was 47-51 for starting an impeachment inquiry.
29. Do you think that Congress should investigate to determine whether or not to bring impeachment charges against President Trump, or don't you think so?
posted by chris24 at 9:33 PM on May 2, 2019 [10 favorites]
And again, support for removing Nixon from office was 19% at the beginning of the Watergate hearings.
posted by chris24 at 9:45 PM on May 2, 2019 [33 favorites]
posted by chris24 at 9:45 PM on May 2, 2019 [33 favorites]
> anything can become a clash of civilizations if we keep declaring another group to belong to another civilization
-Huntington's "Clash of Civilizations" is B.S.
-thread: "The whole thing is basically Skinner saying that only white people can care about human rights..."
> we need to take the Senate in 2020 and maintain the majority in the House... I think it’s even more vital that Democrats win a Senate majority than it is to win the White House.
> This is on Mitch McConnell and his friends. Because the Constitution says it is on them. And they refuse to do their patriotic duty. I am angrier now at McConnell than I am at Donald "I'm EVERYBODY'S useful idiot!" Trump himself. McConnell and his caucus are the only reason he wasn't removed within six months of taking office. McConnell is also the reason we weren't publicly talking about this stuff DURING the 2016 campaign.
Mitch McConnell:* one-man dystopian future
-Huntington's "Clash of Civilizations" is B.S.
-thread: "The whole thing is basically Skinner saying that only white people can care about human rights..."
The real game here, I think, is to pre-empt the kinds of nationalistic arguments that helped push the U.S. government to back Civil Rights, refugee admissions, race-blind immigration policy, etc. during the Cold War.viz. Apocalyptic Race War, cf. Steve Bannon's alt-right academy — and one village's fight to stop it
Here's an essay about how the need to counter Soviet propaganda (and bolster our own propaganda) led the United States to repeal racist laws: Postwar Foreign Policy and African-American Civil Rights
By saying "Ehh, Chinese people don't care about human rights anyway", Trump's people - consciously or unconsciously - are probably trying to avoid a repeat of that history.
Of course, the end result of this kind of argument is a tacit pact where a bunch of countries agree to oppress their own marginalized groups without criticizing each other for it.
Which is probably the kind of world Trump & co. would like.
> we need to take the Senate in 2020 and maintain the majority in the House... I think it’s even more vital that Democrats win a Senate majority than it is to win the White House.
> This is on Mitch McConnell and his friends. Because the Constitution says it is on them. And they refuse to do their patriotic duty. I am angrier now at McConnell than I am at Donald "I'm EVERYBODY'S useful idiot!" Trump himself. McConnell and his caucus are the only reason he wasn't removed within six months of taking office. McConnell is also the reason we weren't publicly talking about this stuff DURING the 2016 campaign.
Mitch McConnell:* one-man dystopian future
Right now, the odds of Team Blue winning control of the Senate next year are slim, and getting slimmer. Democrats will need a net gain of three seats next November to wrest the upper chamber from Mitch McConnell’s caucus. And while Republicans will have 22 of their incumbents on the ballot in 2020, only two of those represent states that have leaned Democratic in the past two presidential elections — Colorado and Maine. Which is less than ideal, since winning Maine will (almost certainly) require beating Susan Collins, who has held her seat for more than two decades, and remains quite popular with her constituents (including many of the state’s Democrats). Thus, there is no reason to assume Democrats will be able to win the only two blue-state seats on the board. But let’s be generous and say they do.posted by kliuless at 12:34 AM on May 3, 2019 [28 favorites]
Unless Alabama Republicans decide to make a theocratic ephebophile their standard-bearer again (which is highly unlikely), Doug Jones will be evicted from the Senate next November. In a presidential election year and an age of straight-ticket voting, even Roy Moore would have a decent shot of beating a Democrat in the Heart of Dixie.
Even with wins in Colorado and Maine, Team Blue would have only netted one seat, which means they’d have to flip two in light-red territory. CNN’s Harry Enten explains why that’s unlikely:Beyond [Colorado and Maine], the Democratic pickup opportunities slim dramatically. Of the other 20 Republican-held seats up for election, 16 of them are in states that were 10 points or more Republican than the nation as a whole in a weighted average of the last two presidential elections. None of these races look competitive at this time.In other words, even if Democrats win the national popular vote in a 2018-esque landslide, chances are they’ll come up at least one seat short. And did I mention that the party’s best prospective Senate candidates in Georgia, and the “reach” states of Texas and Montana, have all ostensibly decided to launch far-fetched presidential campaigns, instead? Or that Joe Manchin is seriously considering resigning his seat to run for governor in West Virginia, in which case, Democrats will effectively need to flip five seats after they (almost certainly) forfeit the Mountain State and Alabama?
The other four have leaned 5 to 10 points more Republican than the nation in a weighted average of the last two presidential elections: Arizona (Martha McSally), Georgia (David Perdue), Iowa (Joni Ernst) and North Carolina (Thom Tillis).
… Elected Republican incumbents are, at this point, expected to be running for all these seats, except for Arizona. Generally, incumbents tend to do better than non-incumbents. Even if the 2018 political environment were in effect (i.e. one where they won the national House vote by high single digits), the lean of each state in the 2018 House elections suggests that only Arizona (because McSally wasn’t elected) would go to the Democrats.
oh and, re: "To the extent that there is a Trump Doctrine, Skinner nailed it: It's the belief that culture and identity are fundamental to whether great-power relations will be cooperative or conflictual."
and/or enabling grifting: 'Moneyland' Reveals How Oligarchs, Kleptocrats And Crooks Stash Fortunes
and/or enabling grifting: 'Moneyland' Reveals How Oligarchs, Kleptocrats And Crooks Stash Fortunes
Well, I mean, to explain that, it's - I suppose it's important to back up a little bit and talk about where the idea came from and where I started work. I'm a kind of Russian-ist (ph), a former Soviet Union-ist (ph), if that's a word I can use - pretty ugly word. But it's - essentially, I came to this from having reported on sort of war and human rights abuses and degradation in the old Soviet Union. And I suppose when I first went there, I went there as a sort of naive, very-early-20-something, sort of slightly thinking that I was going to be reporting on democratic transformation and the flowering of a new society and the spread of democracy all across Europe.posted by kliuless at 12:56 AM on May 3, 2019 [21 favorites]
But instead, you know, I saw the spread of corruption and sort of increasingly authoritarian governments and all that. And it became - I suppose Moneyland was my attempt to explain and to understand why, instead of becoming democracies, instead of becoming, you know, ordinary European countries, these states - the republics of the old Soviet Union - went off in a very different direction and instead became dominated by these anti-democratic elites, these kleptocrats, oligarchs, people who really stole a huge amount of the country's resources.
And so why Moneyland and what - is so inimical to democracy and why this sort of offshore finance that this is based in is inimical to democracy is because the core function of any democratic governments - and this, I think, is something that gets lost in a lot of the debate - the core function of a democratic government is to tax its citizens for the common good of everyone; that is what a democratic government is for. Essentially, with the consent of the governed, it taxes its citizens, and then it uses that money for everyone's good.
If a class of society is able to opt out of that contract, if they will essentially enjoy the privileges of citizenship without any of the obligations of citizenship, then they are opting out of democracy. And if they are ruling the country, then that means that a democracy falls; that's why it's anti-democratic. Because the governments of these countries are unable to tax their wealth, they're unable to essentially impose any obligations on them as citizens, and instead, they get to enjoy all the benefits of citizens without any of the, you know, what might be termed the downsides.
Regarding the 2020 senate races -- I find it maddening that the Democrats don't have a candidate ready to challenge incumbent Alaska senator Dan Sullivan. He's not especially liked and only squeaked out a win in 2014 by about 6,000 votes. Unfortunately the most likely potential challengers to him (former US Senator Mark Begich, former lieutenant governor Byron Mallott) with statewide name recognition essentially poured gasoline on their political careers and lit them on fire in 2018 (Begich with a failed gubernatorial bid that left us with a new governor even denser than Sarah Palin, and Mallott with some sort of harassment scandal that forced his resignation from office.)
Alaska is considerably more purple than it is generally considered, but without an effective state party putting forth credible nominees that doesn't do any good.
posted by Nerd of the North at 1:21 AM on May 3, 2019 [16 favorites]
Alaska is considerably more purple than it is generally considered, but without an effective state party putting forth credible nominees that doesn't do any good.
posted by Nerd of the North at 1:21 AM on May 3, 2019 [16 favorites]
Barr contradicted and struggled with key findings of Mueller report (Soo Rin Kim, ABC News)
During his four-hour back and forth with senators on Wednesday, Attorney General William Barr questioned, and at times seemed to contradict, key findings in special counsel Robert Mueller's report.posted by Barack Spinoza at 4:14 AM on May 3, 2019 [10 favorites]
Time and again, faced with questions from probing Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats about the report's contents, Barr also seemed unfamiliar with some of the report's significant details.
Barr Has Protected Trump. His Next Step Is to Smear His Opponents
Over the last 24 hours, two events took place that will probably loom very large over the next 18 months. The first was an exchange between Senator Kamala Harris and Attorney General William Barr at a hearing yesterday. “Attorney General Barr, has the president or anyone at the White House ever asked or suggested that you open an investigation of anyone?” asked Harris. Barr stammered, asked Harris to repeat the quite simple question, and then began parsing. “I’m trying to grapple with the word ‘suggest,’” he told Harris. “I mean, there have been discussions of matters out there that they have not asked me to open an investigation, but …” before trailing off ominously.posted by T.D. Strange at 4:29 AM on May 3, 2019 [34 favorites]
The second is a strange, somewhat convoluted but highly significant report that appeared last night in the New York Times. The story simultaneously reports on efforts by Trump loyalists to gin up dirt on Joe Biden and Ukraine, while also conveying the dirt itself. Put aside the substance of the reporting for a moment; what matters is that this is a bright flashing signal of where Barr’s fearsome powers may be directed next.
...
The context for this revelation is another story the Times broke last year, and oddly fails to mention in its latest report. That story revealed that Ukraine had ceased all cooperation with the Mueller probe — which of course had as one of its central subjects of inquiry Paul Manafort’s work on behalf of Russian-backed parties in Ukraine. The Ukrainian government had been helping to expose Manafort’s corrupt schemes, but abruptly halted its efforts when the Trump administration offered military help. That story clearly suggested a straight trade, in which Trump gave Ukraine missiles in return for Ukraine helping Trump block the Mueller investigation.
The new report fits right into line with this interpretation. Having first helped Trump by shutting down its probe of Manafort, now Ukraine is helping him find some mud on a likely opponent. (Again, for Trump, the offensive and defensive abuses of justice are inextricable.)
Republican media have already laid the predicate for an investigation. John Solomon, a vessel for Republican leaks, published a long story last month suggesting Ukrainian prosecutors were sitting on a trove of evidence of Democratic misconduct they were eager to share with American counterparts. A week ago, Trump excitedly told Sean Hannity that Barr was investigating “big” and “incredible” allegations from Ukraine.
Trump gave Ukraine missiles in return for Ukraine helping Trump block the Mueller investigation.
Possibly this?
posted by petebest at 4:58 AM on May 3, 2019 [11 favorites]
Possibly this?
posted by petebest at 4:58 AM on May 3, 2019 [11 favorites]
Over at The Nib, a graphic look at Erik Prince’s Private Air Force.
posted by MonkeyToes at 5:07 AM on May 3, 2019 [3 favorites]
posted by MonkeyToes at 5:07 AM on May 3, 2019 [3 favorites]
Pelosi Gets Closer to Impeachment
At her weekly press conference, Speaker Nancy Pelosi likened President Trump to Richard Nixon: “As you probably know, in the Articles of Impeachment for President Nixon, Article 3 was that he ignored the subpoenas of Congress, that he did not honor the subpoenas of Congress. This is very, very serious. But my judgment will spring from the judgment of our committee chairs.”
Ah no no no no - nooo, Imean ... we don't want to IMPOSE. Uhhh y'know. If you have some spare time just y'know lying around, maybe it's - just uh, just throwin' it out there - maybe, something to uh let the committee chairs make the call on? Sure, sure. But don't get up.
posted by petebest at 5:40 AM on May 3, 2019 [3 favorites]
At her weekly press conference, Speaker Nancy Pelosi likened President Trump to Richard Nixon: “As you probably know, in the Articles of Impeachment for President Nixon, Article 3 was that he ignored the subpoenas of Congress, that he did not honor the subpoenas of Congress. This is very, very serious. But my judgment will spring from the judgment of our committee chairs.”
Ah no no no no - nooo, Imean ... we don't want to IMPOSE. Uhhh y'know. If you have some spare time just y'know lying around, maybe it's - just uh, just throwin' it out there - maybe, something to uh let the committee chairs make the call on? Sure, sure. But don't get up.
posted by petebest at 5:40 AM on May 3, 2019 [3 favorites]
>Wait, hold up. So. The Mueller report kind of *starts* at the point when one of our intelligence allies (australia?) reports the Papadopoulos bar story, doesn't it?
It does, which is apparently in May 2016.
The recent NYT article says an FBI informant posed as a researcher to investigate the Trump campaign's ties to Russia in September 2016, so that lines up. From the December 2017 article linked above:
WASHINGTON — During a night of heavy drinking at an upscale London bar in May 2016, George Papadopoulos, a young foreign policy adviser to the Trump campaign, made a startling revelation to Australia’s top diplomat in Britain: Russia had political dirt on Hillary Clinton.
About three weeks earlier, Mr. Papadopoulos had been told that Moscow had thousands of emails that would embarrass Mrs. Clinton, apparently stolen in an effort to try to damage her campaign.
Exactly how much Mr. Papadopoulos said that night at the Kensington Wine Rooms with the Australian, Alexander Downer, is unclear. But two months later, when leaked Democratic emails began appearing online, [July 2016] Australian officials passed the information about Mr. Papadopoulos to their American counterparts, according to four current and former American and foreign officials with direct knowledge of the Australians’ role.
The hacking and the revelation that a member of the Trump campaign may have had inside information about it were driving factors that led the F.B.I. to open an investigation in July 2016 into Russia’s attempts to disrupt the election and whether any of President Trump’s associates conspired.
... The F.B.I. investigation, which was taken over seven months ago [May 2017] by the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, has cast a shadow over Mr. Trump’s first year in office — even as he and his aides repeatedly played down the Russian efforts and falsely denied campaign contacts with Russians.
...F.B.I. officials disagreed in 2016 about how aggressively and publicly to pursue the Russia inquiry before the election. But there was little debate about what seemed to be afoot. John O. Brennan, who retired this year [2017] after four years as C.I.A. director, told Congress in May that he had been concerned about multiple contacts between Russian officials and Trump advisers.
Russia, he said, had tried to “suborn” members of the Trump campaign.
posted by petebest at 5:58 AM on May 3, 2019 [4 favorites]
It does, which is apparently in May 2016.
The recent NYT article says an FBI informant posed as a researcher to investigate the Trump campaign's ties to Russia in September 2016, so that lines up. From the December 2017 article linked above:
WASHINGTON — During a night of heavy drinking at an upscale London bar in May 2016, George Papadopoulos, a young foreign policy adviser to the Trump campaign, made a startling revelation to Australia’s top diplomat in Britain: Russia had political dirt on Hillary Clinton.
About three weeks earlier, Mr. Papadopoulos had been told that Moscow had thousands of emails that would embarrass Mrs. Clinton, apparently stolen in an effort to try to damage her campaign.
Exactly how much Mr. Papadopoulos said that night at the Kensington Wine Rooms with the Australian, Alexander Downer, is unclear. But two months later, when leaked Democratic emails began appearing online, [July 2016] Australian officials passed the information about Mr. Papadopoulos to their American counterparts, according to four current and former American and foreign officials with direct knowledge of the Australians’ role.
The hacking and the revelation that a member of the Trump campaign may have had inside information about it were driving factors that led the F.B.I. to open an investigation in July 2016 into Russia’s attempts to disrupt the election and whether any of President Trump’s associates conspired.
... The F.B.I. investigation, which was taken over seven months ago [May 2017] by the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, has cast a shadow over Mr. Trump’s first year in office — even as he and his aides repeatedly played down the Russian efforts and falsely denied campaign contacts with Russians.
...F.B.I. officials disagreed in 2016 about how aggressively and publicly to pursue the Russia inquiry before the election. But there was little debate about what seemed to be afoot. John O. Brennan, who retired this year [2017] after four years as C.I.A. director, told Congress in May that he had been concerned about multiple contacts between Russian officials and Trump advisers.
Russia, he said, had tried to “suborn” members of the Trump campaign.
posted by petebest at 5:58 AM on May 3, 2019 [4 favorites]
WaPost this morning on the importance of note taking to the Mueller Report. Annie Donaldson is a name we will probably be hearing a lot.
posted by Harry Caul at 6:00 AM on May 3, 2019 [4 favorites]
posted by Harry Caul at 6:00 AM on May 3, 2019 [4 favorites]
It wouldn’t surprise me if, at some point in time, we start seeing fake documents seeded to the Trump campaign and spread around as evidence in the media ecosystem. This isn’t the same thing exactly, but IIRC when the DNC emails and such were stolen and then released there were lots of emails that weren’t in the releases, in a manner that allowed certain email chains be taken out of context and potentially look bad.
posted by gucci mane at 6:16 AM on May 3, 2019 [4 favorites]
posted by gucci mane at 6:16 AM on May 3, 2019 [4 favorites]
California to Trump: Tax Returns or GTFO (Rachel Frazin, The Hill):
posted by Rosie M. Banks at 6:39 AM on May 3, 2019 [24 favorites]
The California state Senate on Thursday approved a bill to require candidates appearing on the presidential primary ballot — including President Trump — to release five years' worth of income tax returns.Former Governor Jerry Brown vetoed a similar bill last year, and this bill still has to go to Newsom's desk for his signature. (FWIW I have more confidence that Newsom will sign the bill as he's less cautious than Brown was.) Still proud of my state and its Democratic supermajority.
The measure was approved in a 27-10 vote, according to The Associated Press. California, for the first time, will be one of the first states to hold its presidential primary in the 2020 cycle.
The bill is a response to Trump's insistence that he will not release his tax returns as presidential candidates traditionally have done, claiming he is under audit. If the bill becomes law and Trump does not release his returns, he may not appear on the California primary ballot.
posted by Rosie M. Banks at 6:39 AM on May 3, 2019 [24 favorites]
fake documents
There was at least one fake document in 2016 that may have has much influence on the election as all the other Russian meddling put together, given how it influenced Comey's behavior...
posted by OnceUponATime at 6:41 AM on May 3, 2019 [10 favorites]
There was at least one fake document in 2016 that may have has much influence on the election as all the other Russian meddling put together, given how it influenced Comey's behavior...
posted by OnceUponATime at 6:41 AM on May 3, 2019 [10 favorites]
The California state Senate on Thursday approved a bill to require candidates appearing on the presidential primary ballot — including President Trump — to release five years' worth of income tax returns.
Big deal. What about the general election ballot? Not that California's electoral votes are gettable for Trump, but the Trump campaign and the RNC are the same entity at this point, making the Republican primary basically irrelevant. But requiring tax returns in any Democratic-controlled Midwest states could put Trump in a real bind.
posted by Gelatin at 6:42 AM on May 3, 2019
Big deal. What about the general election ballot? Not that California's electoral votes are gettable for Trump, but the Trump campaign and the RNC are the same entity at this point, making the Republican primary basically irrelevant. But requiring tax returns in any Democratic-controlled Midwest states could put Trump in a real bind.
posted by Gelatin at 6:42 AM on May 3, 2019
Since it won't hit national media coverage, JHU leadership just sent out a notice that the Garland Hall occupation protest, which has just hit its first month in length, will probably be removed forcibly this weekend. This is the protest that students and staff started the afternoon of Apr 3, occupying and barring entrance to the building.
It's a protest against Hopkins' establishment of a private police force for its territories it owns throughout Baltimore, and an ongoing multimillion dollar training contract with ICE.
posted by Harry Caul at 6:45 AM on May 3, 2019 [21 favorites]
It's a protest against Hopkins' establishment of a private police force for its territories it owns throughout Baltimore, and an ongoing multimillion dollar training contract with ICE.
posted by Harry Caul at 6:45 AM on May 3, 2019 [21 favorites]
This just in: corporate news media are continuing to fail catastrophically at their one job.
Study: Major media outlets' Twitter accounts amplify false Trump claims on average 19 times a day (MediaMatters.org)
The data shows that news outlets are still failing to grapple with a major problem that media critics highlighted during the Trump transition: [before inauguration] When journalists apply their traditional method of crafting headlines, tweets, and other social media posts to Trump, they end up passively spreading misinformation by uncritically repeating his falsehoods.
The way people consume information in the digital age makes the accuracy of a news outlet’s headlines and social media posts more important than ever, because research shows they are the only thing a majority of people actually read.[*] But journalists are trained to treat a politician’s statements as intrinsically newsworthy, often quoting them without context in tweets and headlines and addressing whether the statement was accurate only in the body of the piece, if at all. When the politician’s statements are false, journalists who quote them in headlines and on social media without context end up amplifying the falsehoods.
Yeah no shit. * Democratic Leadership, head's up: Impeachment Gets Headlines So Have A Good Plan.
posted by petebest at 6:51 AM on May 3, 2019 [29 favorites]
Study: Major media outlets' Twitter accounts amplify false Trump claims on average 19 times a day (MediaMatters.org)
The data shows that news outlets are still failing to grapple with a major problem that media critics highlighted during the Trump transition: [before inauguration] When journalists apply their traditional method of crafting headlines, tweets, and other social media posts to Trump, they end up passively spreading misinformation by uncritically repeating his falsehoods.
The way people consume information in the digital age makes the accuracy of a news outlet’s headlines and social media posts more important than ever, because research shows they are the only thing a majority of people actually read.[*] But journalists are trained to treat a politician’s statements as intrinsically newsworthy, often quoting them without context in tweets and headlines and addressing whether the statement was accurate only in the body of the piece, if at all. When the politician’s statements are false, journalists who quote them in headlines and on social media without context end up amplifying the falsehoods.
Yeah no shit. * Democratic Leadership, head's up: Impeachment Gets Headlines So Have A Good Plan.
posted by petebest at 6:51 AM on May 3, 2019 [29 favorites]
I'm sorry but isn't it an enormously huge deal that the FBI investigation started PRIOR TO the Papadopoulos bar conversation??
It didn't, though. At least AFAICT, from what we know, the bar conversation was May 2016, the investigation started in July 2016.
Yesterday's story about the new detail that an FBI agent met undercover with Papadopolous was in September, five months after the bar conversation.
posted by petebest at 6:54 AM on May 3, 2019 [8 favorites]
It didn't, though. At least AFAICT, from what we know, the bar conversation was May 2016, the investigation started in July 2016.
Yesterday's story about the new detail that an FBI agent met undercover with Papadopolous was in September, five months after the bar conversation.
posted by petebest at 6:54 AM on May 3, 2019 [8 favorites]
This just in: corporate news media are continuing to fail catastrophically at their one job.
NPR's morning coverage of William Barr's testimony and the ongoing Russia scandal has emphasized the political risks for Democrats three days running.
One would think there would also be political risks for Republicans in helping Trump cover up crimes; indeed, Barr's miserable testimony before a Republican-controlled Senate panel highlights this risk. And the nationwide news organization seems to forget that the media helps shape public opinion about political scandals, even as it appears to be working to shape public opinion in the Republicans' favor.
posted by Gelatin at 6:56 AM on May 3, 2019 [22 favorites]
NPR's morning coverage of William Barr's testimony and the ongoing Russia scandal has emphasized the political risks for Democrats three days running.
One would think there would also be political risks for Republicans in helping Trump cover up crimes; indeed, Barr's miserable testimony before a Republican-controlled Senate panel highlights this risk. And the nationwide news organization seems to forget that the media helps shape public opinion about political scandals, even as it appears to be working to shape public opinion in the Republicans' favor.
posted by Gelatin at 6:56 AM on May 3, 2019 [22 favorites]
It's good to keep in mind as well that Trump's err . . . . relationships with the FBI go back decades. As early as 1981 < Buzzfeed. Between his own grift/criming, and then working with on again/off again informant Felix Sater, there was probably a file relating to Trump as tall as Trump himself BEFORE he ran in 2015.
posted by Harry Caul at 7:00 AM on May 3, 2019 [8 favorites]
posted by Harry Caul at 7:00 AM on May 3, 2019 [8 favorites]
Picking up from December's catalog of 17 known criminal investigations swirling around Donald Trump, Wired's Garrett M. Graf surveys: Trump’s World Still Faces 16 Known Criminal Probes
For reference, here are the 16 known cases that he's tracking in greater detail in the article: 1. Wikileaks; 2. Middle Eastern Influence; 3. Campaign finance conspiracy; 4. Inauguration spending; 5. Inauguration funding; 6. SuperPAC funding; 7. Tax investigation; 8. The Trump Foundation; 9. Trump Organization finance probe; 10. The NRA; 11. Emoluments lawsuit; 12. Federal and State immigration violations; 13. Paul Manafort mortgage case; 14. DC’s Trump inauguration probe; 15. Elliot Broidy investigation; 16. Chinese influence/RNC finance probe.
He also has this caveat:
posted by Doktor Zed at 7:15 AM on May 3, 2019 [15 favorites]
For reference, here are the 16 known cases that he's tracking in greater detail in the article: 1. Wikileaks; 2. Middle Eastern Influence; 3. Campaign finance conspiracy; 4. Inauguration spending; 5. Inauguration funding; 6. SuperPAC funding; 7. Tax investigation; 8. The Trump Foundation; 9. Trump Organization finance probe; 10. The NRA; 11. Emoluments lawsuit; 12. Federal and State immigration violations; 13. Paul Manafort mortgage case; 14. DC’s Trump inauguration probe; 15. Elliot Broidy investigation; 16. Chinese influence/RNC finance probe.
He also has this caveat:
Beyond the specific cases and investigative avenues I’ve outlined here, it’s hard to know how to count the 12 unknown cases referred out by Mueller, both because they could presumably involve criminal behavior far removed from the Trump orbit—akin to the prosecution of Richard Pinedo, the unwitting Californian charged with identity fraud in helping the Russian Internet Research Agency fool social media platforms—or the cases could involve allegations of criminality against Trump-world figures apparently unrelated to their campaign lives, like the charges Mueller eventually brought against Michael Flynn, Paul Manafort, Rick Gates, and Michael Cohen.In another rundown, CNN's Katelyn Polantz and Marshall Cohen posted this comparative overview: The Mueller Report: A Catalog Of 77 Trump Team Lies And Falsehoods. It's a fascinating juxtaposition of what Team Trump said and what the Mueller report concluded. Its account of all the perjury, lies of omission, public falsehoods, and misinformation, etc., they write, "may be the first comprehensive finding by a federal investigator to document the lies to the American public told by the Trump campaign and administration."
Moreover, as USA Today’s Brad Heath has pointed out, we shouldn’t assume that all of those remaining 12 cases are active, even if they were all redacted under the heading of “harm to ongoing matter.” Some of the cases might have been declined by prosecutors, after Mueller referred them, and others might have been investigated and closed. As Heath says, “The FBI has been known to take a capacious view of the phrases ‘ongoing’ and ‘harmful.’”
posted by Doktor Zed at 7:15 AM on May 3, 2019 [15 favorites]
And the nationwide news organization seems to forget that the media helps shape public opinion about political scandals, even as it appears to be working to shape public opinion in the Republicans' favor.
They're very well aware. And happy to support the (Turmp/GOP) status quo. That's the thing. People tend to want to defend journalists (as they should) and through that mechanism the Jeff Zuckers and Les Moonveeses get to hide in the clouds.
As we all know, there's not a great or an easy answer to the problem, the journalist role has been under siege for a long time, and there isn't a viable public model yet (ProPublica being the exception, perhaps). So we're left with the option to continue supporting corporate news or dismantling / ignoring the whole thing where everyone has to get new sources, new jobs, etc.
The former is the easier option, and here we are on the cusp of Trump 2: the Dictatoring. It should be noted at the time of the Fairness Doctrine repeal (Fox) and the Telecom Act of 1996 (MegaNewsCorp) that these issues were known and fretted about but shockingly big money won. In part, IMO, because media literacy is a step beyond critical thinking and we know how well the latter is supported.
posted by petebest at 7:41 AM on May 3, 2019 [8 favorites]
They're very well aware. And happy to support the (Turmp/GOP) status quo. That's the thing. People tend to want to defend journalists (as they should) and through that mechanism the Jeff Zuckers and Les Moonveeses get to hide in the clouds.
As we all know, there's not a great or an easy answer to the problem, the journalist role has been under siege for a long time, and there isn't a viable public model yet (ProPublica being the exception, perhaps). So we're left with the option to continue supporting corporate news or dismantling / ignoring the whole thing where everyone has to get new sources, new jobs, etc.
The former is the easier option, and here we are on the cusp of Trump 2: the Dictatoring. It should be noted at the time of the Fairness Doctrine repeal (Fox) and the Telecom Act of 1996 (MegaNewsCorp) that these issues were known and fretted about but shockingly big money won. In part, IMO, because media literacy is a step beyond critical thinking and we know how well the latter is supported.
posted by petebest at 7:41 AM on May 3, 2019 [8 favorites]
While back in the days of Watergate, many journalists were liberal, the Reagan years changed that. Before, all journalists got the same more or less lousy pay. During the 80's high profile journalists succeeded in negotiating pays that fit their fame. And then they got Republican views to fit that: they hated paying taxes and they didn't mix with working class people. Eventually younger journalists with lower pays joined them as they were aspirational.
I've never understood this. Even if you pay a tax when you are rich, you are still rich. It's not like you have to live in a damp warren or take a bike to work. But lots of people were caught up in this. By the time my little sister studied journalism, it was basically a right-wing community.
I'm not a journalist, but I worked as a journalist and observed this close-hand even before my sister finished school. I had colleagues who stuck to their roots and still had working class friends because I worked at an ultra leftist paper. But even there, things were changing. Think Glen Greenwald, in another context.
I don't know, I want the workers to own the profit from their work, but goddamnit some of them turn very egocentrical when they do it.
posted by mumimor at 8:02 AM on May 3, 2019 [20 favorites]
I've never understood this. Even if you pay a tax when you are rich, you are still rich. It's not like you have to live in a damp warren or take a bike to work. But lots of people were caught up in this. By the time my little sister studied journalism, it was basically a right-wing community.
I'm not a journalist, but I worked as a journalist and observed this close-hand even before my sister finished school. I had colleagues who stuck to their roots and still had working class friends because I worked at an ultra leftist paper. But even there, things were changing. Think Glen Greenwald, in another context.
I don't know, I want the workers to own the profit from their work, but goddamnit some of them turn very egocentrical when they do it.
posted by mumimor at 8:02 AM on May 3, 2019 [20 favorites]
William Barr’s Mueller Report Testimony Has Everyone Wondering What Happened To Him (Ryan J. Reilly, HuffPo)
Matthew Miller, who headed the Justice Department’s public affairs office under former Attorney General Eric Holder, told HuffPost he thinks Barr has lived in a “cocoon of Fox News” and conservative legal circles in the Trump era and says his trajectory matches that of the Republican Party under Trump.posted by ZeusHumms at 8:08 AM on May 3, 2019 [22 favorites]
[…]
“People want to believe there are still conservative lawyers who will follow the law without respect to partisanship,” Miller said. “People just keep wanting to believe that there are pillars of the Republican establishment who are too smart and too sophisticated and have too much integrity to compromise for Donald Trump. We keep being shown over and over that that’s just not true in most cases.”
Kind of like what happened with Giuliani.
posted by Melismata at 8:09 AM on May 3, 2019 [1 favorite]
posted by Melismata at 8:09 AM on May 3, 2019 [1 favorite]
Senate Democrats ask NRA execs, PR firm for documents related to alleged self-dealing Ties To Russia (WaPo, fixed the buried lede)
Three Senate Democrats have asked current and former National Rifle Association executives and the organization’s public relations firm to turn over letters, third-party audits, memos and other materials as they look into allegations of self-dealing and examine the NRA’s nonprofit status.
... The Senate panel has jurisdiction over tax-exempt organizations such as the NRA, and Wyden has been investigating the organization, pressing for answers about financial and other ties it allegedly has to Russia.
Previously: Did the Kremlin Give Money to the National Rifle Association to Help Trump? (Snopes, February 2018: "However, the NRA reported spending a record $55 million on the 2016 elections, including $30 million to support Trump – triple what the group devoted to backing Republican Mitt Romney in the 2012 presidential race. Most of that was money was spent by an arm of the NRA that is not required to disclose its donors.")
Russia-NRA Arrest: This Is as Close as It Gets to Collusion (DailyBeast, July 2018: "It’s the first time the Justice Department has explicitly claimed that a Russian spy working to influence the 2016 campaign had deliberate assistance with her efforts from a U.S. citizen. On Monday, the DOJ arrested and charged a Russian national [Maria Butina] who courted the NRA and the Republican Party with secretly working as a foreign agent.")
So what's fun about this particular hole of Omnigate is the NRA's President, a *checks notes* Mr. Ollie North, and the current Attorney General "Froggy" Barr go way back. So not only is this Iran-Contra2, Skynet Edition, but we might actually get to see North and Barr testify to Congress again! Wheeeeeeeeeeeeee
posted by petebest at 8:27 AM on May 3, 2019 [26 favorites]
Three Senate Democrats have asked current and former National Rifle Association executives and the organization’s public relations firm to turn over letters, third-party audits, memos and other materials as they look into allegations of self-dealing and examine the NRA’s nonprofit status.
... The Senate panel has jurisdiction over tax-exempt organizations such as the NRA, and Wyden has been investigating the organization, pressing for answers about financial and other ties it allegedly has to Russia.
Previously: Did the Kremlin Give Money to the National Rifle Association to Help Trump? (Snopes, February 2018: "However, the NRA reported spending a record $55 million on the 2016 elections, including $30 million to support Trump – triple what the group devoted to backing Republican Mitt Romney in the 2012 presidential race. Most of that was money was spent by an arm of the NRA that is not required to disclose its donors.")
Russia-NRA Arrest: This Is as Close as It Gets to Collusion (DailyBeast, July 2018: "It’s the first time the Justice Department has explicitly claimed that a Russian spy working to influence the 2016 campaign had deliberate assistance with her efforts from a U.S. citizen. On Monday, the DOJ arrested and charged a Russian national [Maria Butina] who courted the NRA and the Republican Party with secretly working as a foreign agent.")
So what's fun about this particular hole of Omnigate is the NRA's President, a *checks notes* Mr. Ollie North, and the current Attorney General "Froggy" Barr go way back. So not only is this Iran-Contra2, Skynet Edition, but we might actually get to see North and Barr testify to Congress again! Wheeeeeeeeeeeeee
posted by petebest at 8:27 AM on May 3, 2019 [26 favorites]
Yea, I wonder what happened to the guy who covered up Iran Contra to make him cover up Russiagate?
posted by T.D. Strange at 8:28 AM on May 3, 2019 [39 favorites]
posted by T.D. Strange at 8:28 AM on May 3, 2019 [39 favorites]
Kind of like what happened with Giuliani.
Point of order: “What happened to Giuliani is really not the right question — he's always been like this. What's going to happen to him is more to the point.”—John Oliver; Rudy Giuliani Has Always Been Like This (Paste). Giuliani’s a lot like Trump in this respect: New Yorkers supported, or at least tolerated, them as disrupters of the status quo, then dispensed with them as embarrassments, but without providing sufficient warning to the rest of the nation not to fall for them.
Incidentally, when it Giuliani going to release Trump Trump’s long-awaited rebuttal to the Mueller report? The closest thing we’ve seen so far is a five-page letter from acting Trump White House Counsel Emmet Flood accusing the SCO of playing politics with the investigation and wildly straying from their mission (CNN).
posted by Doktor Zed at 8:50 AM on May 3, 2019 [14 favorites]
Point of order: “What happened to Giuliani is really not the right question — he's always been like this. What's going to happen to him is more to the point.”—John Oliver; Rudy Giuliani Has Always Been Like This (Paste). Giuliani’s a lot like Trump in this respect: New Yorkers supported, or at least tolerated, them as disrupters of the status quo, then dispensed with them as embarrassments, but without providing sufficient warning to the rest of the nation not to fall for them.
Incidentally, when it Giuliani going to release Trump Trump’s long-awaited rebuttal to the Mueller report? The closest thing we’ve seen so far is a five-page letter from acting Trump White House Counsel Emmet Flood accusing the SCO of playing politics with the investigation and wildly straying from their mission (CNN).
posted by Doktor Zed at 8:50 AM on May 3, 2019 [14 favorites]
Ok, called my rep to push for impeachment. I was a nervous wreck, and stammered a bunch, but at least I'm on record for it. (He represents a purple area, I figure any pushing helps).
posted by obliquity of the ecliptic at 8:52 AM on May 3, 2019 [24 favorites]
posted by obliquity of the ecliptic at 8:52 AM on May 3, 2019 [24 favorites]
Trump discusses end of Mueller probe in hour-long call with Putin
Oh man, I''ll bet it got pretty tense because of the Mueller Report's determination Russian military intelligence acted to undermine our election in 2016!
White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders, who informed White House reporters of the call between the two leaders, emphasized that both men discussed how they each “knew there was no collusion” between them.
Oh.
posted by bluecore at 9:12 AM on May 3, 2019 [29 favorites]
Oh man, I''ll bet it got pretty tense because of the Mueller Report's determination Russian military intelligence acted to undermine our election in 2016!
White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders, who informed White House reporters of the call between the two leaders, emphasized that both men discussed how they each “knew there was no collusion” between them.
Oh.
posted by bluecore at 9:12 AM on May 3, 2019 [29 favorites]
Now that Barr has thumbed his nose at the Democrats in the House and blown off threats of a contempt charge, what do you think the Democrats will do?
Yeah, you guessed it, "seek further compromise". NYT: Democrats Attempt to Revive Talks on Access to Full Mueller Report
Yeah, you guessed it, "seek further compromise". NYT: Democrats Attempt to Revive Talks on Access to Full Mueller Report
Seeking a deal with Attorney General William P. Barr, House Democrats offered a compromise that would keep some parts of the report secret. The Judiciary Committee said it would move ahead with contempt of Congress proceedings if the two sides could not agree.posted by RedOrGreen at 9:13 AM on May 3, 2019 [4 favorites]
NYT: Democrats Attempt to Revive Talks on Access to Full Mueller Report
That’s the Grey Lady’s take on Nadler’s letter. Politico frames it as more confrontational: Nadler delivers ultimatum to Barr before holding AG in contempt.
Nadler’s letter is an example of public negotiation, with careful, lawyerly language that looks forward to being an exhibit of good faith a court case, rather than a rallying cry. Meanwhile House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy is trying to flip the script by accusing Nadler of lying (CBS).
posted by Doktor Zed at 9:28 AM on May 3, 2019 [7 favorites]
That’s the Grey Lady’s take on Nadler’s letter. Politico frames it as more confrontational: Nadler delivers ultimatum to Barr before holding AG in contempt.
Nadler’s letter is an example of public negotiation, with careful, lawyerly language that looks forward to being an exhibit of good faith a court case, rather than a rallying cry. Meanwhile House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy is trying to flip the script by accusing Nadler of lying (CBS).
posted by Doktor Zed at 9:28 AM on May 3, 2019 [7 favorites]
This Week In Atrocity does a big deep legal mind dive into the Muller Report
“It’s like ten Coen Brother movies crashing into each other at one.” “ Page is a dunce but they’ve had their hooks in him for a decade.” “ Trump had more confidence in the republicans then we did. Yeah he wasn’t counting on them just not caring.”
posted by The Whelk at 9:31 AM on May 3, 2019 [6 favorites]
“It’s like ten Coen Brother movies crashing into each other at one.” “ Page is a dunce but they’ve had their hooks in him for a decade.” “ Trump had more confidence in the republicans then we did. Yeah he wasn’t counting on them just not caring.”
posted by The Whelk at 9:31 AM on May 3, 2019 [6 favorites]
The Radicalization of White America: How Donald Trump Weaponized Whiteness (Michael Harriot, The Root)
posted by box at 9:42 AM on May 3, 2019 [19 favorites]
posted by box at 9:42 AM on May 3, 2019 [19 favorites]
The executive branch already can wage undeclared war around the world, spend by emergency decree, head agencies without senate confirmation,
ignore human rights of citizens, residents and foreign nations, use cruel and unusual punishments, detain without trial, surveil without cause. It has the worlds largest army in the habit of following its orders.
This president also has control of an effective propoganda system, a party of apparatchiks, and 25-30% of the populace. He, his family and friends profit from office, regulations are for sale, he has offered pre-emptive pardons to nullify laws that are inconvenient. He is purging the institutioms of people who follow rules instead of obey him. The old constitutional order is over, elections are not impartial, the electorate is not in power. he is a dictator consolidating power.
It has been years since congress was functional, only one-party control allows either party to create instead of destroy.
Congress has paper power, and the power of our nostalgia for the more democratic past. congress is soft power in fear of being discovered to be no power at all. If democrats pick a fight they can't win, the spell is broken and our congress becomes the roman senate in the age of emperors. They are trying to use what prestige they have left to hinder what they can.
They can't come at the king, they might be able to wound his consiglieres.
Volunteer, vote, donate, persuade, train, flee, hide, organize, educate, fight, submit... The DNC is not an army, is not a revolution. And you?
posted by Anchorite_of_Palgrave at 9:44 AM on May 3, 2019 [16 favorites]
ignore human rights of citizens, residents and foreign nations, use cruel and unusual punishments, detain without trial, surveil without cause. It has the worlds largest army in the habit of following its orders.
This president also has control of an effective propoganda system, a party of apparatchiks, and 25-30% of the populace. He, his family and friends profit from office, regulations are for sale, he has offered pre-emptive pardons to nullify laws that are inconvenient. He is purging the institutioms of people who follow rules instead of obey him. The old constitutional order is over, elections are not impartial, the electorate is not in power. he is a dictator consolidating power.
It has been years since congress was functional, only one-party control allows either party to create instead of destroy.
Congress has paper power, and the power of our nostalgia for the more democratic past. congress is soft power in fear of being discovered to be no power at all. If democrats pick a fight they can't win, the spell is broken and our congress becomes the roman senate in the age of emperors. They are trying to use what prestige they have left to hinder what they can.
They can't come at the king, they might be able to wound his consiglieres.
Volunteer, vote, donate, persuade, train, flee, hide, organize, educate, fight, submit... The DNC is not an army, is not a revolution. And you?
posted by Anchorite_of_Palgrave at 9:44 AM on May 3, 2019 [16 favorites]
Formal federal prosecutor Elizabeth de la Vega asks Nadler and the House Judiciary Committe to prepare the right format for Mueller’s testimony:
posted by Doktor Zed at 9:49 AM on May 3, 2019 [58 favorites]
FORMAT FOR MUELLER APPEARANCE: I can't stress this enough. When Special Counsel Mueller appears before @HouseJudiciary, the format can't be the 5 min segments; it can't even be 1/2 hour for Dems & GOP staff counsel. It's imperative he be given ALL the time he needs to present his testimony in a single narrative. When John Dean first appeared before the Senate Watergate Committee, he read a 245 page statement, uninterrupted. It was riveting throughout, even though it took almost a day to read. Robert Mueller should be afforded the same opportunity, partly out of respect for him and the phenomenal service he has performed, but far more out of respect for the gravity of the investigation itself. It may take a day, or two days, but the people of the United States are entitled to a coherent narrative of both the facts of the investigation & the facts of Barr's/Rosenstein's handling of the investigation. This information can't be conveyed in bite-sized chunks; it must be, at least, first presented as a full-course meal. Only after that should questions begin. This is not business as usual.This is something worth contacting your reps about (Capitol Hill switchboard 202-224-3121, House Judiciary Committee 202-225-3951), because Jim Jordan et al. assuredly are making their plans to turn it into a shitshow.
posted by Doktor Zed at 9:49 AM on May 3, 2019 [58 favorites]
Given the fairly large number of extremely wealthy Republicans in California, would it be possible/enforceable to pass a law banning political donations to a Presidential candidate (or, ideally, any candidate at any level) who doesn't disclose their tax returns?
Trump isn't going to carry California no matter what, so if the California disclosure bill really passes he can afford to do nothing but shrug and scream about it at his rallies as an example of the evil Democrats hating freedom. But if it hits him in the wallet it might really hurt him.
posted by sotonohito at 9:53 AM on May 3, 2019 [5 favorites]
Trump isn't going to carry California no matter what, so if the California disclosure bill really passes he can afford to do nothing but shrug and scream about it at his rallies as an example of the evil Democrats hating freedom. But if it hits him in the wallet it might really hurt him.
posted by sotonohito at 9:53 AM on May 3, 2019 [5 favorites]
Hard to see donations restrictions passing a 1st amendment issue with Citizens United style definition of money as speech.
posted by Exceptional_Hubris at 9:59 AM on May 3, 2019 [5 favorites]
posted by Exceptional_Hubris at 9:59 AM on May 3, 2019 [5 favorites]
Hard to see donations restrictions passing a 1st amendment issue with Citizens United style definition of money as speech.
posted by Exceptional_Hubris at 9:59 AM on May 3 [1 favorite +] [!]
IANAL, but one thing I still don't understand is how under this legal theory bribery can be made illegal. I'm just having a conversation and the money only expresses my deep commitment to the assertions I am making. Under the first amendment, how can that be made illegal? Is it the exchange of something of value that makes it criminal? If so, then how can money be speech, since it's also a thing of value beyond any message it may send? Have any of our resident lawyers looked deeply enough into Citizens United to be able to clarify this for me?
I know this is a derail, but I haven't been able to find an explanation for this and it seems it is central to the whole Trumpster fire we're witnessing daily.
posted by Mental Wimp at 10:27 AM on May 3, 2019 [7 favorites]
posted by Exceptional_Hubris at 9:59 AM on May 3 [1 favorite +] [!]
IANAL, but one thing I still don't understand is how under this legal theory bribery can be made illegal. I'm just having a conversation and the money only expresses my deep commitment to the assertions I am making. Under the first amendment, how can that be made illegal? Is it the exchange of something of value that makes it criminal? If so, then how can money be speech, since it's also a thing of value beyond any message it may send? Have any of our resident lawyers looked deeply enough into Citizens United to be able to clarify this for me?
I know this is a derail, but I haven't been able to find an explanation for this and it seems it is central to the whole Trumpster fire we're witnessing daily.
posted by Mental Wimp at 10:27 AM on May 3, 2019 [7 favorites]
Given the fairly large number of extremely wealthy Republicans in California, would it be possible/enforceable to pass a law banning political donations to a Presidential candidate (or, ideally, any candidate at any level) who doesn't disclose their tax returns?
Out-of-state (or in the case of the NRA, out-of-country) donors could just move their money to non-profit groups, which funnel the now-dark money to a super PAC, which in turn only has to report the identity of the non-profit group.
For every state or local law, there seem to be a hundred loopholes. We seem to need a new Amendment or a new Constitution altogether, which forcibly separates money from the republic at the most fundamental level, and which mandates disclosure of all financial records on the part of anyone going into government — but especially the president.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 10:37 AM on May 3, 2019 [4 favorites]
Out-of-state (or in the case of the NRA, out-of-country) donors could just move their money to non-profit groups, which funnel the now-dark money to a super PAC, which in turn only has to report the identity of the non-profit group.
For every state or local law, there seem to be a hundred loopholes. We seem to need a new Amendment or a new Constitution altogether, which forcibly separates money from the republic at the most fundamental level, and which mandates disclosure of all financial records on the part of anyone going into government — but especially the president.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 10:37 AM on May 3, 2019 [4 favorites]
Incidentally, when it Giuliani going to release Trump Trump’s long-awaited rebuttal to the Mueller report?
Maybe--and I'm just spitballin' here--he was bullshitting all along and there was never going to be a rebuttal.
posted by kirkaracha at 10:41 AM on May 3, 2019 [20 favorites]
Maybe--and I'm just spitballin' here--he was bullshitting all along and there was never going to be a rebuttal.
posted by kirkaracha at 10:41 AM on May 3, 2019 [20 favorites]
Or maybe it was always a contingency plan in case Trump’s DoJ couldn’t bury the Mueller report fast enough. Fortunately for Team Trump, Barr’s doing OK, having spun the media sufficiently with his summary letter, his press conference, and the redacted version. It’s of course going to turn out to be BS should it ever see the light of day, but I’m interested that Giuliani hasn’t felt the need to deploy it yet.
posted by Doktor Zed at 10:49 AM on May 3, 2019 [2 favorites]
posted by Doktor Zed at 10:49 AM on May 3, 2019 [2 favorites]
Buzzfeed’s Zoe Tillman reports: Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Lindsey Graham has invited special counsel Robert Mueller to come testify if he'd like to, specifically about his discussion with AG Barr about Barr's summary of Mueller's conclusions
Graham’s desperately trying to head off Mueller from testifying in the more favorable environment of the House Judiciary Committee. If he takes the bait, Graham will clearly set up the hearings to be a circus.
posted by Doktor Zed at 10:53 AM on May 3, 2019 [14 favorites]
Graham’s desperately trying to head off Mueller from testifying in the more favorable environment of the House Judiciary Committee. If he takes the bait, Graham will clearly set up the hearings to be a circus.
posted by Doktor Zed at 10:53 AM on May 3, 2019 [14 favorites]
how under this legal theory bribery can be made illegal. I'm just having a conversation and the money only expresses my deep commitment to the assertions I am making.
You jest, but that's pretty much the argument the Republican justices made. Quid pro quo can still be illegal, as can restricting speech under the grounds that the government has a vested interest in preventing the perception that it's corrupt, but Roberts argued -- laughably -- that interest groups paying megabucks to candidates who then just happened to pass policies favorable to said groups (which isn't bribery because there's no explicit quid pro quo) don't foster the perception of corruption.
Indeed. Roberts' very presence on the court (which came about due to the corrupt and partisan Bush v Gore decision), to say nothing of Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, fosters a perception of corruption. As long as they sit on the bench at SCOTUS, the Court is not legitimate.
posted by Gelatin at 10:55 AM on May 3, 2019 [14 favorites]
You jest, but that's pretty much the argument the Republican justices made. Quid pro quo can still be illegal, as can restricting speech under the grounds that the government has a vested interest in preventing the perception that it's corrupt, but Roberts argued -- laughably -- that interest groups paying megabucks to candidates who then just happened to pass policies favorable to said groups (which isn't bribery because there's no explicit quid pro quo) don't foster the perception of corruption.
Indeed. Roberts' very presence on the court (which came about due to the corrupt and partisan Bush v Gore decision), to say nothing of Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, fosters a perception of corruption. As long as they sit on the bench at SCOTUS, the Court is not legitimate.
posted by Gelatin at 10:55 AM on May 3, 2019 [14 favorites]
Can't he testify before both?
posted by all about eevee at 11:02 AM on May 3, 2019 [2 favorites]
posted by all about eevee at 11:02 AM on May 3, 2019 [2 favorites]
Can't he testify before both?
Doesn't DOJ have him on a leash, at least as far as when and where he testifies? They may allow him before the Senate but not the House because they want to give the impression that he had a chance to say his piece, but have the GOP ultimately control it to produce the most favorable outcome.
posted by a snickering nuthatch at 11:04 AM on May 3, 2019 [5 favorites]
Doesn't DOJ have him on a leash, at least as far as when and where he testifies? They may allow him before the Senate but not the House because they want to give the impression that he had a chance to say his piece, but have the GOP ultimately control it to produce the most favorable outcome.
posted by a snickering nuthatch at 11:04 AM on May 3, 2019 [5 favorites]
White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders, who informed White House reporters of the call between the two leaders, emphasized that both men discussed how they each “knew there was no collusion” between them.
To people who think critically, this is an obvious tell. To Trump's base, well, what can I say?
posted by Mental Wimp at 11:15 AM on May 3, 2019 [15 favorites]
To people who think critically, this is an obvious tell. To Trump's base, well, what can I say?
posted by Mental Wimp at 11:15 AM on May 3, 2019 [15 favorites]
538: How Cable News And The Polls Reacted To 2020 Campaign Announcements . This compares increases in media coverage to increases in candidate approval, and finds that Harris is performing unexpectedly well by this measure.
It's an interesting lens to look at candidates, but it may also be sensitive to how "concentrated" or impactful any given story might be for a candidate, and I don't know how much that distinction matters. I'm not sure to what extent it will actually matter that one candidate gets a drip-drip of stories (e.g. Warren's regular policy releases) compared to another candidate that gets a few big stories (e.g. Kamala Harris's questioning of Barr).
posted by a snickering nuthatch at 11:30 AM on May 3, 2019
It's an interesting lens to look at candidates, but it may also be sensitive to how "concentrated" or impactful any given story might be for a candidate, and I don't know how much that distinction matters. I'm not sure to what extent it will actually matter that one candidate gets a drip-drip of stories (e.g. Warren's regular policy releases) compared to another candidate that gets a few big stories (e.g. Kamala Harris's questioning of Barr).
posted by a snickering nuthatch at 11:30 AM on May 3, 2019
CNN’s Kaitlin Collins on this exchange about the Trump-Putin call at Trump’s presser:
posted by Doktor Zed at 11:44 AM on May 3, 2019 [34 favorites]
Welker: Did you tell him not to meddle in the next election?(w/video via Politico.)
Trump: "Excuse me. I'm talking. I'm answering this question. You are very rude."
Welker: Did you tell him not to meddle in the next election?
Trump: "We didn't discuss that, really, we didn't discuss it."
posted by Doktor Zed at 11:44 AM on May 3, 2019 [34 favorites]
Julia Ioffe: By the way, according to the Kremlin, the phone call was Trump's idea.
(Google Translate version of the Kremlin's read-out of the call).
posted by AwkwardPause at 12:14 PM on May 3, 2019 [5 favorites]
(Google Translate version of the Kremlin's read-out of the call).
posted by AwkwardPause at 12:14 PM on May 3, 2019 [5 favorites]
De Blasio expected to announce 2020 presidential run next week: sources. Polls of Democrats nationally and New Yorkers in the five boroughs show little enthusiasm for a de Blasio 2020 campaign. A whopping 76% of city voters don’t want him to run for president next year, according to one Quinnipiac University poll
posted by 1970s Antihero at 12:15 PM on May 3, 2019 [1 favorite]
posted by 1970s Antihero at 12:15 PM on May 3, 2019 [1 favorite]
Reuters, Yeganeh Torbati, Trump administration proposal would make it easier to deport immigrants who use public benefits
Proposals to change the public charge rule have been kicking around for a while, and it's still unclear if or when such a rule would actually be published (for my money, I'd go for "whenever the ideal time in the 2020 cycle to pull out the inaccurate 'Democrats are fighting for welfare for illegal immigrants'" line), but this has more details on how it would work. While we've seen previous proposals that relate to denying green cards and visas to people who have received certain benefits, this would be substantially worse, laying the groundwork to strip certain people of their visas or permanent residency if they, say, receive SNAP to feed their kids.
In other immigration news:
@JoshMBlackman: The travel ban litigation continues. Judge Chuang (DMD), who issued nationwide injunctions against Travel Ban 2.0 and 3.0, denies DOJ MTD. Now, discovery can go forward into how travel ban is being implemented, including waivers
This is a big deal, because the travel ban case was decided in large part on the lie that there was a real process by which the ban would be waived where necessary. That turned out to be a sham, with very few waivers issued and internal rules that set the standard for waivers higher than the administration claimed publicly. This will allow discovery to go forward into how the ban actually works in practice, instead of how the administration represented it to the court.
posted by zachlipton at 12:16 PM on May 3, 2019 [18 favorites]
Proposals to change the public charge rule have been kicking around for a while, and it's still unclear if or when such a rule would actually be published (for my money, I'd go for "whenever the ideal time in the 2020 cycle to pull out the inaccurate 'Democrats are fighting for welfare for illegal immigrants'" line), but this has more details on how it would work. While we've seen previous proposals that relate to denying green cards and visas to people who have received certain benefits, this would be substantially worse, laying the groundwork to strip certain people of their visas or permanent residency if they, say, receive SNAP to feed their kids.
In other immigration news:
@JoshMBlackman: The travel ban litigation continues. Judge Chuang (DMD), who issued nationwide injunctions against Travel Ban 2.0 and 3.0, denies DOJ MTD. Now, discovery can go forward into how travel ban is being implemented, including waivers
This is a big deal, because the travel ban case was decided in large part on the lie that there was a real process by which the ban would be waived where necessary. That turned out to be a sham, with very few waivers issued and internal rules that set the standard for waivers higher than the administration claimed publicly. This will allow discovery to go forward into how the ban actually works in practice, instead of how the administration represented it to the court.
posted by zachlipton at 12:16 PM on May 3, 2019 [18 favorites]
Court Rejects Ohio’s Congressional Map (NYT/CPD (via))
“A federal court on Friday tossed out Ohio’s congressional map, ruling that Republican state lawmakers had carved up the state to give themselves an illegal partisan advantage and to dilute Democrats’ votes in a way that predetermined the outcome of elections,” the New York Times reports.
Cleveland Plain Dealer: “This is the latest in a series of decisions across the country striking down partisan maps, including in neighboring Michigan and Pennsylvania. Plus, U.S. Supreme Court rulings are pending for cases out of North Carolina and Maryland.”
...“We are convinced," the ruling read, "by the evidence that this partisan gerrymander was intentional and effective and that no legitimate justification accounts for its extremity. ...
“The 2012 map dilutes the votes of Democratic voters by packing and cracking them into districts that are so skewed toward one party that the electoral outcome is predetermined.
Yes, that was the map in use for 2016 when Trump went to Ohio, why do you ask?
posted by petebest at 12:25 PM on May 3, 2019 [26 favorites]
“A federal court on Friday tossed out Ohio’s congressional map, ruling that Republican state lawmakers had carved up the state to give themselves an illegal partisan advantage and to dilute Democrats’ votes in a way that predetermined the outcome of elections,” the New York Times reports.
Cleveland Plain Dealer: “This is the latest in a series of decisions across the country striking down partisan maps, including in neighboring Michigan and Pennsylvania. Plus, U.S. Supreme Court rulings are pending for cases out of North Carolina and Maryland.”
...“We are convinced," the ruling read, "by the evidence that this partisan gerrymander was intentional and effective and that no legitimate justification accounts for its extremity. ...
“The 2012 map dilutes the votes of Democratic voters by packing and cracking them into districts that are so skewed toward one party that the electoral outcome is predetermined.
Yes, that was the map in use for 2016 when Trump went to Ohio, why do you ask?
posted by petebest at 12:25 PM on May 3, 2019 [26 favorites]
Yes, that was the map in use for 2016 when Trump went to Ohio, why do you ask?
How does internal state gerrymandering affect presidential elections?
posted by Mental Wimp at 12:36 PM on May 3, 2019 [3 favorites]
How does internal state gerrymandering affect presidential elections?
posted by Mental Wimp at 12:36 PM on May 3, 2019 [3 favorites]
Yes, that was the map in use for 2016 when Trump went to Ohio, why do you ask?
In most states, congressional electoral districts are irrelevant in determining which Presidential candidates the state's electors are obliged to vote for.
posted by Slothrup at 12:36 PM on May 3, 2019 [3 favorites]
In most states, congressional electoral districts are irrelevant in determining which Presidential candidates the state's electors are obliged to vote for.
posted by Slothrup at 12:36 PM on May 3, 2019 [3 favorites]
Well Deblasio can easily run for President considering he’s not acting as mayor
posted by The Whelk at 12:37 PM on May 3, 2019 [3 favorites]
posted by The Whelk at 12:37 PM on May 3, 2019 [3 favorites]
Mental Wimp: How does internal state gerrymandering affect presidential elections?
If someone cared more about a local congressional race than the presidential one, and voted only because they happened to live in one of the few competitive districts, it could have a small effect. "Reverse coattails". But that probably applies to approximately zero voters.
posted by InTheYear2017 at 12:42 PM on May 3, 2019 [2 favorites]
If someone cared more about a local congressional race than the presidential one, and voted only because they happened to live in one of the few competitive districts, it could have a small effect. "Reverse coattails". But that probably applies to approximately zero voters.
posted by InTheYear2017 at 12:42 PM on May 3, 2019 [2 favorites]
Yeah I dunno, fair point. To wit: Ohio was an unprecedented 10.2% more Republican than the national average in 2016, the farthest it had voted from the rest of the nation since 1932.
posted by petebest at 12:46 PM on May 3, 2019
posted by petebest at 12:46 PM on May 3, 2019
Ned Price
The Kremlin's readout of the Trump-Putin call makes no mention of discussion of the Mueller report or collusion, but Trump's tweet says they discussed the "Russian hoax."
Remarkable that the American President is more intent on spreading Russian propaganda than Putin's Kremlin
posted by chris24 at 12:48 PM on May 3, 2019 [37 favorites]
The Kremlin's readout of the Trump-Putin call makes no mention of discussion of the Mueller report or collusion, but Trump's tweet says they discussed the "Russian hoax."
Remarkable that the American President is more intent on spreading Russian propaganda than Putin's Kremlin
posted by chris24 at 12:48 PM on May 3, 2019 [37 favorites]
As someone who is a Vice Chair of my Ohio county Dems and lives in a district that is heavily effected by gerrymandering this could potentially have a huge impact for us. Our county is basically ignored by the state party because we can't really effect any elections. However, the district we were in before was previously very competitive. If our votes start to matter we will get more support congressional races which has a trickle down to our county races as well.
Additionally, if we are seen as having an impact on congressional races we'll receive more support in 2020 which will get more people out talking about the congressional race and the presidential race.
Enough to swing a race? I don't know! But it's a great step.
posted by Tevin at 12:54 PM on May 3, 2019 [27 favorites]
Additionally, if we are seen as having an impact on congressional races we'll receive more support in 2020 which will get more people out talking about the congressional race and the presidential race.
Enough to swing a race? I don't know! But it's a great step.
posted by Tevin at 12:54 PM on May 3, 2019 [27 favorites]
I can imagine it possible that folks who would have pulled the D lever for President didn't turn out because their local elections weren't competitive, but it's a big stretch given the way participation usually plunges in non-Presidential election years.
posted by phearlez at 12:56 PM on May 3, 2019
posted by phearlez at 12:56 PM on May 3, 2019
I can imagine it possible that folks who would have pulled the D lever for President didn't turn out because their local elections weren't competitive, but it's a big stretch given the way participation usually plunges in non-Presidential election years.
2018, the highest turnout rate for a midterm election in recent history,
2018 Ohio elections looks pretty competitive. All US Representative seats were up.
posted by petebest at 1:03 PM on May 3, 2019
2018, the highest turnout rate for a midterm election in recent history,
2018 Ohio elections looks pretty competitive. All US Representative seats were up.
posted by petebest at 1:03 PM on May 3, 2019
Yes, that would be why I used the word "usually." But even then a full additional 10% of the eligible voting population stayed home for this highest turnout midterm election. People more interested in local & senatorial races than presidential may exist but they're the rare birds.
posted by phearlez at 1:10 PM on May 3, 2019 [2 favorites]
posted by phearlez at 1:10 PM on May 3, 2019 [2 favorites]
Trump claims Russia’s outreach was ‘rebuffed at every turn,’ which is the opposite of true (WaPo, politics section)
Very close, WaPo! Hey, it's Friday, here have a cookie.
"The Mueller Report strongly stated that there was No Collusion with Russia (of course) and, in fact, they were rebuffed at every turn in attempts to gain access."
To some extent, Trump is correct that the conclusion of special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election makes it a thing of the past. But it’s impossible for it to remain there when the president continues to misrepresent what that investigation determined.
That sentence encapsulates a very specific rhetorical tactic that Trump deploys regularly. As soon as he’s established a beachhead with an argument, he pushes it further. Here, he takes his assertion that Mueller found no collusion and uses that to make a broader claim: Russia’s efforts to work with his campaign were “rebuffed at every turn.”
It seems like Mueller was writing for the same America that Obama thought would do the right thing.
posted by petebest at 1:16 PM on May 3, 2019 [8 favorites]
Very close, WaPo! Hey, it's Friday, here have a cookie.
"The Mueller Report strongly stated that there was No Collusion with Russia (of course) and, in fact, they were rebuffed at every turn in attempts to gain access."
To some extent, Trump is correct that the conclusion of special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election makes it a thing of the past. But it’s impossible for it to remain there when the president continues to misrepresent what that investigation determined.
That sentence encapsulates a very specific rhetorical tactic that Trump deploys regularly. As soon as he’s established a beachhead with an argument, he pushes it further. Here, he takes his assertion that Mueller found no collusion and uses that to make a broader claim: Russia’s efforts to work with his campaign were “rebuffed at every turn.”
It seems like Mueller was writing for the same America that Obama thought would do the right thing.
posted by petebest at 1:16 PM on May 3, 2019 [8 favorites]
CBS News, John Kelly joins board of company operating largest shelter for unaccompanied migrant children
posted by zachlipton at 1:20 PM on May 3, 2019 [46 favorites]
In April, protesters outside the nation's largest facility for unaccompanied migrant children noticed a familiar face enter the massive, fenced site in Homestead, Florida: former White House chief of staff John Kelly. Soon after, a local television station recorded footage of him riding on the back of a golf cart as he toured the grounds.The cruelty may be the point, but why not profit from it while you're there?
It wasn't clear why he was there, but Friday, Caliburn International confirmed to CBS News that Kelly had joined its board of directors. Caliburn is the parent company of Comprehensive Health Services, which operates Homestead and three other shelters for unaccompanied migrant children in Texas.
Prior to joining the Trump administration in January 2017, Kelly had been on the board of advisors of DC Capital Partners, an investment firm that now owns Caliburn.
posted by zachlipton at 1:20 PM on May 3, 2019 [46 favorites]
Deblasio too? Wtf? We talked a lot about the 'gop clown car' last time around. Now we have our very own. It's past the point of ridiculous...still, I'll vote for whoever gets the D nom.
posted by j_curiouser at 1:24 PM on May 3, 2019 [7 favorites]
posted by j_curiouser at 1:24 PM on May 3, 2019 [7 favorites]
The day after Iowa is going to be an absolute bloodbath when 70% of this stupid field gets 0-1%.
posted by T.D. Strange at 1:35 PM on May 3, 2019 [14 favorites]
posted by T.D. Strange at 1:35 PM on May 3, 2019 [14 favorites]
I think it's that as more people enter the race, the race becomes more unstable, which means more people have the potential to grab a high enough percentage of the vote to be considered "top tier", and then if they don't fuck it up with some gaffe They Too will be the next President of the United States.
I'm not saying that Joe Hickenkerry or whoever is acting out of pure self-interest -- but naturally one considers one's own political positions (and perhaps even personal attributes of character) the most beneficial to the nation; and so one seizes, bravely, the opportunity to serve his country.
posted by tivalasvegas at 1:41 PM on May 3, 2019 [4 favorites]
I'm not saying that Joe Hickenkerry or whoever is acting out of pure self-interest -- but naturally one considers one's own political positions (and perhaps even personal attributes of character) the most beneficial to the nation; and so one seizes, bravely, the opportunity to serve his country.
posted by tivalasvegas at 1:41 PM on May 3, 2019 [4 favorites]
Yeah plus if they are looking to boost their profiles nationally, tap into money and talent streams, etc, a Quixotic run for the nomination isn't a terrible idea (for them that is).
posted by notyou at 1:44 PM on May 3, 2019 [2 favorites]
posted by notyou at 1:44 PM on May 3, 2019 [2 favorites]
They Too will be the next President of the United States.
The Pod Save guys talked about this some yesterday. The whole idea that Trump came out of nowhere to win, and therefore “any moron can win, just look at Trump!” was always wrong. Trump led in 2012 when he flirted with a run at the height of his birtherism. He led from the moment he entered 2016 till winning the nomination. The Republican Party was quite literally slavvering at the promise of an overt white power campaign led by Trump, the TV guy with 100% ID and absolutely committed to a white supremacist message from the beginning. They’d been begging for it for decades, and until Trump had been twarted by the Bushes and Reagans always saying the quiet parts quiet. They wanted the real thing, freebase white supremacy, and they wanted it desperately.
There’s no democratic corollary. There’s no path for a Moulton or a Hickenlooper or a Ryan to come in at 1% and suddenly win the nomination because “anyone can win”. That’s not what happened at all.
posted by T.D. Strange at 2:05 PM on May 3, 2019 [42 favorites]
The Pod Save guys talked about this some yesterday. The whole idea that Trump came out of nowhere to win, and therefore “any moron can win, just look at Trump!” was always wrong. Trump led in 2012 when he flirted with a run at the height of his birtherism. He led from the moment he entered 2016 till winning the nomination. The Republican Party was quite literally slavvering at the promise of an overt white power campaign led by Trump, the TV guy with 100% ID and absolutely committed to a white supremacist message from the beginning. They’d been begging for it for decades, and until Trump had been twarted by the Bushes and Reagans always saying the quiet parts quiet. They wanted the real thing, freebase white supremacy, and they wanted it desperately.
There’s no democratic corollary. There’s no path for a Moulton or a Hickenlooper or a Ryan to come in at 1% and suddenly win the nomination because “anyone can win”. That’s not what happened at all.
posted by T.D. Strange at 2:05 PM on May 3, 2019 [42 favorites]
The silver lining of the clown-car thing is that it signals in-depth polling says the same thing as a look at the public data -- that Donald Trump is enormously vulnerable in the general election so if you want to be president this is a good time to try. The mirror image of the reason there were so many GOP candidates three years ago but very few Dems. Hopefully whoever comes out of this will run a better campaign than Trump, though, because they won't have vote suppression and foreign interference leaning on the scales.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 2:09 PM on May 3, 2019 [3 favorites]
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 2:09 PM on May 3, 2019 [3 favorites]
Are these people going to leave when the writing is on the wall, or are they going to cause problems from the sidelines, though?
posted by Selena777 at 2:29 PM on May 3, 2019 [6 favorites]
posted by Selena777 at 2:29 PM on May 3, 2019 [6 favorites]
If you wondered whether misogyny was a Big Thing in 2016 (which of couse you didn't wonder since it was so obvious) these numbers from yesterday's CNN poll should answer your question:
posted by Justinian at 2:32 PM on May 3, 2019 [38 favorites]
Head-to-head @CNN 2020 poll among whites without a college degree: Trump +13% over Biden Trump +15% over Buttigieg Trump +16% over O'Rourke Trump +17% over Sanders Trump +28% over Harris Trump +34% over Warren Trump +37% over Clinton '16How much more blatant could it get? Non-college whites are between +13 and +17 for Trump for the four white dudes and between +28% and +37% for Trump with regard to the highest polling women (inc Clinton in '16). Seriously, what other explanation is there?
posted by Justinian at 2:32 PM on May 3, 2019 [38 favorites]
How bad do we need non-college whites? Because it seems like they exist to be flattered and fawned over by the Democrats, but are we safe telling them "Fine, you don't like us, well we don't like you and we refuse to try and cater to your sexist, racist whims?" Because unless we need those non-college whites, then we can just flip them the finger and run Harris and/or Warren anyway.
I wonder if it's because of this chasing after the uneducated white unicorn that there seems to be White Guy Pheromones sprayed out into the Democratic race, attracting them from miles around.
posted by Rosie M. Banks at 2:39 PM on May 3, 2019 [27 favorites]
I wonder if it's because of this chasing after the uneducated white unicorn that there seems to be White Guy Pheromones sprayed out into the Democratic race, attracting them from miles around.
posted by Rosie M. Banks at 2:39 PM on May 3, 2019 [27 favorites]
@maggieNYT: Per pool: "Yes, Trump did say that when he talked to Putin about the Mueller report and Russian meddling, Putin 'sort of smiled' before he called it 'a mountain' that 'ended up being a mouse.'"
So here's the weird thing about that, besides the part where it's all weird and awful. Russia's state news agency released a photo that's supposedly of Putin on the call. It doesn't look like a video chat. So Trump's now just inventing body language for Putin?
posted by zachlipton at 2:41 PM on May 3, 2019 [15 favorites]
So here's the weird thing about that, besides the part where it's all weird and awful. Russia's state news agency released a photo that's supposedly of Putin on the call. It doesn't look like a video chat. So Trump's now just inventing body language for Putin?
posted by zachlipton at 2:41 PM on May 3, 2019 [15 favorites]
Today, I went on the FBI tour with my kid’s school group. The new self-guided tour is very shiny and heavily loaded towards recruiting. I was disgusted at the constant encompassing about the agency’s dedication to integrity and Constitutional values given Comey’s actions as Director. It feels like the place is a cult, not a law-enforcement agency. Deeply uncomfortable experience all around. My take-home is that the FBI learned nothing from 2016.
posted by wintermind at 2:43 PM on May 3, 2019 [15 favorites]
posted by wintermind at 2:43 PM on May 3, 2019 [15 favorites]
So Trump's now just inventing body language for Putin?
That's not actually that weird, considering literally everything Trump says is made up. It's like the people who come up to him crying and shaking his hand and calling him "sir" and thanking him for Making America Great Again. I guess in this instance, the weird thing is he's talking about an actual person.
posted by Roommate at 2:55 PM on May 3, 2019 [9 favorites]
That's not actually that weird, considering literally everything Trump says is made up. It's like the people who come up to him crying and shaking his hand and calling him "sir" and thanking him for Making America Great Again. I guess in this instance, the weird thing is he's talking about an actual person.
posted by Roommate at 2:55 PM on May 3, 2019 [9 favorites]
are we safe telling them "Fine, you don't like us, well we don't like you
I don't think anything about our present situation is safe, and I don't feel comfortable telling any large group of voters to take a hike, even if they may piss me off in some way. And the thing about the White Working Class is that there are a lot of them in the upper midwest, and thanks to the electoral college it's hard to win the presidency without winning the upper midwest.
I like Klobuchar and Harris and their devasting prosecutorial logic, I like Warren and her sheer exuberant nerdiness. But if people in Ohio and Wisconsin and Pennsylvania insist that we must have a white man as president, I... I can be okay with that... as long as said white man does not actually hate women. Please?
I think a lot of people are in that bargaining mood now, hence the Biden/Sanders polling numbers. (I don't quite understand why it has to be such an OLD white man, though. Some others must agree with that too, hence Mayor Pete's polling numbers, I guess. Geez, I like all these people, just anyone but Trump, okay?)
posted by OnceUponATime at 3:01 PM on May 3, 2019 [6 favorites]
I don't think anything about our present situation is safe, and I don't feel comfortable telling any large group of voters to take a hike, even if they may piss me off in some way. And the thing about the White Working Class is that there are a lot of them in the upper midwest, and thanks to the electoral college it's hard to win the presidency without winning the upper midwest.
I like Klobuchar and Harris and their devasting prosecutorial logic, I like Warren and her sheer exuberant nerdiness. But if people in Ohio and Wisconsin and Pennsylvania insist that we must have a white man as president, I... I can be okay with that... as long as said white man does not actually hate women. Please?
I think a lot of people are in that bargaining mood now, hence the Biden/Sanders polling numbers. (I don't quite understand why it has to be such an OLD white man, though. Some others must agree with that too, hence Mayor Pete's polling numbers, I guess. Geez, I like all these people, just anyone but Trump, okay?)
posted by OnceUponATime at 3:01 PM on May 3, 2019 [6 favorites]
these numbers from yesterday's CNN poll
Is there a link to the poll itself? All I could find on CNN was this one which said most of the Dems would beat Turmp (that was across all respondents).
@CNN: "President Trump and Senate Republicans celebrated a milestone when they confirmed their 100th judge appointed by Trump, leaving a significant imprint on the judicial branch that could last for decades after Trump leaves office"
Allegations remain in forefront for Kavanaugh, 7 months after his confirmation
Three days later at the White House, the President apologized to Kavanaugh for the hearing ordeal and said, as the other eight justices sat in the audience, that Kavanaugh had been "proven innocent."
That sounds really familiar. A damning report occurs and he claims innocence in a way that's so disconnected from reality it's remarkable? Is it possible Turmp is suffering from a severe disorder?
posted by petebest at 3:05 PM on May 3, 2019 [5 favorites]
Is there a link to the poll itself? All I could find on CNN was this one which said most of the Dems would beat Turmp (that was across all respondents).
@CNN: "President Trump and Senate Republicans celebrated a milestone when they confirmed their 100th judge appointed by Trump, leaving a significant imprint on the judicial branch that could last for decades after Trump leaves office"
Allegations remain in forefront for Kavanaugh, 7 months after his confirmation
Three days later at the White House, the President apologized to Kavanaugh for the hearing ordeal and said, as the other eight justices sat in the audience, that Kavanaugh had been "proven innocent."
That sounds really familiar. A damning report occurs and he claims innocence in a way that's so disconnected from reality it's remarkable? Is it possible Turmp is suffering from a severe disorder?
posted by petebest at 3:05 PM on May 3, 2019 [5 favorites]
How bad do we need non-college whites?
I don't know the answer, but here are some numbers to put things in context and suggest that they are probably an expensive/lost cause:
58.1% of ~138M eligible voters voted in the 2016 federal election. That leaves 41.9% (~100M) who could be encouraged to vote.
Of that 58.1%, 46.1% voted for Trump, or 63M voters. Of those 63M voters, 63% were white and had no college education (40M).
Democrats would have to make decisions where to allocate resources: To go after 40M former Trump voters who are white and lack a college education. Or encourage the pool of 100M potential voters to choose Dems over nothing. Or they could do both, depending on factors.
It would probably help to break things down further by swing state categories, to know how important those 40M Trump voters are, compared with the 100M non-voters.
Going after non-voters in states that are reliably Dem probably does not make sense, for instance.
Also, how much more difficult is it (how much more expensive is it, and what about your platform would have to change) to convert a Trump voter to a non-Trump voter, or a non-voter to a Dem voter, etc.
It might be easier and cheaper to convince a non-voter to vote with a better platform (push for single-payer healthcare, tuition reform, infrastructure) than to change to platform away from progressive ideals, in order to make it friendlier to a Trump voter (lock children in cages, build a wall, take away abortion rights, etc.), which would lose some Dem voters.
I guess this is why the political parties hire statisticians, to model these things and offer actionable, decision-making guidance.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 3:10 PM on May 3, 2019 [5 favorites]
I don't know the answer, but here are some numbers to put things in context and suggest that they are probably an expensive/lost cause:
58.1% of ~138M eligible voters voted in the 2016 federal election. That leaves 41.9% (~100M) who could be encouraged to vote.
Of that 58.1%, 46.1% voted for Trump, or 63M voters. Of those 63M voters, 63% were white and had no college education (40M).
Democrats would have to make decisions where to allocate resources: To go after 40M former Trump voters who are white and lack a college education. Or encourage the pool of 100M potential voters to choose Dems over nothing. Or they could do both, depending on factors.
It would probably help to break things down further by swing state categories, to know how important those 40M Trump voters are, compared with the 100M non-voters.
Going after non-voters in states that are reliably Dem probably does not make sense, for instance.
Also, how much more difficult is it (how much more expensive is it, and what about your platform would have to change) to convert a Trump voter to a non-Trump voter, or a non-voter to a Dem voter, etc.
It might be easier and cheaper to convince a non-voter to vote with a better platform (push for single-payer healthcare, tuition reform, infrastructure) than to change to platform away from progressive ideals, in order to make it friendlier to a Trump voter (lock children in cages, build a wall, take away abortion rights, etc.), which would lose some Dem voters.
I guess this is why the political parties hire statisticians, to model these things and offer actionable, decision-making guidance.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 3:10 PM on May 3, 2019 [5 favorites]
Jobs report reported by CNBC, put out by the labor department.
I just thought of something. The jobs rate seems to be rising no matter what nonsense Trump tries to pull regarding trade. Is that weird? Are the tax cuts/Obama recovery enough to account for that?
posted by ishmael at 3:12 PM on May 3, 2019 [3 favorites]
I just thought of something. The jobs rate seems to be rising no matter what nonsense Trump tries to pull regarding trade. Is that weird? Are the tax cuts/Obama recovery enough to account for that?
posted by ishmael at 3:12 PM on May 3, 2019 [3 favorites]
Trump claims Russia’s outreach was ‘rebuffed at every turn,’ which is the opposite of true
We really need to come up with a word for "the opposite of true"
Think about what a boon it would be to communication for one thing
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 3:36 PM on May 3, 2019 [10 favorites]
We really need to come up with a word for "the opposite of true"
Think about what a boon it would be to communication for one thing
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 3:36 PM on May 3, 2019 [10 favorites]
The jobs rate seems to be rising no matter what nonsense Trump tries to pull regarding trade. Is that weird? Are the tax cuts/Obama recovery enough to account for that?
It's because we're deficit spending like a motherfucker. You know, exactly the thing Republicans prevented Obama from doing after the Great Recession. Because they were sabotaging him and by extension the American people.
The thing is... you want to spend money like its water to pull out of a bad economy. Doing so now at more or less full employment is insane. Luckily there was clearly still a lot of slack so we're not seeing inflation and a lot of the fears about that have been badly overblown by rich economists who like high interest rates. But even so; massive deficit spending during a boom and austerity during a recession is precisely backwards if your goal is a sustainable economy. If your goal is to destroy Obama and prop up Trump, well, then carry on.
posted by Justinian at 3:37 PM on May 3, 2019 [32 favorites]
It's because we're deficit spending like a motherfucker. You know, exactly the thing Republicans prevented Obama from doing after the Great Recession. Because they were sabotaging him and by extension the American people.
The thing is... you want to spend money like its water to pull out of a bad economy. Doing so now at more or less full employment is insane. Luckily there was clearly still a lot of slack so we're not seeing inflation and a lot of the fears about that have been badly overblown by rich economists who like high interest rates. But even so; massive deficit spending during a boom and austerity during a recession is precisely backwards if your goal is a sustainable economy. If your goal is to destroy Obama and prop up Trump, well, then carry on.
posted by Justinian at 3:37 PM on May 3, 2019 [32 favorites]
One salient bit of the CNBC piece, with respect to the unemployment rate at least:
While last month’s slump in the jobless rate came with strong increase in hiring, it also was helped along by a sharp decline in the labor force of 490,000. That brought the labor force participation rate down to 62.8%, exactly where it was a year ago.posted by XMLicious at 3:45 PM on May 3, 2019 [8 favorites]
A broader unemployment gauge that includes those who have quit looking for jobs as well as the underemployed held at 7.3%, where it has been since February.
Those counted as not in the labor force surged by 646,000 to a fresh high of 96.2 million.
Another data point in support of the "Republicans don't intend to have fair elections in 2020" argument: Florida’s Republican Legislature Votes to Nullify Popular Ballot Initiative Enfranchising Former Felons
I would quibble with the headline wording a bit (maybe "votes to effectively nullify" as it doesn't completely reverse the ballot initiative) but it is clearly meant to thwart the popular measure that Florida voters passed in 2018.
posted by Nerd of the North at 3:49 PM on May 3, 2019 [5 favorites]
I would quibble with the headline wording a bit (maybe "votes to effectively nullify" as it doesn't completely reverse the ballot initiative) but it is clearly meant to thwart the popular measure that Florida voters passed in 2018.
posted by Nerd of the North at 3:49 PM on May 3, 2019 [5 favorites]
I'm sure there's time to gather signatures to put another initiative together to nullify that. Plus voting them out as anti-democratic.
posted by rhizome at 3:53 PM on May 3, 2019 [3 favorites]
posted by rhizome at 3:53 PM on May 3, 2019 [3 favorites]
Journos could change the whole unemployment dialog by simply reporting U6 first, then U3.
posted by j_curiouser at 4:00 PM on May 3, 2019 [10 favorites]
posted by j_curiouser at 4:00 PM on May 3, 2019 [10 favorites]
Is there a link to the poll itself? All I could find on CNN was this one which said most of the Dems would beat Turmp (that was across all respondents).
That appears to be the right link. I'm not sure which numbers you're looking for? If you scroll down you can find all the head to heads and crosstabs and such.
posted by Justinian at 4:20 PM on May 3, 2019
That appears to be the right link. I'm not sure which numbers you're looking for? If you scroll down you can find all the head to heads and crosstabs and such.
posted by Justinian at 4:20 PM on May 3, 2019
How bad do we need non-college whites?
Well, there's a problem. We don't need them and can write them off if we are trying to win a national popular vote. But we aren't trying to win a popular vote, we're trying to win the electoral college. And until we can reliably flip Texas or Florida+Arizona+probably one more state we need to win in PA, WI, MI. And non-college whites are greatly overrepresented in those states.
So we either can't lose non college whites by 30+ points or we need a Sun Belt path to 270 which as of yet has not reliably materialized.
posted by Justinian at 4:24 PM on May 3, 2019 [9 favorites]
Well, there's a problem. We don't need them and can write them off if we are trying to win a national popular vote. But we aren't trying to win a popular vote, we're trying to win the electoral college. And until we can reliably flip Texas or Florida+Arizona+probably one more state we need to win in PA, WI, MI. And non-college whites are greatly overrepresented in those states.
So we either can't lose non college whites by 30+ points or we need a Sun Belt path to 270 which as of yet has not reliably materialized.
posted by Justinian at 4:24 PM on May 3, 2019 [9 favorites]
The day after Iowa is going to be an absolute bloodbath when 70% of this stupid field gets 0-1%.
Nah gotta go to New Hampshire and then you'll see the field down to 4
posted by 922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a at 4:47 PM on May 3, 2019 [1 favorite]
Nah gotta go to New Hampshire and then you'll see the field down to 4
posted by 922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a at 4:47 PM on May 3, 2019 [1 favorite]
I reiterate that DC really needs to be a first-three primary for Democrats, since it neatly captures a completely urban, majority-minority demographic that expresses different preferences than Iowa and New Hampshire. Iowa and NH are relatively predictive for the GOP for what the base wants, but can be out-of-sync for the Dems because the Iowa Democratic electorate doesn't look a ton like the national Democratic electorate. I'd like to keep the value that Iowa and NH provide, but add DC right there at the top to poll an urban, minority electorate very early on and boost candidates who appeal to that part (i.e., the majority) of the Democratic base.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 4:57 PM on May 3, 2019 [28 favorites]
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 4:57 PM on May 3, 2019 [28 favorites]
That appears to be the right link.
So it is, I wasn't seeing the college breakouts. What's up with this?
Warren:
Non college grad: -6
college grad: +10
White college grad: -5
Harris:
Non college grad: -5
college grad: +22
White college grad: +9
Some kind of East-coast West-coast thing?
posted by petebest at 5:43 PM on May 3, 2019 [2 favorites]
So it is, I wasn't seeing the college breakouts. What's up with this?
Warren:
Non college grad: -6
college grad: +10
White college grad: -5
Harris:
Non college grad: -5
college grad: +22
White college grad: +9
Some kind of East-coast West-coast thing?
posted by petebest at 5:43 PM on May 3, 2019 [2 favorites]
It's early. A lot of people still think Warren and Hillary are the same person.
I've got to say, I am so impressed by Warren. I still have some concerns about her electability, but every time I turn around I find her working on something. Actually working on something. Herself. Doing the kind of work congress won't and the other candidates can't.
posted by xammerboy at 6:47 PM on May 3, 2019 [34 favorites]
I've got to say, I am so impressed by Warren. I still have some concerns about her electability, but every time I turn around I find her working on something. Actually working on something. Herself. Doing the kind of work congress won't and the other candidates can't.
posted by xammerboy at 6:47 PM on May 3, 2019 [34 favorites]
WaPo, Trump’s bipartisan infrastructure plan already imperiled as Mulvaney, GOP lawmakers object to cost, in which Republicans ask "How are we going to pay for this?," a question they never once uttered when they were racing to hand out tax cuts to the rich.
posted by zachlipton at 6:58 PM on May 3, 2019 [17 favorites]
A $2 trillion infrastructure deal outlined this week by President Trump and top Democrats is already losing momentum, as the president’s own chief of staff is telling people inside and outside the administration that the effort is too expensive and unlikely to succeed.Capital Public Radio, The Trump Administration Stopped Working On California’s High-Speed Rail Project Last Year. Now, It’s Not Even Talking With The State.
The Trump administration has cut off all communication and cooperation with the California High-Speed Rail Authority — including freezing all environmental review, engineering and safety work dating back to last year — which the state says is putting the already embattled project at risk of further delays and cost increases.I hope everyone had a great infrastructure week!
“This disengagement by the [Federal Railroad Administration] represents an unprecedented federal government action to cripple the advancement of a project it has helped fund,” the Authority wrote in its project update report released Wednesday.
posted by zachlipton at 6:58 PM on May 3, 2019 [17 favorites]
According to data from the Pew Research Center, white people without a college degree make up 33% of the Democratic party. Non-white people people without a college degree make up an additional 28%. Together that's about 60% of the party.
I think some of you should stop to consider for a moment there may not be much overlap between working-class Democrats, including white working-class Democrats, who'll vote in the Democratic primaries and people who voted for Trump. Maybe you'd consider that talking about access to health care and other issues that working-class people care about, and that directly impact us, like Warren, Harris and other Democratic candidates have been doing might be different from 'pandering to racist Trump voters', as almost everyone in this thread has claimed.
posted by nangar at 7:20 PM on May 3, 2019 [9 favorites]
I think some of you should stop to consider for a moment there may not be much overlap between working-class Democrats, including white working-class Democrats, who'll vote in the Democratic primaries and people who voted for Trump. Maybe you'd consider that talking about access to health care and other issues that working-class people care about, and that directly impact us, like Warren, Harris and other Democratic candidates have been doing might be different from 'pandering to racist Trump voters', as almost everyone in this thread has claimed.
posted by nangar at 7:20 PM on May 3, 2019 [9 favorites]
Coincidencial?
Meet The New Uranium One. Same As The Old Uranium One. (Wonkette)
Were you wondering if the media has figured out how to deal with bad faith Republican attacks since the 2016 debacle? They have not! The GOP spinmeisters put their heads together and came up with a spiffy new Uranium One lie for 2020 -- oh, let's call it UKRAINIUM ONE -- and the "liberal" New York Times happily ran right off after it. Yeah, it's going to be another shitshow.
In the old version of this story, Hillary Clinton was a peripheral participant in a 2010 decision involving half a dozen other government agencies. A donor to the Clinton Foundation derived some marginal benefit from the decision. Well not really, since the donor, Frank Giustra, had sold his shares in Uranium One in 2007. But wingnut smear merchant Peter Schweizer was only too happy to crop out all the annoying details in his Mercer-funded book Clinton Cash (made into a film by Steve Bannon), wherein he pretended that Hillary Clinton had sold America's uranium supply to Russia to benefit a wealthy donor.
In the new version of this story, a coalition of western allies demanded that Ukraine fire its corrupt prosecutor Viktor Shokin in 2016 ... Then-Vice President Joe Biden threatened to withhold $1 billion of US aid if Shokin wasn't fired ... At the time, the New York Times fretted that Biden's message was "undercut" because his son Hunter Biden was on the board of Burisma, a Ukrainian natural gas company ... But now Rudy Giuliani is cranking up the GOP bullshit machine, and the Times is only too happy to play the Schweizer and pretend that Joe Biden forced Ukraine to fire good, honest Viktor Shokin to benefit his own son.
Yay the NYT's stellar election coverage begins again. The good news is, I suppose, that the GOP doesn't have to invade a country under false pretenses to get the stories they want planted. Which is nice.
posted by petebest at 7:33 PM on May 3, 2019 [7 favorites]
Meet The New Uranium One. Same As The Old Uranium One. (Wonkette)
Were you wondering if the media has figured out how to deal with bad faith Republican attacks since the 2016 debacle? They have not! The GOP spinmeisters put their heads together and came up with a spiffy new Uranium One lie for 2020 -- oh, let's call it UKRAINIUM ONE -- and the "liberal" New York Times happily ran right off after it. Yeah, it's going to be another shitshow.
In the old version of this story, Hillary Clinton was a peripheral participant in a 2010 decision involving half a dozen other government agencies. A donor to the Clinton Foundation derived some marginal benefit from the decision. Well not really, since the donor, Frank Giustra, had sold his shares in Uranium One in 2007. But wingnut smear merchant Peter Schweizer was only too happy to crop out all the annoying details in his Mercer-funded book Clinton Cash (made into a film by Steve Bannon), wherein he pretended that Hillary Clinton had sold America's uranium supply to Russia to benefit a wealthy donor.
In the new version of this story, a coalition of western allies demanded that Ukraine fire its corrupt prosecutor Viktor Shokin in 2016 ... Then-Vice President Joe Biden threatened to withhold $1 billion of US aid if Shokin wasn't fired ... At the time, the New York Times fretted that Biden's message was "undercut" because his son Hunter Biden was on the board of Burisma, a Ukrainian natural gas company ... But now Rudy Giuliani is cranking up the GOP bullshit machine, and the Times is only too happy to play the Schweizer and pretend that Joe Biden forced Ukraine to fire good, honest Viktor Shokin to benefit his own son.
Yay the NYT's stellar election coverage begins again. The good news is, I suppose, that the GOP doesn't have to invade a country under false pretenses to get the stories they want planted. Which is nice.
posted by petebest at 7:33 PM on May 3, 2019 [7 favorites]
Some kind of East-coast West-coast thing?
I couldn't readily find any breakdown for non-white voters in that data (which seems like it would be important to have), but a lot of the media that college-grad voters are more likely to consume has focused on Harris's (deserved) reputation as a prosecutorial badass, particularly in recent hearings, and I suspect that's responsible for at least some of her positive buzz. The media coverage of Warren, until quite recently, had largely focused on her poor handling of her ancestry issue and the subsequent DNA debacle.
Pure anecdata, but when I have talked to white-identified college-educated people about the primaries, they have often been negative on Warren and some have directly cited that issue as why. My sample size is small, but still.
posted by halation at 7:58 PM on May 3, 2019 [1 favorite]
I couldn't readily find any breakdown for non-white voters in that data (which seems like it would be important to have), but a lot of the media that college-grad voters are more likely to consume has focused on Harris's (deserved) reputation as a prosecutorial badass, particularly in recent hearings, and I suspect that's responsible for at least some of her positive buzz. The media coverage of Warren, until quite recently, had largely focused on her poor handling of her ancestry issue and the subsequent DNA debacle.
Pure anecdata, but when I have talked to white-identified college-educated people about the primaries, they have often been negative on Warren and some have directly cited that issue as why. My sample size is small, but still.
posted by halation at 7:58 PM on May 3, 2019 [1 favorite]
I hope everyone had a great infrastructure week!
From the WaPo article zachlipton posted:
From the WaPo article zachlipton posted:
Trump also grew frustrated when the idea of “Infrastructure Week” became a running joke symbolizing the disorganization of his White House, current and former aides said. Trump actually wanted to embark on such an effort, seeing it as a populist idea key to his reelection chances, they said, and thought the government could make money from toll roads.posted by scalefree at 8:01 PM on May 3, 2019 [22 favorites]
According to data from the Pew Research Center, white people without a college degree make up 33% of the Democratic party. Non-white people people without a college degree make up an additional 28%. Together that's about 60% of the party.
This shouldn't be surprising. 66% of adults in the U.S. are not college graduates. I think people here tend to vastly over-estimate the constituency for free college as the most important issue for Democrats.
posted by JackFlash at 8:09 PM on May 3, 2019 [8 favorites]
This shouldn't be surprising. 66% of adults in the U.S. are not college graduates. I think people here tend to vastly over-estimate the constituency for free college as the most important issue for Democrats.
posted by JackFlash at 8:09 PM on May 3, 2019 [8 favorites]
List of countries by tertiary education attainment
Is a sad sad testament to the frequency of college degrees. You would think this would be an issue.
posted by Bovine Love at 8:19 PM on May 3, 2019
Is a sad sad testament to the frequency of college degrees. You would think this would be an issue.
posted by Bovine Love at 8:19 PM on May 3, 2019
66% of adults in the U.S. are not college graduates. I think people here tend to vastly over-estimate the constituency for free college as the most important issue for Democrats.
But almost 60% of Americans have completed at least "some college," and any amount of college (or trade school, or any kind of post-secondary program) is enough to end up with student loan debt. Arguably, those who have attended college but not graduated are hit hardest by the costs. It may not be "the most important issue," but educational debt has a direct and serious affect on the lives of many, and on their partners, and their kids.
posted by halation at 8:22 PM on May 3, 2019 [23 favorites]
But almost 60% of Americans have completed at least "some college," and any amount of college (or trade school, or any kind of post-secondary program) is enough to end up with student loan debt. Arguably, those who have attended college but not graduated are hit hardest by the costs. It may not be "the most important issue," but educational debt has a direct and serious affect on the lives of many, and on their partners, and their kids.
posted by halation at 8:22 PM on May 3, 2019 [23 favorites]
Also, you don't have to have gone to college to have educational debt, due to the growing number of parents who are taking out PLUS loans.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 8:57 PM on May 3, 2019 [6 favorites]
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 8:57 PM on May 3, 2019 [6 favorites]
Thousands of past due “medical bills” drop in Kansas Statehouse calling out Senate leadership blocking Medicaid expansion.
Hundreds of Kansans will likely die if they adjourn and wait yet another year to expand healthcare coverage.
posted by The Whelk at 10:20 PM on May 3, 2019 [8 favorites]
Hundreds of Kansans will likely die if they adjourn and wait yet another year to expand healthcare coverage.
posted by The Whelk at 10:20 PM on May 3, 2019 [8 favorites]
College is one of the very few interventions after childhood that seems to change political beliefs in a significant way. Free college may or may not be an electoral winner for Democrats in the short term, but it certainly should be in the long term.
posted by chortly at 10:34 PM on May 3, 2019 [19 favorites]
posted by chortly at 10:34 PM on May 3, 2019 [19 favorites]
thought the government could make money from toll roads
Look who is all pro-taxes now! Sorry, I mean "tolls". Thinking you can meaningfully fund the federal government by toll roads... what century is his addled brain in?
posted by BungaDunga at 10:46 PM on May 3, 2019 [1 favorite]
Look who is all pro-taxes now! Sorry, I mean "tolls". Thinking you can meaningfully fund the federal government by toll roads... what century is his addled brain in?
posted by BungaDunga at 10:46 PM on May 3, 2019 [1 favorite]
I guess this worked out politically. All the Democrat candidates can now run against infrastructure obstructing Republicans. Might be a good reason to vote for a different Senator.
posted by xammerboy at 11:00 PM on May 3, 2019 [2 favorites]
posted by xammerboy at 11:00 PM on May 3, 2019 [2 favorites]
More educated people are good for the economy.
posted by mumimor at 1:21 AM on May 4, 2019 [3 favorites]
posted by mumimor at 1:21 AM on May 4, 2019 [3 favorites]
Shouldn't the college thing get it's own thread? I'm ambivalent about the plan(s) myself, but this is headed to derail territory if it gets anymore involved.
posted by gusottertrout at 1:37 AM on May 4, 2019 [3 favorites]
posted by gusottertrout at 1:37 AM on May 4, 2019 [3 favorites]
Trump also grew frustrated when the idea of “Infrastructure Week” became a running joke symbolizing the disorganization of his White House...
But infrastructure is haaaard.
@realDonaldTrump
There is nothing easy about a USA Infrastructure Plan, especially when our great Country has spent an astounding 7 trillion dollars in the Middle East over the last 19 years, but I am looking hard at a bipartisan plan of 1 to 2 trillion dollars. Badly needed!
—
He’s also posted a ton of tweets/retweets about right wing extremists getting banned from Facebook, including several retweets of Infowars videos and people, and a retweet of overt white supremacist Laura Southern, who is literally banned from the UK for being such an inciting racist.
Plus a plug for one of his golf courses and a threat to the media and the people who investigated him.
So a normal Saturday morning in America.
posted by chris24 at 6:24 AM on May 4, 2019 [19 favorites]
But infrastructure is haaaard.
@realDonaldTrump
There is nothing easy about a USA Infrastructure Plan, especially when our great Country has spent an astounding 7 trillion dollars in the Middle East over the last 19 years, but I am looking hard at a bipartisan plan of 1 to 2 trillion dollars. Badly needed!
—
He’s also posted a ton of tweets/retweets about right wing extremists getting banned from Facebook, including several retweets of Infowars videos and people, and a retweet of overt white supremacist Laura Southern, who is literally banned from the UK for being such an inciting racist.
Plus a plug for one of his golf courses and a threat to the media and the people who investigated him.
So a normal Saturday morning in America.
posted by chris24 at 6:24 AM on May 4, 2019 [19 favorites]
spent an astounding 7 trillion dollars in the Middle East over the last 19 years
This guy just vetoed a bill to stop spending money helping the Saudis destroy Yemen.
posted by OnceUponATime at 7:23 AM on May 4, 2019 [21 favorites]
This guy just vetoed a bill to stop spending money helping the Saudis destroy Yemen.
posted by OnceUponATime at 7:23 AM on May 4, 2019 [21 favorites]
And the $7 trillion number is a lie. We’ve spent about $2T in Iraq and Afghanistan. About $3.6T if you include domestic spending related to it (veterans healthcare, benefits, Defense Department additions to handle the war, etc.). His number seemingly comes from a Brown Univ. study estimate of total costs of the Afghanistan/Iraq wars through 2050. And of course he even gets this wrong, because that study says $4-6T.
posted by chris24 at 7:31 AM on May 4, 2019 [9 favorites]
posted by chris24 at 7:31 AM on May 4, 2019 [9 favorites]
Shahid Buttar, Pelosi's 2020 primary challenger, has released his first ad. Looks to be a real campaign, hopefully one of hundreds.
We can't wait another 30 years for our leaders to evolve on climate change. Delay is no better than denial: the time for action was yesterday. America is the only advanced country in the world where getting sick can leave you homeless and where higher education buries people in debt for the rest of their lives. The only voices we need in congress are ones who will take action to fix that.
posted by Rust Moranis at 7:36 AM on May 4, 2019 [42 favorites]
We can't wait another 30 years for our leaders to evolve on climate change. Delay is no better than denial: the time for action was yesterday. America is the only advanced country in the world where getting sick can leave you homeless and where higher education buries people in debt for the rest of their lives. The only voices we need in congress are ones who will take action to fix that.
posted by Rust Moranis at 7:36 AM on May 4, 2019 [42 favorites]
Huh, the recent conservative outrage over Facebook censorship is really interesting. Have Russian bots been amplifying this message? I ask because somebody I know has gone down the right-wing rabbit hole, and two days ago they joined a group on Facebook whose stated purpose is to get 50,000-1,000,000 members and then for all of them to delete their FB profiles and migrate over to Vkontakte, the Russian social media site, because they allegedly don’t censor anybody (lol). The whole group, besides hardcore racist/white supremacist stuff, is posts about how Facebook is censoring conservatives, stereotypical talking points about “the elite” being in control of people’s data, etc., all the same shit Trump has just started posting about this morning.
posted by gucci mane at 8:01 AM on May 4, 2019 [17 favorites]
posted by gucci mane at 8:01 AM on May 4, 2019 [17 favorites]
Meamwhile, less than a week after Kim Jong Un met with Putin, North Korea test fired several short-range missiles into the Sea of Japan (BBC).
Trump, silent about this last night, finally tweeted his admiration of the NK leader, "Anything in this very interesting world is possible, but I believe that Kim Jong Un fully realizes the great economic potential of North Korea, & will do nothing to interfere or end it. He also knows that I am with him & does not want to break his promise to me. Deal will happen!" (Of course, Putin already discussed NK with Trump in their call, presumably telling Trump the party line to follow.)
Trump's twitter barrage in the past twenty-four hours seems as much like his attempt to distract himself from all the bad news that's coming down on his head as to deflect his base's attention from it.
posted by Doktor Zed at 8:57 AM on May 4, 2019 [3 favorites]
Trump, silent about this last night, finally tweeted his admiration of the NK leader, "Anything in this very interesting world is possible, but I believe that Kim Jong Un fully realizes the great economic potential of North Korea, & will do nothing to interfere or end it. He also knows that I am with him & does not want to break his promise to me. Deal will happen!" (Of course, Putin already discussed NK with Trump in their call, presumably telling Trump the party line to follow.)
Trump's twitter barrage in the past twenty-four hours seems as much like his attempt to distract himself from all the bad news that's coming down on his head as to deflect his base's attention from it.
posted by Doktor Zed at 8:57 AM on May 4, 2019 [3 favorites]
Huh, the recent conservative outrage over Facebook censorship is really interesting. Have Russian bots been amplifying this message?
Judd Legum
1. WTF is going on with Trump's social media accounts? Let me explain in plain English.
2. Social media is central to Trump's reelection strategy. He made the guy in charge of his 2016 social media strategy, @parscale, his 2020 campaign manager. Trump is spending 500K per week on Facebook and Google and he doesn't even have an opponent yet.
3. Trump's strategy on social media, particularly Facebook, involves him breaking all of the platform rules. They bragged about this last time -- suppressing African-American votes with fake information. This time they started targeting seniors w/fake promises about the border
4. But after all the criticism of 2016 Facebook is more sensitive now about how its platform is being used for elections. When I pointed out hundreds of rules violations by the Trump campaign, Facebook acted and took the ads down
5. This is what is unacceptable to Trump. He needs to be a VICTIM of Facebook censorship so that it's IMPOSSIBLE for Facebook to enforce their own rules
6. So Trump took a routine announcement by Facebook it was permanently banning several accounts that traffic in racism and conspiracy theories and made it a HUGE DEAL. It makes him the victim again. Facebook banned dozens of liberal last year on thinner grounds w/no fanfare
7. Trump's goal is to make Facebook's rules UNENFORCEABLE. In Trump's mind there is no difference between NBC and InfoWars and if Facebook tries to create one its CENSORSHIP. That's the political space he needs to operate.
8. The problem is that the media is complicit. There is almost no coverage of how Trump is spending money online. I'm filling in the gap w/my newsletter, Popular Information. I spend hours reviewing the Trump's social media ads
9. A big part of the problem is the social media company themselves. Twitter, Facebook and Google won't enforce their rules. They are scared are regulation and Trump is a very good customer. They have every incentive not to act.
10. In the meantime, what's happening online in advance of 2020 is shaping up to be even worse than 2016.
posted by chris24 at 9:09 AM on May 4, 2019 [66 favorites]
Judd Legum
1. WTF is going on with Trump's social media accounts? Let me explain in plain English.
2. Social media is central to Trump's reelection strategy. He made the guy in charge of his 2016 social media strategy, @parscale, his 2020 campaign manager. Trump is spending 500K per week on Facebook and Google and he doesn't even have an opponent yet.
3. Trump's strategy on social media, particularly Facebook, involves him breaking all of the platform rules. They bragged about this last time -- suppressing African-American votes with fake information. This time they started targeting seniors w/fake promises about the border
4. But after all the criticism of 2016 Facebook is more sensitive now about how its platform is being used for elections. When I pointed out hundreds of rules violations by the Trump campaign, Facebook acted and took the ads down
5. This is what is unacceptable to Trump. He needs to be a VICTIM of Facebook censorship so that it's IMPOSSIBLE for Facebook to enforce their own rules
6. So Trump took a routine announcement by Facebook it was permanently banning several accounts that traffic in racism and conspiracy theories and made it a HUGE DEAL. It makes him the victim again. Facebook banned dozens of liberal last year on thinner grounds w/no fanfare
7. Trump's goal is to make Facebook's rules UNENFORCEABLE. In Trump's mind there is no difference between NBC and InfoWars and if Facebook tries to create one its CENSORSHIP. That's the political space he needs to operate.
8. The problem is that the media is complicit. There is almost no coverage of how Trump is spending money online. I'm filling in the gap w/my newsletter, Popular Information. I spend hours reviewing the Trump's social media ads
9. A big part of the problem is the social media company themselves. Twitter, Facebook and Google won't enforce their rules. They are scared are regulation and Trump is a very good customer. They have every incentive not to act.
10. In the meantime, what's happening online in advance of 2020 is shaping up to be even worse than 2016.
posted by chris24 at 9:09 AM on May 4, 2019 [66 favorites]
"First they came for the white supremacists and I was silent objected because I was not am a white supremacist ..."
posted by JackFlash at 9:23 AM on May 4, 2019 [4 favorites]
posted by JackFlash at 9:23 AM on May 4, 2019 [4 favorites]
I particularly find the messaging of the group I mentioned suspicious because it deliberately names VK as the site they want to migrate too. I haven’t seen anything else mention VK, usually they all go to Gab.
posted by gucci mane at 9:42 AM on May 4, 2019 [3 favorites]
posted by gucci mane at 9:42 AM on May 4, 2019 [3 favorites]
Loony leftist update: mass uber/lyft strike planned for May 8th, workers ask that people not use rideshare apps on the day. Don’t cross the picket line!
posted by The Whelk at 9:53 AM on May 4, 2019 [17 favorites]
posted by The Whelk at 9:53 AM on May 4, 2019 [17 favorites]
Per the Daily News, it’s not all day:
“STRIKE STRIKE STRIKE!” the union tweeted Friday. “We are calling on all people of good conscience in NYC to log off of the apps (from) 7 AM to 9 AM Wednesday, May 8th to support our strike. Don’t use Uber, don’t use Lyft. Log off of all the apps! Support app drivers demanding job security and livable incomes!”
posted by chris24 at 10:07 AM on May 4, 2019 [7 favorites]
“STRIKE STRIKE STRIKE!” the union tweeted Friday. “We are calling on all people of good conscience in NYC to log off of the apps (from) 7 AM to 9 AM Wednesday, May 8th to support our strike. Don’t use Uber, don’t use Lyft. Log off of all the apps! Support app drivers demanding job security and livable incomes!”
posted by chris24 at 10:07 AM on May 4, 2019 [7 favorites]
She was taking notes on a criminal fuckin' conspiracy.
Watergate had the Nixon tapes. Mueller had Annie Donaldson’s notes.
Watergate had the Nixon tapes. Mueller had Annie Donaldson’s notes.
The notes, scribbled rapidly on a legal pad, captured the fear inside the White House when President Trump raged over the Russia investigation and decreed he was firing the FBI director who led it: “Is this the beginning of the end?”
The angst-filled entry is part of a shorthand diary that chronicled the chaotic days in Trump’s West Wing, a trove that the special counsel report cited more than 65 times as part of the evidence that the president sought to blunt a criminal investigation bearing down on him.
The public airing of the notes — which document then-White House counsel Donald McGahn’s contemporaneous account of events and his fear that the president was engaged in legally risky conduct — has infuriated Trump.
“Watch out for people that take so-called ‘notes,’ when the notes never existed until needed,” Trump tweeted a day after the release of special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s report.
The scribe keeping track of the president’s actions was Annie Donaldson, McGahn’s chief of staff, a loyal and low-profile conservative lawyer who figures in the Mueller report as one of the most important narrators of internal White House turmoil.
Her daily habit of documenting conversations and meetings provided the special counsel’s office with its version of the Nixon White House tapes: a running account of the president’s actions, albeit in sentence fragments and concise descriptions.posted by scalefree at 10:29 AM on May 4, 2019 [27 favorites]
thought the government could make money from toll roads
They can! if you ignore the actual maintaining the roads part.
posted by 922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a at 10:45 AM on May 4, 2019 [7 favorites]
They can! if you ignore the actual maintaining the roads part.
posted by 922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a at 10:45 AM on May 4, 2019 [7 favorites]
Pelosi Warns Democrats: Stay in the Center or Trump May Contest Election Results
Imagine thinking that Trump and the rest of the GOP won't call Biden a Maoist Third-Worldist anyway and wouldn't contest any election result not in their favor. That's assuming she's arguing in good faith, of course.
“Maybe he knows that I pray for him,” she shrugged. “I pray that his heart will be open for good things, to help people instead of taking babies out of the arms of their mothers, for example.”
Democrats 2020: Thoughts, Prayers, Shrugs.
posted by Rust Moranis at 11:26 AM on May 4, 2019 [24 favorites]
Imagine thinking that Trump and the rest of the GOP won't call Biden a Maoist Third-Worldist anyway and wouldn't contest any election result not in their favor. That's assuming she's arguing in good faith, of course.
“Maybe he knows that I pray for him,” she shrugged. “I pray that his heart will be open for good things, to help people instead of taking babies out of the arms of their mothers, for example.”
Democrats 2020: Thoughts, Prayers, Shrugs.
posted by Rust Moranis at 11:26 AM on May 4, 2019 [24 favorites]
Imagine thinking that Trump and the rest of the GOP won't call Biden a Maoist Third-Worldist anyway
Just yesterday...
CNBC: Mike Pence accuses centrist Joe Biden of ‘advocating a socialist agenda’ like other 2020 Democrats
posted by chris24 at 11:31 AM on May 4, 2019 [26 favorites]
Just yesterday...
CNBC: Mike Pence accuses centrist Joe Biden of ‘advocating a socialist agenda’ like other 2020 Democrats
posted by chris24 at 11:31 AM on May 4, 2019 [26 favorites]
NYT: Pelosi Warns Democrats: Stay in the Center or Trump May Contest Election Results
This is why you don't give your money to the NYT. They take words and twist them into their favorite "Democrats in Disarray" narrative. According to the article:
Speaker Nancy Pelosi does not believe President Trump can be removed through impeachment — the only way to do it, she said this week, is to defeat him in 2020 by a margin so “big” he cannot challenge the legitimacy of a Democratic victory.
The first part is objectively true. There is no way to successfully impeach Trump with a Republican majority in the Senate.
And the second part is arguably true. It is necessary to clobber Trump to remove his legitimacy. If things are close you can expect another 2000 Brooks Brothers Riot except with armed Nazis and with a Supreme Court even more favorable to Trump than last time.
So then the third, part is how to achieve a big victory and that is a legitimate debate to have. Pelosi's position is "Own the center left, own the mainstream. Our passions were for health care, bigger paychecks, cleaner government — a simple message."
Lots of people disagree with that strategy, but nowhere does Pelosi say "Stay in the Center or Trump May Contest Election Results." The is pure bullshit completely made up by the New York Times to bait readers - and it seems to have worked.
posted by JackFlash at 12:26 PM on May 4, 2019 [54 favorites]
This is why you don't give your money to the NYT. They take words and twist them into their favorite "Democrats in Disarray" narrative. According to the article:
Speaker Nancy Pelosi does not believe President Trump can be removed through impeachment — the only way to do it, she said this week, is to defeat him in 2020 by a margin so “big” he cannot challenge the legitimacy of a Democratic victory.
The first part is objectively true. There is no way to successfully impeach Trump with a Republican majority in the Senate.
And the second part is arguably true. It is necessary to clobber Trump to remove his legitimacy. If things are close you can expect another 2000 Brooks Brothers Riot except with armed Nazis and with a Supreme Court even more favorable to Trump than last time.
So then the third, part is how to achieve a big victory and that is a legitimate debate to have. Pelosi's position is "Own the center left, own the mainstream. Our passions were for health care, bigger paychecks, cleaner government — a simple message."
Lots of people disagree with that strategy, but nowhere does Pelosi say "Stay in the Center or Trump May Contest Election Results." The is pure bullshit completely made up by the New York Times to bait readers - and it seems to have worked.
posted by JackFlash at 12:26 PM on May 4, 2019 [54 favorites]
According to the article:
Speaker Nancy Pelosi does not believe President Trump can be removed through impeachment
At a visit Tufts University on Friday, Pelosi once again tried to find a nuanced way to address the question of impeaching Trump: “Impeachment is one of the most divisive and dividing paths that you can take — and if you go down that path, you have to have a prospect for success. Impeachment is never off the table. But should we start there? I don’t agree with that.” (Boston Herald)
Meanwhile, Kamala Harris has become even more forceful about the issue on Rachel Maddow's show last night: “There's enough here that Congress can take the next step and carry the ball from here. […] I think they should begin the process [of impeachment].”
posted by Doktor Zed at 12:41 PM on May 4, 2019 [7 favorites]
Speaker Nancy Pelosi does not believe President Trump can be removed through impeachment
At a visit Tufts University on Friday, Pelosi once again tried to find a nuanced way to address the question of impeaching Trump: “Impeachment is one of the most divisive and dividing paths that you can take — and if you go down that path, you have to have a prospect for success. Impeachment is never off the table. But should we start there? I don’t agree with that.” (Boston Herald)
Meanwhile, Kamala Harris has become even more forceful about the issue on Rachel Maddow's show last night: “There's enough here that Congress can take the next step and carry the ball from here. […] I think they should begin the process [of impeachment].”
posted by Doktor Zed at 12:41 PM on May 4, 2019 [7 favorites]
Social media is central to Trump's reelection strategy. He made the guy in charge of his 2016 social media strategy, @parscale, his 2020 campaign manager. Trump is spending 500K per week on Facebook and Google and he doesn't even have an opponent yet.
Forbes: Trump Campaign Chief Outlines $1 Billion Strategy For 2020 On Trip To Romania
posted by peeedro at 12:42 PM on May 4, 2019 [2 favorites]
Forbes: Trump Campaign Chief Outlines $1 Billion Strategy For 2020 On Trip To Romania
posted by peeedro at 12:42 PM on May 4, 2019 [2 favorites]
Imagine thinking that Trump and the rest of the GOP won't call Biden a Maoist Third-Worldist anyway and wouldn't contest any election result not in their favor. That's assuming she's arguing in good faith, of course.
Pelosi is a centrist who would lose influence if anyone left of Biden or Harris were elected. She has her own reasons for scaring voters into a choice she deems acceptable, which have little to do with Trump, per se.
The point of impeachment proceedings is not to win, for the sake of winning. It is about defending the Constitution from tyranny. And if Trump wouldn't respect the election result, anyway (as is becoming increasingly obvious) then the argument shouldn't be to elect someone who is also acceptable to Trump voters, but to defend the Constitution from tyrants who do not respect free and fair elections, in the first place.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 1:29 PM on May 4, 2019 [16 favorites]
Pelosi is a centrist who would lose influence if anyone left of Biden or Harris were elected. She has her own reasons for scaring voters into a choice she deems acceptable, which have little to do with Trump, per se.
The point of impeachment proceedings is not to win, for the sake of winning. It is about defending the Constitution from tyranny. And if Trump wouldn't respect the election result, anyway (as is becoming increasingly obvious) then the argument shouldn't be to elect someone who is also acceptable to Trump voters, but to defend the Constitution from tyrants who do not respect free and fair elections, in the first place.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 1:29 PM on May 4, 2019 [16 favorites]
Pelosi is not a centrist, she's a liberal. She's just a pragmatic incrementalist. That's not the same thing as centrist.
posted by Justinian at 1:42 PM on May 4, 2019 [30 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 1:42 PM on May 4, 2019 [30 favorites]
Pragmatic incrementalism:
When asked whether Mr. Biden would pay a political price for his grilling of Anita F. Hill during the 1991 confirmation hearings for Justice Clarence Thomas, Ms. Pelosi shook her head in the negative and waved a hand dismissively.
posted by Rust Moranis at 2:04 PM on May 4, 2019 [7 favorites]
When asked whether Mr. Biden would pay a political price for his grilling of Anita F. Hill during the 1991 confirmation hearings for Justice Clarence Thomas, Ms. Pelosi shook her head in the negative and waved a hand dismissively.
posted by Rust Moranis at 2:04 PM on May 4, 2019 [7 favorites]
Oh, were people actually expecting Democrats to retroactively punish Biden for an opinion he had 28 years ago? Is that seriously their fucking priority right now?
posted by Autumnheart at 2:14 PM on May 4, 2019 [11 favorites]
posted by Autumnheart at 2:14 PM on May 4, 2019 [11 favorites]
How dare we let Biden's misogyny and his part in losing the supreme court for the rest of our lives become a campaign issue?
posted by Rust Moranis at 2:18 PM on May 4, 2019 [36 favorites]
posted by Rust Moranis at 2:18 PM on May 4, 2019 [36 favorites]
For the same reason we didn’t bring up Whitewater and Paula Jones when Hillary was running?
posted by Autumnheart at 2:24 PM on May 4, 2019 [7 favorites]
posted by Autumnheart at 2:24 PM on May 4, 2019 [7 favorites]
Nate Silver coined the phrase "Swalwell-Moulton line" for candidate viability based on their resume, and I'm not convinced Jay Inslee clears the bar, but he is running a campaign focused on climate change (despite a record that's all carrot and no stick), but he's put out the first phase of his detailed climate plan, focused on actual policy rather than broad goals, and it's worth looking at it. Dave Roberts, Jay Inslee promised serious climate policy and he is delivering:
Toward the end, Roberts makes an interesting broader point about Green New Deal-style grand visions that are big on goals and lacking in practical policy: "Getting into the policy details can make radicalism seem more manageable." I'm not entirely convinced that applies quite so uniformly to, say, people who don't know what a Renewable Portfolio Standard is and don't care to learn. Like, I somehow think this is both unintelligible gobbledygook and probably true:
posted by zachlipton at 2:27 PM on May 4, 2019 [7 favorites]
The first piece, out last Friday, is the “100 percent Clean Energy for America Plan.” It lays out three high-level targets for 2030:Further details are provided for the polices needed to achieve those aims in each area.
100 percent carbon-neutral electricity;
100 percent zero-emissions in new light- and medium-duty vehicles and all buses;
100 percent zero-carbon pollution in all new commercial and residential buildings.
Toward the end, Roberts makes an interesting broader point about Green New Deal-style grand visions that are big on goals and lacking in practical policy: "Getting into the policy details can make radicalism seem more manageable." I'm not entirely convinced that applies quite so uniformly to, say, people who don't know what a Renewable Portfolio Standard is and don't care to learn. Like, I somehow think this is both unintelligible gobbledygook and probably true:
Policy, even if people don’t track the details, implicitly makes all the grand goals and targets seem more tangible and achievable. “Decarbonize by 2050” is unwieldy, almost purely symbolic to most people. But a program of sticks and carrots — tightened vehicle fuel-economy and fuel carbon-intensity standards coupled with investments to stand up US ZEV manufacturing capacity and make ZEVs cheaper for consumers — well, that you can wrap your head around. That you can begin to envision.Separately, on Twitter, Roberts muses on the value of a national Clean Energy Standard as a strong place to start and something that would be easy for candidates to get behind.
Policy is how we stop discussing whether and start discussing how. Mainstream Democrats need to become more fluent in this policy language and familiar with these policy options. Perhaps Inslee’s thoughtful proposals will, if nothing else, spur the other candidates to devote the resources and staffing to this area of policy that it deserves. It’s time to raise the bar.
posted by zachlipton at 2:27 PM on May 4, 2019 [7 favorites]
uh, it's primary season. a lot of us hate biden. math's not hard.
posted by rotten at 2:27 PM on May 4, 2019 [7 favorites]
posted by rotten at 2:27 PM on May 4, 2019 [7 favorites]
Let me put it another way. If Biden wins the nomination, are you going to not vote for him? Are you going to stay home instead, or vote for Trump as a protest, or write in Mickey Mouse?
No? Then cool it. It’s not 1991. We’ve moved on. Focus on shit going on today.
posted by Autumnheart at 2:27 PM on May 4, 2019 [3 favorites]
No? Then cool it. It’s not 1991. We’ve moved on. Focus on shit going on today.
posted by Autumnheart at 2:27 PM on May 4, 2019 [3 favorites]
It’s NOT primary season, we’re an entire year away from the primary. It’s pointless own-goaling is what it is.
posted by Autumnheart at 2:28 PM on May 4, 2019 [2 favorites]
posted by Autumnheart at 2:28 PM on May 4, 2019 [2 favorites]
Mod note: Folks please stop it with the Biden y/n stuff in here.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 2:32 PM on May 4, 2019 [3 favorites]
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 2:32 PM on May 4, 2019 [3 favorites]
Just for Fun: Trump's escalator descent to the bottom of craven, un-American, shameless autocracy was June 16, 2015.
posted by petebest at 2:33 PM on May 4, 2019 [2 favorites]
posted by petebest at 2:33 PM on May 4, 2019 [2 favorites]
Mike Enzi (R-WY) is retiring in 2020. (via Nick Reynolds, Twitter) Sooooo, time to pack our bags and form that socialist cat-lovers commune in Wyoming and turn that state blue or...? Is there even a potential Democratic candidate?
posted by Rosie M. Banks at 2:34 PM on May 4, 2019 [8 favorites]
posted by Rosie M. Banks at 2:34 PM on May 4, 2019 [8 favorites]
Is there even a potential Democratic candidate?
I mean, unless you've got a couple hundred thousand socialist cat-lovers:
posted by zachlipton at 2:40 PM on May 4, 2019 [3 favorites]
I mean, unless you've got a couple hundred thousand socialist cat-lovers:
Enzi won his last election in 2014 with 72 percent of the vote, and President Donald Trump carried Wyoming by 46 points in 2016. Inside Elections with Nathan L. Gonzales rates the Wyoming Senate race Solid Republican.It's possible Liz Cheney runs on the Republican side.
posted by zachlipton at 2:40 PM on May 4, 2019 [3 favorites]
Eager reporter: Ms. Pelosi, would you like to take this opportunity to slag one of your fellow Democrats? Please, please, please!
Pelosi (thinking): Fuck you. Go away.
Pelosi (politely waving her hand): No.
posted by JackFlash at 2:45 PM on May 4, 2019 [15 favorites]
Pelosi (thinking): Fuck you. Go away.
Pelosi (politely waving her hand): No.
posted by JackFlash at 2:45 PM on May 4, 2019 [15 favorites]
Nate Silver weighs in on the policy-vs-otherstuff in elections:
posted by Justinian at 2:53 PM on May 4, 2019 [3 favorites]
One of the shortcomings of the whole "let's just focus on policy and not bother with the horse race" thing is that it winds up having a really poor conception of why people vote the way they do. [...] "Let's just focus on policy" can also reflect a bit of elitism. People inside the bubble—journalists, party activists, high-info voters—care a lot about policy. And their views are influential. But rank-and-file voters usually don't as much and they're who matter most in the end.It's not quite as pithy as my "Policy doesn't win elections." but it does connect it to a form of elitism which I hadn't considered before. I'm not sure if I agree it's elitism per se but certainly it's out of touch.
posted by Justinian at 2:53 PM on May 4, 2019 [3 favorites]
One reason Republicans adopt their scorched-earth approach is the very fact that the public is not on their side, and sometime in the last ten years they decided to give up on ever changing that. Democrats, meanwhile have the distinct disadvantage of a popular majority. This doesn't work for them the same way it would for Republicans if more than 50% of Americans were Trumpists: the bigger tent is filled with people who have all kinds of personal principles, tastes, and so on. They're not quite sheep and not quite cats, and herding them is a tricky, but doable, process.
So while I don't agree with the whole of Pelosi's approach on these issues, I acknowledge the circumstances under which she's operating. For example, it's critical that she push for impeachment while looking like she doesn't "want" to, that her hand is being forced, as frustrating as that is for those of us who can goddamn see he was impeachable on Inauguration Day.
posted by InTheYear2017 at 3:06 PM on May 4, 2019 [17 favorites]
So while I don't agree with the whole of Pelosi's approach on these issues, I acknowledge the circumstances under which she's operating. For example, it's critical that she push for impeachment while looking like she doesn't "want" to, that her hand is being forced, as frustrating as that is for those of us who can goddamn see he was impeachable on Inauguration Day.
posted by InTheYear2017 at 3:06 PM on May 4, 2019 [17 favorites]
The problem with focusing on electability over policy is that our perceptions of who is "electable" is irrevocably tied to our biases about gender, race, etc . . . Inevitably it's the white guy who is deemed most "electable".
posted by Anonymous at 5:02 PM on May 4, 2019
posted by Anonymous at 5:02 PM on May 4, 2019
He [Pompeo] recently suggested Donald Trump had been sent by God to save Israel from Tehran’s mullahs.
His degree of ignorance on Europe is startling. A Pompeo speech in Brussels last year, billed as a major policy statement, was mostly a regurgitation of the prejudices, half-truths and stereotypes beloved of rightwingers and Eurosceptics.
If this is the best of the CIA's handiwork, then intelligence failures are now going to become embarrassing. This is half assed consultant reports that regurgitate ideas they pick up from social media feeds, and rush out the door on command of the propaganda department charged with maintaining the same exceptional degree of soft power as enjoyed in the heady days of the 1970s.
posted by hugbucket at 5:36 PM on May 4, 2019 [6 favorites]
His degree of ignorance on Europe is startling. A Pompeo speech in Brussels last year, billed as a major policy statement, was mostly a regurgitation of the prejudices, half-truths and stereotypes beloved of rightwingers and Eurosceptics.
If this is the best of the CIA's handiwork, then intelligence failures are now going to become embarrassing. This is half assed consultant reports that regurgitate ideas they pick up from social media feeds, and rush out the door on command of the propaganda department charged with maintaining the same exceptional degree of soft power as enjoyed in the heady days of the 1970s.
posted by hugbucket at 5:36 PM on May 4, 2019 [6 favorites]
David Byler: It makes sense that the field is so big
everyone thinks they can beat Trump
everyone thinks they at least might win the nom
experience isn't what it used to be
you can have a moment w/a little media attn
if you love some policy, you'll get more coverage from running
so why not
posted by Apocryphon at 5:49 PM on May 4, 2019 [2 favorites]
everyone thinks they can beat Trump
everyone thinks they at least might win the nom
experience isn't what it used to be
you can have a moment w/a little media attn
if you love some policy, you'll get more coverage from running
so why not
posted by Apocryphon at 5:49 PM on May 4, 2019 [2 favorites]
US revokes ICC prosecutor's visa over Afghanistan inquiry
ICC rejects request to investigate war crimes in Afghanistan
The decision could go some way towards easing the tension between the ICC and the Trump administration, which reacted with fury to chief ICC prosecutor Fatou Bensouda’s request to investigate potential war crimes by US soldiers in Afghanistan.
Last month the US secretary of state, Mike Pompeo, said Washington would revoke or deny visas to ICC staff seeking to investigate alleged war crimes and other abuses committed by US forces in Afghanistan or elsewhere. Bensouda said on 5 April that her US visa had been revoked.
Court cites lack of cooperation from the US, Taliban and Afghan authorities
United States dilutes UN rape-in-war resolution
How the U.S. Became a Haven for War Criminals
Are they hiding something they expect is going to blow up badly?
posted by hugbucket at 5:58 PM on May 4, 2019 [8 favorites]
ICC rejects request to investigate war crimes in Afghanistan
The decision could go some way towards easing the tension between the ICC and the Trump administration, which reacted with fury to chief ICC prosecutor Fatou Bensouda’s request to investigate potential war crimes by US soldiers in Afghanistan.
Last month the US secretary of state, Mike Pompeo, said Washington would revoke or deny visas to ICC staff seeking to investigate alleged war crimes and other abuses committed by US forces in Afghanistan or elsewhere. Bensouda said on 5 April that her US visa had been revoked.
Court cites lack of cooperation from the US, Taliban and Afghan authorities
United States dilutes UN rape-in-war resolution
How the U.S. Became a Haven for War Criminals
Are they hiding something they expect is going to blow up badly?
posted by hugbucket at 5:58 PM on May 4, 2019 [8 favorites]
US' Mike Pompeo tells Venezuelans: 'The time for transition is now'
Didn't they used to do this more subtly back in the 70s?
posted by hugbucket at 6:00 PM on May 4, 2019 [6 favorites]
Didn't they used to do this more subtly back in the 70s?
posted by hugbucket at 6:00 PM on May 4, 2019 [6 favorites]
Huh, the recent conservative outrage over Facebook censorship is really interesting.
It looks like the more or less inevitable application to social media of the same strategy conservatives have been applying to broadcast/print media for decades. *Start* with the assumption that victory and status are orders of magnitude more important than telling the truth or learning anything. Speak in order to reinforce/privilege your values and your personal status, any other function of speech is secondary. Shout loudly about and otherwise perform your indignity at being unfairly treated; prole conservatists will flock to this because at some level, they believe that anything less than a privileging of their worldview is somehow not "fair", and it gives them an easy "bias" card to play when they encounter substance that might challenge their status in a discussion. Savvier conservatist operators understand these benefits, and they know liberal and technocratic thinkers really believe in a marketplace of ideas and want everyone to feel welcome, and so they can actually get some fora to chase conservative approval. And they can laugh all the way as newspapers and social media giants alike do so -- why would they *ever* give up this tool of manipulation when it works so well?
posted by wildblueyonder at 6:05 PM on May 4, 2019 [14 favorites]
It looks like the more or less inevitable application to social media of the same strategy conservatives have been applying to broadcast/print media for decades. *Start* with the assumption that victory and status are orders of magnitude more important than telling the truth or learning anything. Speak in order to reinforce/privilege your values and your personal status, any other function of speech is secondary. Shout loudly about and otherwise perform your indignity at being unfairly treated; prole conservatists will flock to this because at some level, they believe that anything less than a privileging of their worldview is somehow not "fair", and it gives them an easy "bias" card to play when they encounter substance that might challenge their status in a discussion. Savvier conservatist operators understand these benefits, and they know liberal and technocratic thinkers really believe in a marketplace of ideas and want everyone to feel welcome, and so they can actually get some fora to chase conservative approval. And they can laugh all the way as newspapers and social media giants alike do so -- why would they *ever* give up this tool of manipulation when it works so well?
posted by wildblueyonder at 6:05 PM on May 4, 2019 [14 favorites]
It's not quite as pithy as my "Policy doesn't win elections." but it does connect it to a form of elitism which I hadn't considered before. I'm not sure if I agree it's elitism per se but certainly it's out of touch.
There's a weird problem that I've been thinking about, which is the massive partisan divide in basically the existence of policy.
Pretty much everyone in this thread broadly believes that a future Democratic government must more-or-less immediately do a huge number of things: retool our entire energy and transportation sectors to be zero-emissions and address all other emissions sources too while doing it in a just way that doesn't destroy the economy; revamp the nation's health care system (a fifth of GDP); make major changes to our tax system and address inequality and the housing crisis; and reform government to protect democracy. And those are just the really massive ones; we also need to do merely huge things like make college affordable and deal with student loan debt, revamp the immigration system, fix a broken and racist criminal justice system, fight white supremacy, rebuild our foreign policy and end wars, and dozens of other urgent priorities that this paragraph cannot possibly contain. These are all huge and immediately necessary changes that directly impact basic parts of pretty much everyone's lives. They also could easily be subverted by Republicans to hurt the most vulnerable among us.
And while we disagree somewhat about prioritization and the specific policies to achieve some of these aims, we in this thread all approximately believe that all of them have to happen more-or-less as soon as possible. And that's true across really all the Democratic candidates as well. Everyone's got a policy or issues page on their website, from Andrew Yang's 106 policy issues to Elizabeth Warren's detailed Medium articles. The candidates differ a whole bunch in how they prioritize these topics, their specificity, and the scale of their proposed solutions, but they all, from Biden to Sanders, have web pages full of policy that seek to address these issues in ways that will largely require legislative action. A huge fundamental part of the Democratic campaign for the presidency is waving around big piles of policy to address these big problems, and nobody is really grappling with how this policy will be enacted or implemented (and who will control the Senate), how the inevitable backlash will be handled, whether Trump's judicial appointments will sabotage any chance of any of it happening, how to convince people for whom mandatory government change has not always been a positive force in their lives, and so on. We've all just taken it for granted that the position of basically every Democratic candidate now is that need to make these major changes, and we're mainly arguing about how fast we're going to do it and how bold the immediate changes will be. And like I said, we all agree that we need to do this stuff, so that's a good thing, but it's something that is unique to one party at this moment.
Do you know who doesn't have a policy page on his campaign website? Trump. He's got a "promises kept" link, which actually takes you to a whole different site, but there's nothing that lays out anything he wants to actually do. That promises kept site, beside tax cuts, is pretty much devoted to executive actions he's taken. His top bullet point for immigration is that he "called on Congress" to do a bunch of stuff they have no interest in doing. Some recent "accomplishments" (nobody has bothered to update the site for a month) he wants to brag about include such great feats as visiting the border and having a meeting with Chinese officials. In 2016, when the policy gap between Clinton and Trump finally got so large that he felt compelled to pretend he had some policy, he just lied and said some nonsense about health care, and his lies were favorably compared with Clinton's reality-based policy proposals. Or perhaps we'll look to the man who actually represents what Republicans are really up to: Mitch McConnell. He does bother with an issues page on his website, but look at what he actually did when Republicans controlled the entire government: tried to repeal Obamacare, a bunch of tax cuts, confirm judges, that's about it. Republicans have abandoned any pretense of caring about policy, and to the extent they want to change anything, it's mainly about rolling back stuff Democrats have done, from Roe to the ACA, and hurting people they don't like.
The basic theory behind every Democratic campaign—let's enact a bunch of big legislation to address these major problems and improve people's lives—, is empirically of zero interest or importance to large numbers of voters.
I think about Gallup's 2016 Trump/Clinton word clouds from time to time. Everyone focused on the giant blue EMAIL, but do you know what isn't in either word cloud? Any kind of policy. In terms of what actually broke through from 10 weeks of campaigning, policy didn't make the list. That's what campaigning against Trump, in this media environment, does to you. I really like policy, to the extent I'm really tempted to buy myself a "Warren Has A Plan For That" t-shirt right now, but I can't help but fear we're arming ourselves with binders for a gun fight.
posted by zachlipton at 6:47 PM on May 4, 2019 [65 favorites]
There's a weird problem that I've been thinking about, which is the massive partisan divide in basically the existence of policy.
Pretty much everyone in this thread broadly believes that a future Democratic government must more-or-less immediately do a huge number of things: retool our entire energy and transportation sectors to be zero-emissions and address all other emissions sources too while doing it in a just way that doesn't destroy the economy; revamp the nation's health care system (a fifth of GDP); make major changes to our tax system and address inequality and the housing crisis; and reform government to protect democracy. And those are just the really massive ones; we also need to do merely huge things like make college affordable and deal with student loan debt, revamp the immigration system, fix a broken and racist criminal justice system, fight white supremacy, rebuild our foreign policy and end wars, and dozens of other urgent priorities that this paragraph cannot possibly contain. These are all huge and immediately necessary changes that directly impact basic parts of pretty much everyone's lives. They also could easily be subverted by Republicans to hurt the most vulnerable among us.
And while we disagree somewhat about prioritization and the specific policies to achieve some of these aims, we in this thread all approximately believe that all of them have to happen more-or-less as soon as possible. And that's true across really all the Democratic candidates as well. Everyone's got a policy or issues page on their website, from Andrew Yang's 106 policy issues to Elizabeth Warren's detailed Medium articles. The candidates differ a whole bunch in how they prioritize these topics, their specificity, and the scale of their proposed solutions, but they all, from Biden to Sanders, have web pages full of policy that seek to address these issues in ways that will largely require legislative action. A huge fundamental part of the Democratic campaign for the presidency is waving around big piles of policy to address these big problems, and nobody is really grappling with how this policy will be enacted or implemented (and who will control the Senate), how the inevitable backlash will be handled, whether Trump's judicial appointments will sabotage any chance of any of it happening, how to convince people for whom mandatory government change has not always been a positive force in their lives, and so on. We've all just taken it for granted that the position of basically every Democratic candidate now is that need to make these major changes, and we're mainly arguing about how fast we're going to do it and how bold the immediate changes will be. And like I said, we all agree that we need to do this stuff, so that's a good thing, but it's something that is unique to one party at this moment.
Do you know who doesn't have a policy page on his campaign website? Trump. He's got a "promises kept" link, which actually takes you to a whole different site, but there's nothing that lays out anything he wants to actually do. That promises kept site, beside tax cuts, is pretty much devoted to executive actions he's taken. His top bullet point for immigration is that he "called on Congress" to do a bunch of stuff they have no interest in doing. Some recent "accomplishments" (nobody has bothered to update the site for a month) he wants to brag about include such great feats as visiting the border and having a meeting with Chinese officials. In 2016, when the policy gap between Clinton and Trump finally got so large that he felt compelled to pretend he had some policy, he just lied and said some nonsense about health care, and his lies were favorably compared with Clinton's reality-based policy proposals. Or perhaps we'll look to the man who actually represents what Republicans are really up to: Mitch McConnell. He does bother with an issues page on his website, but look at what he actually did when Republicans controlled the entire government: tried to repeal Obamacare, a bunch of tax cuts, confirm judges, that's about it. Republicans have abandoned any pretense of caring about policy, and to the extent they want to change anything, it's mainly about rolling back stuff Democrats have done, from Roe to the ACA, and hurting people they don't like.
The basic theory behind every Democratic campaign—let's enact a bunch of big legislation to address these major problems and improve people's lives—, is empirically of zero interest or importance to large numbers of voters.
I think about Gallup's 2016 Trump/Clinton word clouds from time to time. Everyone focused on the giant blue EMAIL, but do you know what isn't in either word cloud? Any kind of policy. In terms of what actually broke through from 10 weeks of campaigning, policy didn't make the list. That's what campaigning against Trump, in this media environment, does to you. I really like policy, to the extent I'm really tempted to buy myself a "Warren Has A Plan For That" t-shirt right now, but I can't help but fear we're arming ourselves with binders for a gun fight.
posted by zachlipton at 6:47 PM on May 4, 2019 [65 favorites]
I feel like whenever someone, especially rightists, complains about Facebook or the media or whatever, the response should be: it’s a free country; go make your own.
posted by notyou at 8:21 PM on May 4, 2019 [10 favorites]
posted by notyou at 8:21 PM on May 4, 2019 [10 favorites]
Pelosi has more or less said we won't be impeaching Trump. She's characterized the new progressive wing of the party as a few out of step radicals. She's suggested the Green New Deal is not a serious proposal. These aren't subtle statements. Her strategy is to throw the new progressive wing under the bus, so they don't interfere with her plan to win over Republican centrists.
posted by xammerboy at 8:26 PM on May 4, 2019 [6 favorites]
posted by xammerboy at 8:26 PM on May 4, 2019 [6 favorites]
Silver's conflation of issues with "policy" is a bit of a red herring. The broad public certainly thinks about issues: jobs, taxes, healthcare, abortion, immigration, crime, war, education, etc. Most people don't care about "policy" if that means a certain kind of technical improvement to one of these issue areas where the improvement is sufficiently complex that it requires multiple sentences to explain. But they certainly care about cutting taxes, allowing or preventing abortion, decreasing or increasing immigration, lowering crime, starting and stopping wars, etc, etc. When certain people say they want more "policy" relative to "electability" they don't mean they necessarily want more white papers, just that they want more discussion of the issues.
And like it or not, the Gallup word cloud does have issues: immigration and Mexico for Trump, health and emails for Clinton. We don't like that the main issue area for Clinton was a BS attack, but it was definitely an issue, and behind it was a policy ("lock her up"). There's certainly a partisan divide on what counts as an issue (and just to make it clear, one side is completely insane in how they define this), but that doesn't mean that issues aren't important, and policies are just issues with calls for action: stop abortion; ban guns; stop immigration; free college; medicare for all; raise/cut the military budget; etc, etc. The fact that most "policy" positions that actually achieve wide-spread public attention at the presidential level are cartoonishly simple (and often impossible) doesn't change the fact that they are, in fact, policies.
The problem Democrats have been running into recently (basically since Carter) is that they've defined "policy" so narrowly that of all the Democratic presidential platforms of the last 40 years, there's been exactly one leftward-moving policy plank of sufficient scale to actually capture the public's attention (Obamacare, and Clinton's efforts before it in 1993). Policy and issues matter quite a lot, it's just that for the last 40 years, for a variety of reasons the issues and policies of the right -- tax cuts, wars, crime, immigration, abortion -- have been much more successful at capturing public attention than the left. Obviously lots of factors go into that, but a necessary though not sufficient condition for issues and policies to matter to the broader public is that they be sufficiently grand to actual punch through the public's attention. Yes, policy defined as a series of $10 billion 10-year plans to tweak X will rarely move the public, and arguably reasonably so in a $20 trillion economy. But policy defined more grandly -- a big lurch to the left or right, or (if such a thing can exist) center-ward -- does have effects. It's just that Democrats haven't tried it very much in a while.
So returning to the primaries, I doubt fine policy distinctions between the various more center-left candidates is going to make much of a difference, nor do people really want it to. And absent that, people will indeed focus on electability (which I think is a delusion with a Dunning-Kruger inverse relationship to how well you understand election prediction, but that's another essay). But white papers aside, there are still a bunch of pretty huge issue/policies currently being discussed by the candidates -- M4A, reparations, packing the Court, free college, Syria, anti-trust breakups, etc -- and these are the sorts of things that (a) make a lot of difference, and (b) are of sufficient scale that they do impact the broad swath of popular attention, particularly among Democrats, but likely among independents too. It's hard to know for sure about the latter because it's so rarely been tried, but certainly among Democrats at least there is good reason to think that this time, at least, there are plenty of policies of sufficient scale to impact non-elite popular opinion and disrupt them from their (utterly uninformed) guesses about electability.
posted by chortly at 9:01 PM on May 4, 2019 [7 favorites]
And like it or not, the Gallup word cloud does have issues: immigration and Mexico for Trump, health and emails for Clinton. We don't like that the main issue area for Clinton was a BS attack, but it was definitely an issue, and behind it was a policy ("lock her up"). There's certainly a partisan divide on what counts as an issue (and just to make it clear, one side is completely insane in how they define this), but that doesn't mean that issues aren't important, and policies are just issues with calls for action: stop abortion; ban guns; stop immigration; free college; medicare for all; raise/cut the military budget; etc, etc. The fact that most "policy" positions that actually achieve wide-spread public attention at the presidential level are cartoonishly simple (and often impossible) doesn't change the fact that they are, in fact, policies.
The problem Democrats have been running into recently (basically since Carter) is that they've defined "policy" so narrowly that of all the Democratic presidential platforms of the last 40 years, there's been exactly one leftward-moving policy plank of sufficient scale to actually capture the public's attention (Obamacare, and Clinton's efforts before it in 1993). Policy and issues matter quite a lot, it's just that for the last 40 years, for a variety of reasons the issues and policies of the right -- tax cuts, wars, crime, immigration, abortion -- have been much more successful at capturing public attention than the left. Obviously lots of factors go into that, but a necessary though not sufficient condition for issues and policies to matter to the broader public is that they be sufficiently grand to actual punch through the public's attention. Yes, policy defined as a series of $10 billion 10-year plans to tweak X will rarely move the public, and arguably reasonably so in a $20 trillion economy. But policy defined more grandly -- a big lurch to the left or right, or (if such a thing can exist) center-ward -- does have effects. It's just that Democrats haven't tried it very much in a while.
So returning to the primaries, I doubt fine policy distinctions between the various more center-left candidates is going to make much of a difference, nor do people really want it to. And absent that, people will indeed focus on electability (which I think is a delusion with a Dunning-Kruger inverse relationship to how well you understand election prediction, but that's another essay). But white papers aside, there are still a bunch of pretty huge issue/policies currently being discussed by the candidates -- M4A, reparations, packing the Court, free college, Syria, anti-trust breakups, etc -- and these are the sorts of things that (a) make a lot of difference, and (b) are of sufficient scale that they do impact the broad swath of popular attention, particularly among Democrats, but likely among independents too. It's hard to know for sure about the latter because it's so rarely been tried, but certainly among Democrats at least there is good reason to think that this time, at least, there are plenty of policies of sufficient scale to impact non-elite popular opinion and disrupt them from their (utterly uninformed) guesses about electability.
posted by chortly at 9:01 PM on May 4, 2019 [7 favorites]
I feel like whenever someone, especially rightists, complains about Facebook or the media or whatever, the response should be: it’s a free country; go make your own.
Fox News?
posted by Cocodrillo at 10:36 PM on May 4, 2019 [4 favorites]
Fox News?
posted by Cocodrillo at 10:36 PM on May 4, 2019 [4 favorites]
And of course, many interpret her statements differently.
Sticking to the topic of this thread, if her official stated position on impeachment as of yesterday is to not impeach, but rather to wait for an overwhelming election victory to decide the outcome, and if she has not lead the House to begin impeachment proceedings, I am honestly unsure why reasonable people would not believe her words (and actions).
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 1:06 AM on May 5, 2019 [7 favorites]
Sticking to the topic of this thread, if her official stated position on impeachment as of yesterday is to not impeach, but rather to wait for an overwhelming election victory to decide the outcome, and if she has not lead the House to begin impeachment proceedings, I am honestly unsure why reasonable people would not believe her words (and actions).
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 1:06 AM on May 5, 2019 [7 favorites]
I believe xammerboy was objecting to the characterization of her words as indicative of a plan to throw progressives under the bus in order to court Republicans, not to the idea that she means what she says about impeachment.
posted by Justinian at 2:10 AM on May 5, 2019 [4 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 2:10 AM on May 5, 2019 [4 favorites]
They sucked his brains out!: Sticking to the topic of this thread, if her official stated position on impeachment as of yesterday is to not impeach, but rather to wait for an overwhelming election victory to decide the outcome, and if she has not lead the House to begin impeachment proceedings, I am honestly unsure why reasonable people would not believe her words (and actions).
I'm believing her words "impeachment is not off the table"; others are treating the current lack of immediate action as rendering such words irrelevant, which I think is reasonable but more pessimistic than warranted. However, she definitely hasn't declared an official position of waiting for electoral victory; that's a narrow way to interpret her stance of waiting for impeachment to increase in popularity.
posted by InTheYear2017 at 4:41 AM on May 5, 2019 [4 favorites]
I'm believing her words "impeachment is not off the table"; others are treating the current lack of immediate action as rendering such words irrelevant, which I think is reasonable but more pessimistic than warranted. However, she definitely hasn't declared an official position of waiting for electoral victory; that's a narrow way to interpret her stance of waiting for impeachment to increase in popularity.
posted by InTheYear2017 at 4:41 AM on May 5, 2019 [4 favorites]
but it does connect it to a form of elitism which I hadn't considered before. I'm not sure if I agree it's elitism per se but certainly it's out of touch.
posted by Justinian at 2:53 PM on May 4 [2 favorites +] [!]
that's a thoroughly empty criticism, coming from a professional elite, journalists, and the elite, journalists, who have the duty to educate the public on policy issues.
It's almost as if journalism has neutered itself by firing all of its local reporters and closing local newspapers. This is so clearly a problem within that institution. Quit firing all of the journalists!
posted by eustatic at 6:03 AM on May 5, 2019 [2 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 2:53 PM on May 4 [2 favorites +] [!]
that's a thoroughly empty criticism, coming from a professional elite, journalists, and the elite, journalists, who have the duty to educate the public on policy issues.
It's almost as if journalism has neutered itself by firing all of its local reporters and closing local newspapers. This is so clearly a problem within that institution. Quit firing all of the journalists!
posted by eustatic at 6:03 AM on May 5, 2019 [2 favorites]
that's a thoroughly empty criticism, coming from a professional elite, journalists, and the elite, journalists, who have the duty to educate the public on policy issues.
It's almost as if journalism has neutered itself by firing all of its local reporters and closing local newspapers. This is so clearly a problem within that institution. Quit firing all of the journalists!
I'm not sure how you think media companies work - It's not journalists choosing to fire all the other journalists.
posted by AdamCSnider at 6:07 AM on May 5, 2019 [6 favorites]
It's almost as if journalism has neutered itself by firing all of its local reporters and closing local newspapers. This is so clearly a problem within that institution. Quit firing all of the journalists!
I'm not sure how you think media companies work - It's not journalists choosing to fire all the other journalists.
posted by AdamCSnider at 6:07 AM on May 5, 2019 [6 favorites]
However, she definitely hasn't declared an official position of waiting for electoral victory; that's a narrow way to interpret her stance of waiting for impeachment to increase in popularity.
The problem is impeachment doesn't and won't get more popular on its own. Support for impeaching Nixon was around 36% when article of impeachment were introduced. It went up dramatically from there, as more and more hearings were held and more of the American people got a chance to see for themselves how nixon was a crook. Democrats, very much including Pelosi, are not doing close to an adequate job of bringing the Mueller report to life on TV. They're not putting forth a coherent and consistent message of Trump's overarching corruption, or laying the ground work (through hearings! on TV!) for impeachment over an innumerable number of other crimes outside the Mueller report. They're sitting and waiting for the election. They're treating impeachment like some sign from above when the exact moment is perfectly aligned, rather than a long-term goal they have to work and build sustained political momentum towards.
posted by T.D. Strange at 6:16 AM on May 5, 2019 [33 favorites]
The problem is impeachment doesn't and won't get more popular on its own. Support for impeaching Nixon was around 36% when article of impeachment were introduced. It went up dramatically from there, as more and more hearings were held and more of the American people got a chance to see for themselves how nixon was a crook. Democrats, very much including Pelosi, are not doing close to an adequate job of bringing the Mueller report to life on TV. They're not putting forth a coherent and consistent message of Trump's overarching corruption, or laying the ground work (through hearings! on TV!) for impeachment over an innumerable number of other crimes outside the Mueller report. They're sitting and waiting for the election. They're treating impeachment like some sign from above when the exact moment is perfectly aligned, rather than a long-term goal they have to work and build sustained political momentum towards.
posted by T.D. Strange at 6:16 AM on May 5, 2019 [33 favorites]
I'm not sure how you think media companies work - It's not journalists choosing to fire all the other journalists.
Haha, "let's all fire ourselves! That'll show us!" Media companies consolidating and putting profit above all else are what "fired" journalists. Most journalists are in the 99% and do hard work chasing down stories and actual news.
I think what media consolidation and seeking after profit has given us, unfortunately, are more pundits in the David Brooks/Maureen Dowd mold. There are a few great pundits - Jamelle Bouie, Paul Krugman, Michelle Goldberg are three that come to mind - but pundits are not journalists. They're not the ones doing the hard work. Pundits write columns and offer opinions.
Many (most?) pundits (not pavement-pounding journalists) are, if not part of the upper 5%, at least part of the "courtier" class - they depend upon and get goodies from the rich. Sometimes they marry them, or their children do. So of course they don't want to rock the boat. Pundits =/= journalists, especially comparing NYT or WaPo pundits with local newspaper journalists.
As far as Nancy Pelosi is concerned, I'm not jumping on the "Bad Nancy! Dummycrats in Disarray!" train right now. I trust that the Speaker of the House, who has 1) been very good at her job in the past and 2) just recently fended off a challenge to her speakership by some Dunning-Krugering white guys, and with great aplomb, knows what's she's doing and can gauge the mood of Congress better than us armchair quarterbacks right now, no matter how bad we want to see impeachment (and I do!).
posted by Rosie M. Banks at 6:23 AM on May 5, 2019 [22 favorites]
Haha, "let's all fire ourselves! That'll show us!" Media companies consolidating and putting profit above all else are what "fired" journalists. Most journalists are in the 99% and do hard work chasing down stories and actual news.
I think what media consolidation and seeking after profit has given us, unfortunately, are more pundits in the David Brooks/Maureen Dowd mold. There are a few great pundits - Jamelle Bouie, Paul Krugman, Michelle Goldberg are three that come to mind - but pundits are not journalists. They're not the ones doing the hard work. Pundits write columns and offer opinions.
Many (most?) pundits (not pavement-pounding journalists) are, if not part of the upper 5%, at least part of the "courtier" class - they depend upon and get goodies from the rich. Sometimes they marry them, or their children do. So of course they don't want to rock the boat. Pundits =/= journalists, especially comparing NYT or WaPo pundits with local newspaper journalists.
As far as Nancy Pelosi is concerned, I'm not jumping on the "Bad Nancy! Dummycrats in Disarray!" train right now. I trust that the Speaker of the House, who has 1) been very good at her job in the past and 2) just recently fended off a challenge to her speakership by some Dunning-Krugering white guys, and with great aplomb, knows what's she's doing and can gauge the mood of Congress better than us armchair quarterbacks right now, no matter how bad we want to see impeachment (and I do!).
posted by Rosie M. Banks at 6:23 AM on May 5, 2019 [22 favorites]
I don’t know why people keep insisting that Pelosi can force an impeachment through Congress, when any fucking idiot can see that we don’t have the Senate votes to convict, and an acquittal would further empower Republicans to overthrow the rule of law.
Can we please not with the calling people "fucking idiots" if they don't agree with you? Whether impeachment without conviction will hurt or help the GOP is an open question, not a given.
posted by Lyme Drop at 8:29 AM on May 5, 2019 [13 favorites]
Can we please not with the calling people "fucking idiots" if they don't agree with you? Whether impeachment without conviction will hurt or help the GOP is an open question, not a given.
posted by Lyme Drop at 8:29 AM on May 5, 2019 [13 favorites]
Looking like a May 15th Mueller day. Wapost.
posted by Harry Caul at 8:53 AM on May 5, 2019 [5 favorites]
posted by Harry Caul at 8:53 AM on May 5, 2019 [5 favorites]
Mod note: Folks, the impeachment-or-not merry-go-round is still not going anywhere, please can we get off. Thanks.
posted by restless_nomad (staff) at 9:03 AM on May 5, 2019 [7 favorites]
posted by restless_nomad (staff) at 9:03 AM on May 5, 2019 [7 favorites]
I regret being so black and white in my characterization. I think I probably made too much of her statements, which include:
1. "We will not impeach without overwhelming evidence and bi-partisan support." She made this statement shortly before the Mueller report came out.
2. Nancy Pelosi: "By and large whatever orientation they came to Congress with, they know we have to hold the center. We have to go down the mainstream." 60 Minutes: "You have these wings. @AOC and her group on one side..." Pelosi: "That's like five people." This statement is from her 60 minutes interview.
3. Pelosi told Politico. “The green dream or whatever they call it, nobody knows what it is, but they’re for it, right?”
I'm troubled because her dismissals seem cavalier in tone, similar to when Barr is asked what Mueller thinks about his conclusions and he shrugs. It suggests a contemptuous dismissal of the question and subject. I expect that kind of behavior from a Republican. I find that kind of behavior, if that's what it is, disturbing in a speaker.
I also find it somewhat baffling as a strategy. The easy answer in these cases would have been to simply say all Democrats are for affordable healthcare and a livable planet. We offer choices, and voters can decide. She's only human and will obviously make mistakes and gaffes, but as a pattern I find it troubling. She's also speaker, and I have to assume at some point that the words she's using in her public interviews are meant to convey the party line.
posted by xammerboy at 9:13 AM on May 5, 2019 [11 favorites]
1. "We will not impeach without overwhelming evidence and bi-partisan support." She made this statement shortly before the Mueller report came out.
2. Nancy Pelosi: "By and large whatever orientation they came to Congress with, they know we have to hold the center. We have to go down the mainstream." 60 Minutes: "You have these wings. @AOC and her group on one side..." Pelosi: "That's like five people." This statement is from her 60 minutes interview.
3. Pelosi told Politico. “The green dream or whatever they call it, nobody knows what it is, but they’re for it, right?”
I'm troubled because her dismissals seem cavalier in tone, similar to when Barr is asked what Mueller thinks about his conclusions and he shrugs. It suggests a contemptuous dismissal of the question and subject. I expect that kind of behavior from a Republican. I find that kind of behavior, if that's what it is, disturbing in a speaker.
I also find it somewhat baffling as a strategy. The easy answer in these cases would have been to simply say all Democrats are for affordable healthcare and a livable planet. We offer choices, and voters can decide. She's only human and will obviously make mistakes and gaffes, but as a pattern I find it troubling. She's also speaker, and I have to assume at some point that the words she's using in her public interviews are meant to convey the party line.
posted by xammerboy at 9:13 AM on May 5, 2019 [11 favorites]
Krugman:
Republican posturing on monetary policy was as insincere as the party’s posturing on fiscal policy. We now have to see the party’s 2010-2011 demands for tight monetary policy, like its demands for tight fiscal policy, as reflecting not economic principles, but rather a desire to sabotage Barack Obama.posted by T.D. Strange at 9:18 AM on May 5, 2019 [58 favorites]
...
I made a little chart to summarize the evolution of Republican positioning on monetary policy. It shows the employment rate of prime-age adults, widely seen as a better indicator of the state of the labor market than the unemployment rate, and the rate at which wages are increasing. Both measures hit low points in 2010-2011, making a strong case for expansionary monetary policy. That’s precisely when the G.O.P. was pressuring the Fed to stop trying to help the economy. Both measures are at post-crisis highs now, and sure enough, Republicans are advocating now the policies they opposed when they were most needed.
As Matt O’Brien points out, you don’t see the same thing on the Democratic side: center-left economists who have argued for years that the Fed was being too conservative are still saying the same thing with Trump in office.
What all this tells us is that Republican positioning on economic policy has been in bad faith all these years. They didn’t really believe that a debt crisis and hyperinflation were looming. They were just against anything that might help the economy while a Democrat was president.
They were just against anything that might help the economy while a Democrat was president.
Not that we needed another generic white guy in the race, but I like this...
Kyle Griffin (MSNBC)
John Hickenlooper on @PodSaveAmerica about Mitch McConnell: "When he came in and said that he would do everything humanly possible ... to make sure that, as president, Barack Obama had no successes. I mean, that verges on— that's treasonous
posted by chris24 at 9:23 AM on May 5, 2019 [40 favorites]
Not that we needed another generic white guy in the race, but I like this...
Kyle Griffin (MSNBC)
John Hickenlooper on @PodSaveAmerica about Mitch McConnell: "When he came in and said that he would do everything humanly possible ... to make sure that, as president, Barack Obama had no successes. I mean, that verges on— that's treasonous
posted by chris24 at 9:23 AM on May 5, 2019 [40 favorites]
Ironically, what Republicans are executing now is Modern Monetary Theory policies - when inflation is low, cut taxes and raise federal spending to increase the economy. This is working well as we are seeing record employment and the first real wage increases since the 1990s.
Unfortunately, the Republicans are executing it inefficiently, with tax cuts for the rich instead of the middle class and increased federal spending on the military and border security instead of infrastructure. But it is certainly Modern Monetary Theory.
Also unfortunately, Republicans do not embrace MMT because it is right. They embrace it selectively to help Republicans when they are in office. If they really believed it, they would have done it 10 years ago when the country really needed it instead of switching to austerity doctrine under a Democrat.
posted by JackFlash at 9:46 AM on May 5, 2019 [11 favorites]
Unfortunately, the Republicans are executing it inefficiently, with tax cuts for the rich instead of the middle class and increased federal spending on the military and border security instead of infrastructure. But it is certainly Modern Monetary Theory.
Also unfortunately, Republicans do not embrace MMT because it is right. They embrace it selectively to help Republicans when they are in office. If they really believed it, they would have done it 10 years ago when the country really needed it instead of switching to austerity doctrine under a Democrat.
posted by JackFlash at 9:46 AM on May 5, 2019 [11 favorites]
I also find it somewhat baffling as a strategy. The easy answer in these cases would have been to simply say all Democrats are for affordable healthcare and a livable planet. We offer choices, and voters can decide. She's only human and will obviously make mistakes and gaffes, but as a pattern I find it troubling. She's also speaker, and I have to assume at some point that the words she's using in her public interviews are meant to convey the party line.
A handful of things are going on here:
1) Pelosi is a realpolitik type. She is aware that if she makes substantial promises and then cannot deliver on those promises, she and her party will likely suffer for it.
2) There is no way to deliver on affordable healthcare and a livable planet without a substantial reconfiguring of the American way of life. Not "okay, we'll pass these three laws and then we're all set," but rethinking fossil fuels, taxation, transportation, urban development, vocational options, education, and many, many other things that Americans have come to take for granted.
3) The Republican method -- promise the moon and stars, deliver crumbs, then blame the other side for blocking their attempts at "governance" -- can work for a while. But eventually the hardliners want results _now_ and begin trying to claim scalps.
4) Advocating for a full-on American sea change is an excellent way to be painted as extremists out to destroy the American way of life and hurt the average American, to lose the support of the monied interests and corporate oligarchs who wield enormous influence over American politics and media, and to become a fringe demonized by the centrists who are afraid of a McGovernesque ass-stomping come election time.
This is not to say that advocating that is _wrong_. Nor that it should come without pain, because it _is_ going to be a painful process for many Americans. Economic, political and environmental reform will not be a sweet-tasting medicine. There will be plenty of people who will howl at the mere thought of lifting a finger to change when they themselves are not seeing immediate and material benefits for doing so. This is a process requiring education and persuasion; teaching Americans that yes, this medicine is bitter and pungent but it is also necessary.
Whether Americans are capable of absorbing and agreeing with that lesson in sufficient numbers to win the Presidency, a 60-vote Senate majority and recover significant numbers of state governorships and legislatures across America is left as an exercise for the reader.
And thus we go down the path of either (a) enthusiastically advocating for immediate and sweeping reforms, knowing that they will be a very hard pill for many to swallow and can endanger 2020 victories no matter how necessary they may be, or (b) arguing that the first mandatory step is to get this orange shithead and his cronies out of office and that rocking the boat with grandiose promises is detrimental to that effort.
And if I had the answer to that, I'd be paid a lot more than I am.
posted by delfin at 9:52 AM on May 5, 2019 [17 favorites]
A handful of things are going on here:
1) Pelosi is a realpolitik type. She is aware that if she makes substantial promises and then cannot deliver on those promises, she and her party will likely suffer for it.
2) There is no way to deliver on affordable healthcare and a livable planet without a substantial reconfiguring of the American way of life. Not "okay, we'll pass these three laws and then we're all set," but rethinking fossil fuels, taxation, transportation, urban development, vocational options, education, and many, many other things that Americans have come to take for granted.
3) The Republican method -- promise the moon and stars, deliver crumbs, then blame the other side for blocking their attempts at "governance" -- can work for a while. But eventually the hardliners want results _now_ and begin trying to claim scalps.
4) Advocating for a full-on American sea change is an excellent way to be painted as extremists out to destroy the American way of life and hurt the average American, to lose the support of the monied interests and corporate oligarchs who wield enormous influence over American politics and media, and to become a fringe demonized by the centrists who are afraid of a McGovernesque ass-stomping come election time.
This is not to say that advocating that is _wrong_. Nor that it should come without pain, because it _is_ going to be a painful process for many Americans. Economic, political and environmental reform will not be a sweet-tasting medicine. There will be plenty of people who will howl at the mere thought of lifting a finger to change when they themselves are not seeing immediate and material benefits for doing so. This is a process requiring education and persuasion; teaching Americans that yes, this medicine is bitter and pungent but it is also necessary.
Whether Americans are capable of absorbing and agreeing with that lesson in sufficient numbers to win the Presidency, a 60-vote Senate majority and recover significant numbers of state governorships and legislatures across America is left as an exercise for the reader.
And thus we go down the path of either (a) enthusiastically advocating for immediate and sweeping reforms, knowing that they will be a very hard pill for many to swallow and can endanger 2020 victories no matter how necessary they may be, or (b) arguing that the first mandatory step is to get this orange shithead and his cronies out of office and that rocking the boat with grandiose promises is detrimental to that effort.
And if I had the answer to that, I'd be paid a lot more than I am.
posted by delfin at 9:52 AM on May 5, 2019 [17 favorites]
Looking like a May 15th Mueller day. Wapost.
n.b. The WaPo's headline is misleading—there is no tentative agreement yet on a Mueller appearance before the House Judiciary Committee.
After appearing on Fox News this morning to discuss the HJC's negotiations with Mueller (which is the WaPo's only source for their story), Committee member David Cicilline had to correct the record afterward, "Just to clarify: we are aiming to bring Mueller in on the 15th, but nothing has been agreed to yet. That’s the date the Committee has proposed, and we hope the Special Counsel will agree to it. Sorry for the confusion."
posted by Doktor Zed at 10:03 AM on May 5, 2019 [5 favorites]
n.b. The WaPo's headline is misleading—there is no tentative agreement yet on a Mueller appearance before the House Judiciary Committee.
After appearing on Fox News this morning to discuss the HJC's negotiations with Mueller (which is the WaPo's only source for their story), Committee member David Cicilline had to correct the record afterward, "Just to clarify: we are aiming to bring Mueller in on the 15th, but nothing has been agreed to yet. That’s the date the Committee has proposed, and we hope the Special Counsel will agree to it. Sorry for the confusion."
posted by Doktor Zed at 10:03 AM on May 5, 2019 [5 favorites]
At this point, anyone who floats this excuse is operating in bad faith.
A NEW STUDY CONFIRMS (AGAIN) THAT RACE, NOT ECONOMICS, DROVE FORMER DEMOCRATS TO TRUMP: Research on Iowa counties that swung from Obama to Trump indicates that GOP success was driven far more by sexism and racism than by economic anxiety.
posted by chris24 at 10:13 AM on May 5, 2019 [34 favorites]
A NEW STUDY CONFIRMS (AGAIN) THAT RACE, NOT ECONOMICS, DROVE FORMER DEMOCRATS TO TRUMP: Research on Iowa counties that swung from Obama to Trump indicates that GOP success was driven far more by sexism and racism than by economic anxiety.
posted by chris24 at 10:13 AM on May 5, 2019 [34 favorites]
(Oh good, the WaPo has changed their headline now to accurately reflect the story, though the URL still gives away their original misrepresentation of it. The great advantage of news consumption in the Internet age is that we can go directly to the source of a story rather than rely on the secondary reporting through mainstream media.)
posted by Doktor Zed at 10:13 AM on May 5, 2019 [1 favorite]
posted by Doktor Zed at 10:13 AM on May 5, 2019 [1 favorite]
The 2016 election allowed Trump to run against a variety of race and sexism targets: Hillary for misogyny, Obama for anti-black racism and his final two Republican opponents had Latino names, Cruz and Rubio.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 11:02 AM on May 5, 2019 [1 favorite]
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 11:02 AM on May 5, 2019 [1 favorite]
In Knock Down the House, the documentary on Netflix partially about AOC, there’s a scene where she’s canvassing two older people in her neighborhood. One of them says he’s a Democrat but voted for Trump because of immigrants. They’re more than willing to tell you exactly why they flipped if you just ask.
posted by schoolgirl report at 11:21 AM on May 5, 2019 [14 favorites]
posted by schoolgirl report at 11:21 AM on May 5, 2019 [14 favorites]
If immigration is the central issue for many swing voters, eventually the Democrat candidate must address those concerns. That will be an interesting bit of triangulation...
posted by xammerboy at 11:40 AM on May 5, 2019
posted by xammerboy at 11:40 AM on May 5, 2019
If immigration is the central issue for many swing voters, eventually the Democrat candidate must address those concerns. That will be an interesting bit of triangulation...
Democrats not addressing the material conditions that foster fascist movements and instead "addressing concerns" by triangulating themselves with fascism would be a grim if predictable timeline.
posted by Rust Moranis at 12:01 PM on May 5, 2019 [14 favorites]
Democrats not addressing the material conditions that foster fascist movements and instead "addressing concerns" by triangulating themselves with fascism would be a grim if predictable timeline.
posted by Rust Moranis at 12:01 PM on May 5, 2019 [14 favorites]
They can address it by rightly calling it by its correct name: Not A Problem. Which it isn't, and this can be proven with numbers and metaphors that people can relate to.
posted by rhizome at 12:08 PM on May 5, 2019 [6 favorites]
posted by rhizome at 12:08 PM on May 5, 2019 [6 favorites]
If immigration is the central issue for many swing voters, eventually the Democrat candidate must address those concerns.Immigration is not the central issue. Status loss is the central issue. Many white people are mourning the fact that they are no longer considered the most important people, the truest and most-authentic Americans, just because they are white. (And in Iowa, they consider themselves the truest and most authentic Americans because they are white, because they associate themselves with small-town or rural values (even if they live in the suburbs), because they are Christian, because they uphold the patriarchal family, because they are "blue-collar" (even if they have a middle-class job), etc.) And yeah, Democrats have to contend with the fact that a lot of disproportionately-powerful Americans believe that they should have extra status because of their whiteness and some other characteristics that are associated with their whiteness. And I don't know how they deal with that, but it can't be by throwing the rest of us under the bus, because they need the rest of us, too.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 12:09 PM on May 5, 2019 [42 favorites]
They can address it by rightly calling it by its correct name: Not A Problem. Which it isn't, and this can be proven with numbers and metaphors that people can relate to.
You can, but bringing facts to a feelings fight doesn’t ever win over an opponent. Maybe a good metaphor, but you still need to be addressing (racist/fear-stoked) feelings with feelings. “Look on this chart to see how your feelings are wrong” is probably worse than useless if your opponent is using your message to “prove” to people that you don’t care about their problems.
posted by phearlez at 12:23 PM on May 5, 2019 [3 favorites]
You can, but bringing facts to a feelings fight doesn’t ever win over an opponent. Maybe a good metaphor, but you still need to be addressing (racist/fear-stoked) feelings with feelings. “Look on this chart to see how your feelings are wrong” is probably worse than useless if your opponent is using your message to “prove” to people that you don’t care about their problems.
posted by phearlez at 12:23 PM on May 5, 2019 [3 favorites]
For that I would whip out a graph of wage growth over the past 50 years. The rich people are taking your money, not the brown people.
posted by rhizome at 12:27 PM on May 5, 2019 [14 favorites]
posted by rhizome at 12:27 PM on May 5, 2019 [14 favorites]
Immigration _should_ be an issue and a concern, because of the reality that prosperous and spacious nations will have increasing immigrant and refugee demands from those fleeing nations ravaged by climate change, and the United States will be no exception to that.
Now, that is not an issue and a concern in the way of someone who thinks that The Camp of the Saints is a documentary. The answer is not "build that wall" or "seal all borders" or "deport everyone who isn't a WASP," or anything even close to those. But it is a concern that if we are all to be human beings together, we must learn to share. We can incorporate these people into a new American paradigm that takes into account what they need, what skills and benefits they bring with them, and how we can all adapt in ways that help everyone prosper or at least stay alive and fed.
As we have done in America many, many times before.
Meanwhile, the other side is telling those people who have White Christian Small-Town Patriarchal Blue-Collar beliefs that it's either Us or Them as far as whom America belongs to. And the actual powers behind the other side keep lying to those people to convince them that they're part of Us.
posted by delfin at 12:28 PM on May 5, 2019 [11 favorites]
Now, that is not an issue and a concern in the way of someone who thinks that The Camp of the Saints is a documentary. The answer is not "build that wall" or "seal all borders" or "deport everyone who isn't a WASP," or anything even close to those. But it is a concern that if we are all to be human beings together, we must learn to share. We can incorporate these people into a new American paradigm that takes into account what they need, what skills and benefits they bring with them, and how we can all adapt in ways that help everyone prosper or at least stay alive and fed.
As we have done in America many, many times before.
Meanwhile, the other side is telling those people who have White Christian Small-Town Patriarchal Blue-Collar beliefs that it's either Us or Them as far as whom America belongs to. And the actual powers behind the other side keep lying to those people to convince them that they're part of Us.
posted by delfin at 12:28 PM on May 5, 2019 [11 favorites]
Soooo ...why aren’t we trying to flip the Senate?
posted by The Whelk at 12:36 PM on May 5, 2019 [16 favorites]
posted by The Whelk at 12:36 PM on May 5, 2019 [16 favorites]
The rich people are taking your money, not the brown people.Ok, again. This is not about economic anxiety. They don't think the brown people are taking their money. This is about status anxiety. They think that they are losing their status as the acknowledged truest, most-authentic Americans. They may well be willing to undergo some economic loss in order to maintain or regain that status.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 12:54 PM on May 5, 2019 [8 favorites]
...Are we not?
If the Dems are to flip the Senate in 2020, they need to hang onto every contested seat they currently have (including Doug Jones in Alabama, who might not be running against a disgraced child molester this time) and then pick off at least five of the following six, or all six if Jones loses:
* Arizona (Martha McSally)
* Colorado (Cory Gardner)
* North Carolina (Thom Tillis)
* Iowa (Joni Ernst)
* Georgia (David Perdue)
* Maine (Susan Collins)
Keeping in mind that North Carolina and Georgia have notable... shall we say... issues in their election security and processes.
For every one of these that the Dems don't flip, or contested Dem seat that does flip, they will need to knock out one in a very strong Republican state.
None of this is impossible. Let us consider that only a decade ago, the Dems were teetering on the edge of a 60-vote supermajority in the Senate. America has changed somewhat over that time but those states haven't all changed THAT much.
But what we need are candidates that are loud, proud and running _for_ their issues of choice rather than simply against Trump and Trumpism. AND can get enough funding, whether from grass roots or from the big donors, to be competitive in the media. AND can be taken seriously enough by said media to get airtime and fair coverage and not get painted as crackpots if they say something to the left of Joe Biden.
I hope that we have those.
posted by delfin at 12:56 PM on May 5, 2019 [12 favorites]
If the Dems are to flip the Senate in 2020, they need to hang onto every contested seat they currently have (including Doug Jones in Alabama, who might not be running against a disgraced child molester this time) and then pick off at least five of the following six, or all six if Jones loses:
* Arizona (Martha McSally)
* Colorado (Cory Gardner)
* North Carolina (Thom Tillis)
* Iowa (Joni Ernst)
* Georgia (David Perdue)
* Maine (Susan Collins)
Keeping in mind that North Carolina and Georgia have notable... shall we say... issues in their election security and processes.
For every one of these that the Dems don't flip, or contested Dem seat that does flip, they will need to knock out one in a very strong Republican state.
None of this is impossible. Let us consider that only a decade ago, the Dems were teetering on the edge of a 60-vote supermajority in the Senate. America has changed somewhat over that time but those states haven't all changed THAT much.
But what we need are candidates that are loud, proud and running _for_ their issues of choice rather than simply against Trump and Trumpism. AND can get enough funding, whether from grass roots or from the big donors, to be competitive in the media. AND can be taken seriously enough by said media to get airtime and fair coverage and not get painted as crackpots if they say something to the left of Joe Biden.
I hope that we have those.
posted by delfin at 12:56 PM on May 5, 2019 [12 favorites]
Indivisible's Ezra Levin posted a thread about retaking the Senate (and recommends eliminating the filibuster as a priority):
On a tangential note, Trump can't spell Kentucky.
MegaThread Housekeeping: There's a new draft for the next uspolitics FPP on the MeFi wiki for people to collaborate and contribute.
posted by Doktor Zed at 12:57 PM on May 5, 2019 [21 favorites]
So how do Dems get to 60 votes? Let's dream a little: 2020: Rosiest possible scenario is a 5 seat net gain for Senate Dems. This would require holding AL (!), and picking up 5 of these: ME, CO, AZ, IA, NC, and GA. Not super likely, but we're just dreaming here. That puts Dems up to 52 Senate votes in 2021. GOP blocks everything... 2022: The new Dem President defies odds and gains Senate seats in the midterms! The "easiest" (ha!) pickups are OH, WI, PA, IA, NC, GA, & FL (Rubio!). Let's say Dems get 4 of em and lose 0 of their own. That's 56 Senate votes in 2023. GOP blocks everything... 2024: The new Dem President won re-election! Hurray! Unfortunately, 2024 is a rough senate map. FL, MO, and TX (all Dem losses in 2018) are the best bets. Let's say it's a sweep, and yet again, Dems lose 0 of their own. That's 59 senate votes in 2025. GOP blocks everything... 2026: Wahoo! Dems win yet another midterm election! Seems bonkers, but hey this is a dream, remember? Maybe they pick up KS or a remaining seat in GA, IA, or NC that they missed in 2020. That'll give them 60 or 61 seats in 2027. So we win now? Not so fast...In the immediate future, unseating Mitch McConnell next year would of course be an improvement, if only one of degree. (A Public Policy Polling survey from February (PDF) found that "47% of Republicans think McConnell deserves to be reelected, and 44% of Republicans think it's time to elect someone new.") So far in the Dem primaries, however, the only candidate the neophyte Stephen Cox, who doesn't appear ready to take on McConnell's machine.
The above scenario assumes 0 Dem losses (unlikely). It assumes 4 consecutive Dem electoral sweeps (basically inconceivable). It assumes Dem wins in TX, OH, FL, NC, GA, IA, MO + more (!). And it assumes those Dems will then vote unanimously for big progressive reforms (good luck!)
If 2027 seems like a long time to wait for crucial reforms, you might want to sit down. In 1890, a bill to provide oversight of southern elections to prevent black voter suppression was filibustered. The reform was blocked for 75 years until the Voting Rights Act passed in 1965. And of course while we wait for 2027 or 2047 or 2067, our planet is dying, inequality is skyrocketing, and democracy is crumbling. If this is depressing you, I've got good news: there is a better way. AX THE DAMN FILIBUSTER.
Here's the alternate scenario if we do: 2020: Dems take that optimistic 4 or 5 seats. They have the Presidency, the House, and the Senate. The Senate axes the filibuster with a simple majority vote. Congress then passes popular progressive legislation and the president signs it into law. Wouldn't that be nice? McConnell weakened the filibuster to get his way - 2 Supreme Court justices. But so far, 0 Dem presidential contenders are on the record for axing the filibuster. {Except Elizabeth Warren—ed.} Many are talking about big progressive plans. All are empty promises while the filibuster lives.
So by all means, ask for democracy reforms, M4A, GND, and other big things you'd like your presidential favorites to embrace. But also ask them if they support axing the filibuster. If not, I've got a bridge to sell you and can send you my venmo info.
On a tangential note, Trump can't spell Kentucky.
MegaThread Housekeeping: There's a new draft for the next uspolitics FPP on the MeFi wiki for people to collaborate and contribute.
posted by Doktor Zed at 12:57 PM on May 5, 2019 [21 favorites]
So far in the Dem primaries, however, the only candidate the neophyte Stephen Cox, who doesn't appear ready to take on McConnell's machine.
There's only two relevant candidates against McConnell, both relative outsiders to KY politics. No established Kentucky Democrat can beat McConnell. It's impossible, for many reasons including because there's no good candidates in the state bench system that doesn't exist, because the state party doesn't actually think McConnell is beatable and is unwilling to actually try, and mostly, because the downtrodden KY Democratic party is utterly captured by a couple small consultancies in Frankfort that always run the same losing race over and over, and are happy to do it because they get paid either way.
Anyway. The only two candidates are Amy McGrath, or radio host Matt Jones. Jones' radio contract is up this summer, he's said he will make a decision then. As far as I know, McGrath has not made any public statement. No other person other than those two could even conceivably win.
posted by T.D. Strange at 1:03 PM on May 5, 2019 [6 favorites]
There's only two relevant candidates against McConnell, both relative outsiders to KY politics. No established Kentucky Democrat can beat McConnell. It's impossible, for many reasons including because there's no good candidates in the state bench system that doesn't exist, because the state party doesn't actually think McConnell is beatable and is unwilling to actually try, and mostly, because the downtrodden KY Democratic party is utterly captured by a couple small consultancies in Frankfort that always run the same losing race over and over, and are happy to do it because they get paid either way.
Anyway. The only two candidates are Amy McGrath, or radio host Matt Jones. Jones' radio contract is up this summer, he's said he will make a decision then. As far as I know, McGrath has not made any public statement. No other person other than those two could even conceivably win.
posted by T.D. Strange at 1:03 PM on May 5, 2019 [6 favorites]
Winning Joni Ernst's seat in Iowa is going to be a really big challenge, and I think we need a great candidate. We also need to change our thinking about what makes a great candidate. People are upset that Cindy Axne isn't running, and I think she'd make a great senator, but she's not a great candidate. We need to stop thinking about who has the right qualifications and start thinking about who has the right energy. Who can appeal to voters in the right way? J.D. Scholten has literally no qualifications, but he almost beat Steve King in part because he seems like the kind of standup guy whom Iowans want to represent them. Joni herself didn't have a whole lot of qualifications when she won in 2014. I would rather have a charismatic candidate from the state legislature or even from outside of politics than another worthy but plodding congressperson.
Zach Wahls would be pretty perfect, but he's too young. I think he's got a real shot at Grassley's seat in 2022, at which point he'll be old enough to run.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 1:15 PM on May 5, 2019 [4 favorites]
Zach Wahls would be pretty perfect, but he's too young. I think he's got a real shot at Grassley's seat in 2022, at which point he'll be old enough to run.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 1:15 PM on May 5, 2019 [4 favorites]
{Except Elizabeth Warren—ed.}
And Jay Inslee.
posted by litlnemo at 1:24 PM on May 5, 2019 [1 favorite]
And Jay Inslee.
posted by litlnemo at 1:24 PM on May 5, 2019 [1 favorite]
I believe that Democrats in border stars can use nostalgia in their favor. Immigration issues were far from perfect but even among many racists there was a certain equilibrium that allowed them to say the problem is over there, and not about that neighbor I get along with and whom I pick up to use for day labor.
I believe a majority believe the situation was better before the recent screed of "they're rapists."
I hope I'm expressing this well. I'm not dismissing racism. I'm saying most racists imagine they are separate from the most toxic sort. If you can use that as a wedge, they'll vote to return to the good old Obama days.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 1:24 PM on May 5, 2019 [1 favorite]
I believe a majority believe the situation was better before the recent screed of "they're rapists."
I hope I'm expressing this well. I'm not dismissing racism. I'm saying most racists imagine they are separate from the most toxic sort. If you can use that as a wedge, they'll vote to return to the good old Obama days.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 1:24 PM on May 5, 2019 [1 favorite]
As a border state resident, I was disturbed by how okay people were with turning and saying to their colleagues, acquaintances, employees and relatives essentially, "You're the problem with this country" and accepting it without significant question or caveat when authority figures tell them that. They see the same headlines we do about regular people who were just quietly minding their business when ICE showed up and they don't care. I think we'd have to get several more lines further into the Neimoller poem until they started.
posted by Selena777 at 2:24 PM on May 5, 2019 [10 favorites]
posted by Selena777 at 2:24 PM on May 5, 2019 [10 favorites]
WCVB: Red Sox manager Alex Cora says he will skip team's visit to White House. Cora is Puerto Rican and cited post-Maria conditions:
posted by adamg at 2:35 PM on May 5, 2019 [9 favorites]
Unfortunately we are still struggling. Some are absent from basic needs, others without electricity, and many houses and schools are still in disrepair, a year and a half after Hurricane Maria.One of the players who will visit the White House (for some cold Whoppers?) is J. D. Martinez.
Although the government of the United States has helped, there is still a long way to go, that is OUR reality. I have continually used my voice so that we Puerto Ricans are not forgotten and my absence is not different. Therefore, at this time, I do not feel comfortable celebrating in the White House.
posted by adamg at 2:35 PM on May 5, 2019 [9 favorites]
they have stollen two years of my (our) Presidency (Collusion Delusion) that we will never be able to get back.....
stollen, you say? HOW VERY DARE THEY
Jokes aside, though, I confess I'm a bit concerned that a Democratic party which has decided to go all-in on elections as the remedy to a corrupt Executive and a Senate that won't impeach is not a party that is gonna have a plan for what happens in 2020 -- whether or not they technically "win".
posted by halation at 3:18 PM on May 5, 2019 [14 favorites]
stollen, you say? HOW VERY DARE THEY
Jokes aside, though, I confess I'm a bit concerned that a Democratic party which has decided to go all-in on elections as the remedy to a corrupt Executive and a Senate that won't impeach is not a party that is gonna have a plan for what happens in 2020 -- whether or not they technically "win".
posted by halation at 3:18 PM on May 5, 2019 [14 favorites]
Leslie Stahl: "You have these wings. @AOC and her group on one side..." Pelosi: "That's like five people."
One thing Pelosi knows is how to count votes. She got the ACA through the House with barely a vote to spare, in spite of a bunch of blue dogs. It takes 220 Democrats to pass a bill in the House. 219 is a failure. You can only pass a bill that the 220th most conservative Dem will vote for. When the most progressive wing can count 220 votes, they can pass their agenda.
posted by JackFlash at 3:33 PM on May 5, 2019 [18 favorites]
One thing Pelosi knows is how to count votes. She got the ACA through the House with barely a vote to spare, in spite of a bunch of blue dogs. It takes 220 Democrats to pass a bill in the House. 219 is a failure. You can only pass a bill that the 220th most conservative Dem will vote for. When the most progressive wing can count 220 votes, they can pass their agenda.
posted by JackFlash at 3:33 PM on May 5, 2019 [18 favorites]
Bill Clinton didn’t get two more years of presidentin’ after the Monica Lewinsky investigation, although by the time the Bush/Gore campaign rolled around with the ensuing vote count, people were so fatigued by the back-and-forth that I remember a joke site being put up: justkeepbill.com
posted by Autumnheart at 4:04 PM on May 5, 2019 [3 favorites]
posted by Autumnheart at 4:04 PM on May 5, 2019 [3 favorites]
Two more years? Amateurs!
Lou Dobbs
Don't forget to add treble damages...that should add another six years to President Trump's second term! #MAGA #AmericaFirst #Dobbs
posted by chris24 at 4:10 PM on May 5, 2019
Lou Dobbs
Don't forget to add treble damages...that should add another six years to President Trump's second term! #MAGA #AmericaFirst #Dobbs
posted by chris24 at 4:10 PM on May 5, 2019
You guys are essentially asking what the plan is if there is a coup. Which, yeah, I understand. But it's not the sort of thing you talk about in public.
posted by Justinian at 4:41 PM on May 5, 2019 [7 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 4:41 PM on May 5, 2019 [7 favorites]
Leslie Stahl: "No, the progressive group ..." Pelosi, cutting her off: "I'm a progressive"
In other words, FU Stahl. Don't even let them formulate their loaded questions.
Journalists love pushing the Democrats in Disarray drama. It's because they are too dumb to understand or discuss actual policies and issues. Their only talent is Mean Girl lunchroom gossip. Don't fall for it.
posted by JackFlash at 4:45 PM on May 5, 2019 [29 favorites]
In other words, FU Stahl. Don't even let them formulate their loaded questions.
Journalists love pushing the Democrats in Disarray drama. It's because they are too dumb to understand or discuss actual policies and issues. Their only talent is Mean Girl lunchroom gossip. Don't fall for it.
posted by JackFlash at 4:45 PM on May 5, 2019 [29 favorites]
they have stollen two years of my (our) Presidency (Collusion Delusion) that we will never be able to get back
good god, was there ever such a whiny manbaby as our president, ever? come on, dude, the greatest president of the last century got us out of the great depression and won world war II from a fucking wheelchair
did he whine about how he was entitled to a good time as president and all these problems he had to deal with were so unfair?
look, you don't like the job, fine, quit and they won't be able to steal any more years of your precious entitled life, especially if your pal putin gives you asylum
this is is pure narcissistic rage at finding out the popularity contest he won actually involved responsibility and accountablity and not just blind worship at his gout wracked feet
posted by pyramid termite at 5:54 PM on May 5, 2019 [31 favorites]
good god, was there ever such a whiny manbaby as our president, ever? come on, dude, the greatest president of the last century got us out of the great depression and won world war II from a fucking wheelchair
did he whine about how he was entitled to a good time as president and all these problems he had to deal with were so unfair?
look, you don't like the job, fine, quit and they won't be able to steal any more years of your precious entitled life, especially if your pal putin gives you asylum
this is is pure narcissistic rage at finding out the popularity contest he won actually involved responsibility and accountablity and not just blind worship at his gout wracked feet
posted by pyramid termite at 5:54 PM on May 5, 2019 [31 favorites]
It's amazing the amount of water Pelosi can have carried for her because she sarcastically clapped at the president one time (and then immediately redacted it - well except for the merch on her site).
She pretty much single-handedly got ACA passed. All the talk about Medicare for All and all the rest of the plans wouldn’t be happening without that.
Add Dodd-Frank, Lilly Ledbetter, repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, etc. etc.
Saying all she’s ever done is a clap is ridiculous bordering on sexist.
posted by chris24 at 6:03 PM on May 5, 2019 [63 favorites]
She pretty much single-handedly got ACA passed. All the talk about Medicare for All and all the rest of the plans wouldn’t be happening without that.
Add Dodd-Frank, Lilly Ledbetter, repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, etc. etc.
Saying all she’s ever done is a clap is ridiculous bordering on sexist.
posted by chris24 at 6:03 PM on May 5, 2019 [63 favorites]
She's towed the Democratic party line, which is more or less moderate Republicanism (especially the ACA - it's laughable to think that it's paved the way for anything). Worshipping her as a flawless hero instead of a decently competent careerist is poisonous, and likely setting the dems up for failure in the future through weak, spineless incrementalism. If you insist on putting a progressive leftists woman on a pedestal, then there are dozens of actual options who aren't in the pocket of the insurance industry and the DoD.
posted by codacorolla at 6:32 PM on May 5, 2019 [2 favorites]
posted by codacorolla at 6:32 PM on May 5, 2019 [2 favorites]
Justinian wrote:
You guys are essentially asking what the plan is if there is a coup. Which, yeah, I understand. But it's not the sort of thing you talk about in public.
You'd certainly thing so, and yet, those last tweets from Dobbs, Falwell and His Royal Orangeness seem like they are planning the coup in public. I guess having better opsec is an advantage, but if not in public then where?
posted by bcd at 6:53 PM on May 5, 2019 [8 favorites]
You guys are essentially asking what the plan is if there is a coup. Which, yeah, I understand. But it's not the sort of thing you talk about in public.
You'd certainly thing so, and yet, those last tweets from Dobbs, Falwell and His Royal Orangeness seem like they are planning the coup in public. I guess having better opsec is an advantage, but if not in public then where?
posted by bcd at 6:53 PM on May 5, 2019 [8 favorites]
Oh please, can we not with the "Democrats in Disarray!" "Today's Democrats are really Republicans!" Compared to what and when? The halcyon days of the New Deal (many of which programs were for whites only, such as the GI Bill) and LBJ's Great Society (when the second wave of feminism was just getting off the ground)?
There are a lot of problems with Democrats relying on corporate donors, I will agree. But that doesn't make them "Republicans at heart." Could an out and married gay man like Pete Buttigieg run for President in the Good Old Days of the New Deal? Could a trans woman like Danica Roem get elected to public office in the days of the Great Society?
And the ACA isn't just "some program Mitt Romney invented." I don't think any but a Democratic Congress could have passed it - and Nancy Pelosi deserves a lot of credit.
I don't think Nancy Pelosi is perfect and flawless, but she's a damn good wartime consigliere, and she knows more about Congress than we do. She deserves some credit. And so do the Democrats.
And if we want less disarray, we have to flip the Senate. See the good things that happened when we flipped the House? The Senate is a much heavier lift, but luckily, at least in this election go-round, our only truly vulnerable Democrat is Doug Jones; we have no Heitkamps or Donnellys hanging on by their fingernails in red states and/or facing formidable Republican opponents. Flipping the Senate is hard but important.
posted by Rosie M. Banks at 7:02 PM on May 5, 2019 [15 favorites]
There are a lot of problems with Democrats relying on corporate donors, I will agree. But that doesn't make them "Republicans at heart." Could an out and married gay man like Pete Buttigieg run for President in the Good Old Days of the New Deal? Could a trans woman like Danica Roem get elected to public office in the days of the Great Society?
And the ACA isn't just "some program Mitt Romney invented." I don't think any but a Democratic Congress could have passed it - and Nancy Pelosi deserves a lot of credit.
I don't think Nancy Pelosi is perfect and flawless, but she's a damn good wartime consigliere, and she knows more about Congress than we do. She deserves some credit. And so do the Democrats.
And if we want less disarray, we have to flip the Senate. See the good things that happened when we flipped the House? The Senate is a much heavier lift, but luckily, at least in this election go-round, our only truly vulnerable Democrat is Doug Jones; we have no Heitkamps or Donnellys hanging on by their fingernails in red states and/or facing formidable Republican opponents. Flipping the Senate is hard but important.
posted by Rosie M. Banks at 7:02 PM on May 5, 2019 [15 favorites]
(especially the ACA - it's laughable to think that it's paved the way for anything)
It paved the way for literally tens of millions of people to have health insurance, and through that, access to a level of health care that they didn't have before. Not to mention the benefits to those who already had health coverage, by removing life caps, letting dependents up to age 26 remain on parents' coverage, eliminating restrictions on pre-existing conditions, etc., etc., etc.
I get that the ACA wasn't UHC, or even M4A, and it's not where we want to be, eventually. But let's not downplay the fact that it was a major, major step forward. Nor let us forget that there were literally no more votes for anything more progressive than that, and even it came very close to not passing.
It was, in fact, so carefully crafted, and the votes whipped, and the various constituencies appeased, that 50+ attempts by the GOP to destroy it have already failed.
Now it's time to take the next step, of course. Sometimes progress happens step-by-step.
posted by darkstar at 7:05 PM on May 5, 2019 [42 favorites]
It paved the way for literally tens of millions of people to have health insurance, and through that, access to a level of health care that they didn't have before. Not to mention the benefits to those who already had health coverage, by removing life caps, letting dependents up to age 26 remain on parents' coverage, eliminating restrictions on pre-existing conditions, etc., etc., etc.
I get that the ACA wasn't UHC, or even M4A, and it's not where we want to be, eventually. But let's not downplay the fact that it was a major, major step forward. Nor let us forget that there were literally no more votes for anything more progressive than that, and even it came very close to not passing.
It was, in fact, so carefully crafted, and the votes whipped, and the various constituencies appeased, that 50+ attempts by the GOP to destroy it have already failed.
Now it's time to take the next step, of course. Sometimes progress happens step-by-step.
posted by darkstar at 7:05 PM on May 5, 2019 [42 favorites]
more or less moderate Republicanism (especially the ACA - it's laughable to think that it's paved the way for anything)
Virtually the entire Republican party has voted time after time after time to repeal the ACA because the ACA is moderate Republicanism? That doesn't make any sense. The fact that Republicans have declared the ACA to be their enemy is a pretty good clue that it's not a Republican thing.
The ACA and health care in this country are miles away from being perfect, but we don't have to make up lies about it because we want better. The first thing the ACA did was get 17 million more people on Medicaid (and it would be more if, yep, Republicans didn't fight to deny people health care). That's hardly a Republican idea. Here's a graph of the uninsured rate: that big rapid decline is the ACA. What the ACA paved the way for is for people represented in that graph to not die for lack of access to health care.
It's not enough, and we need to do more, but I don't know a single actual single-payer activist who dumps on the ACA as much as people love to do in these threads.
posted by zachlipton at 7:10 PM on May 5, 2019 [22 favorites]
Virtually the entire Republican party has voted time after time after time to repeal the ACA because the ACA is moderate Republicanism? That doesn't make any sense. The fact that Republicans have declared the ACA to be their enemy is a pretty good clue that it's not a Republican thing.
The ACA and health care in this country are miles away from being perfect, but we don't have to make up lies about it because we want better. The first thing the ACA did was get 17 million more people on Medicaid (and it would be more if, yep, Republicans didn't fight to deny people health care). That's hardly a Republican idea. Here's a graph of the uninsured rate: that big rapid decline is the ACA. What the ACA paved the way for is for people represented in that graph to not die for lack of access to health care.
It's not enough, and we need to do more, but I don't know a single actual single-payer activist who dumps on the ACA as much as people love to do in these threads.
posted by zachlipton at 7:10 PM on May 5, 2019 [22 favorites]
this is is pure narcissistic rage at finding out the popularity contest he won actually involved responsibility and accountablity and not just blind worship at his gout wracked feet
Periodic reminder that while he won in the electoral college which is ultimately what matters, he lost the popularity contest by 3 million votes. Let's not move the goalposts on ourselves.
posted by ActingTheGoat at 7:12 PM on May 5, 2019 [7 favorites]
Periodic reminder that while he won in the electoral college which is ultimately what matters, he lost the popularity contest by 3 million votes. Let's not move the goalposts on ourselves.
posted by ActingTheGoat at 7:12 PM on May 5, 2019 [7 favorites]
codacorolla: "She's towed the Democratic party line"
"Toed." As if one is putting one's foot on a line.
posted by Chrysostom at 7:18 PM on May 5, 2019 [24 favorites]
"Toed." As if one is putting one's foot on a line.
posted by Chrysostom at 7:18 PM on May 5, 2019 [24 favorites]
Virtually the entire Republican party has voted time after time after time to repeal the ACA because the ACA is moderate Republicanism?
There is a flavor of leftist neoliberalism-is-the-true-enemy type who has latched on to that talking point because they heard someone once compare the individual mandate to Romneycare. That's is, that's the entire scope of their understanding. Yes, it's not true. Yes, the ACA comprises a huge amount of stuff apart from the mandate. Yes, the mandate was essentially repealed and so the talking point is even less sensical than it started out. But ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
posted by Justinian at 7:41 PM on May 5, 2019 [10 favorites]
There is a flavor of leftist neoliberalism-is-the-true-enemy type who has latched on to that talking point because they heard someone once compare the individual mandate to Romneycare. That's is, that's the entire scope of their understanding. Yes, it's not true. Yes, the ACA comprises a huge amount of stuff apart from the mandate. Yes, the mandate was essentially repealed and so the talking point is even less sensical than it started out. But ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
posted by Justinian at 7:41 PM on May 5, 2019 [10 favorites]
Sabre rattling.
The U.S. is deploying a carrier strike group and a number of bombers to the Middle East to serve as a deterrent to Iran based on new intelligence that suggests allied interests and American forces could be imperiled, multiple U.S. officials said.
posted by adamvasco at 7:54 PM on May 5, 2019 [1 favorite]
The U.S. is deploying a carrier strike group and a number of bombers to the Middle East to serve as a deterrent to Iran based on new intelligence that suggests allied interests and American forces could be imperiled, multiple U.S. officials said.
posted by adamvasco at 7:54 PM on May 5, 2019 [1 favorite]
>
If nothing else we should be really loudly pointing out that with all the chuckling with his Mar-a-Lago buddies about how great it would be to try out President For Life, they're discussing undoing the American Revolution. All the 1776-era rhetoric about rejection of tyranny is usually over the top but now seems like about the right time to break it out. It's even more apropos at the moment than it was back then.
Because you know countless people will be able to convince themselves a coup isn't really happening when Trump breaks another norm and declines to leave office on some pretense, just like they were able to convince themselves rounding up "illegals" by the millions wasn't openly discussing genocide, or at least extremely genocide-adjacent activities of the sort called "The Terror" in any number of national histories.
posted by XMLicious at 7:56 PM on May 5, 2019 [36 favorites]
You guys are essentially asking what the plan is if there is a coup. Which, yeah, I understand. But it's not the sort of thing you talk about in public.
You'd certainly thing so, and yet, those last tweets from Dobbs, Falwell and His Royal Orangeness seem like they are planning the coup in public. I guess having better opsec is an advantage, but if not in public then where?
If nothing else we should be really loudly pointing out that with all the chuckling with his Mar-a-Lago buddies about how great it would be to try out President For Life, they're discussing undoing the American Revolution. All the 1776-era rhetoric about rejection of tyranny is usually over the top but now seems like about the right time to break it out. It's even more apropos at the moment than it was back then.
Because you know countless people will be able to convince themselves a coup isn't really happening when Trump breaks another norm and declines to leave office on some pretense, just like they were able to convince themselves rounding up "illegals" by the millions wasn't openly discussing genocide, or at least extremely genocide-adjacent activities of the sort called "The Terror" in any number of national histories.
posted by XMLicious at 7:56 PM on May 5, 2019 [36 favorites]
justinian: You guys are essentially asking what the plan is if there is a coup. Which, yeah, I understand. But it's not the sort of thing you talk about in public.
>bcd: You'd certainly thing so, and yet, those last tweets from Dobbs, Falwell and His Royal Orangeness seem like they are planning the coup in public. I guess having better opsec is an advantage, but if not in public then where?
opsec-wise, in the face of dictator horrorshow overstaying his term and embarking on serious oppression, everyone who has participated in this megathread likely winds up on a list (assuming that list does not already exist): we have volunteered to express ... resistance ... in a publicly accessible forum consistently over an extended timeframe.
few of us have advocated violence or illegal behavior -- things that might more typically bring us to the attention to law enforcement under the type of constitutional rule of law we have mostly enjoyed to present -- here (or the moderators are super-fast, or both), but not sure strict adherence to the letter of the law is gonna matter to henchpersons of dictator horrorshow. hell: it is clear that it does not matter to most the current misministration already! so then the question is how identifiable each is by their username and linked traffic. most of us, i assume, are identifiable pretty easily by an entity with the resources of, say, the nsa.
that said, this remains an ideal place to discuss, say, a general strike or like mass collective action, and an inadvisable place to discuss extralegal measures. after the coup, when dictator horrorshow's misministration purports to govern in open defiance of the constitution this will remain a poor forum for discussion of extralegal measures even as the edifice of laws -- and, hence, the possibility of distinguishing legal from extralegal -- crumbles, particularly if he has consolidated the intelligence and military apparatus behind him.
& on preview: what XMLicious said, doubleplus.
posted by 20 year lurk at 7:59 PM on May 5, 2019 [10 favorites]
>bcd: You'd certainly thing so, and yet, those last tweets from Dobbs, Falwell and His Royal Orangeness seem like they are planning the coup in public. I guess having better opsec is an advantage, but if not in public then where?
opsec-wise, in the face of dictator horrorshow overstaying his term and embarking on serious oppression, everyone who has participated in this megathread likely winds up on a list (assuming that list does not already exist): we have volunteered to express ... resistance ... in a publicly accessible forum consistently over an extended timeframe.
few of us have advocated violence or illegal behavior -- things that might more typically bring us to the attention to law enforcement under the type of constitutional rule of law we have mostly enjoyed to present -- here (or the moderators are super-fast, or both), but not sure strict adherence to the letter of the law is gonna matter to henchpersons of dictator horrorshow. hell: it is clear that it does not matter to most the current misministration already! so then the question is how identifiable each is by their username and linked traffic. most of us, i assume, are identifiable pretty easily by an entity with the resources of, say, the nsa.
that said, this remains an ideal place to discuss, say, a general strike or like mass collective action, and an inadvisable place to discuss extralegal measures. after the coup, when dictator horrorshow's misministration purports to govern in open defiance of the constitution this will remain a poor forum for discussion of extralegal measures even as the edifice of laws -- and, hence, the possibility of distinguishing legal from extralegal -- crumbles, particularly if he has consolidated the intelligence and military apparatus behind him.
& on preview: what XMLicious said, doubleplus.
posted by 20 year lurk at 7:59 PM on May 5, 2019 [10 favorites]
On a tangential note, Trump can't spell Kentucky.
posted by Doktor Zed at 12:57 PM on May 5
I don't know what Derby Donny was watching, but it wasn't the one I saw. At one point in the race (just after the interference), NBC was showing the field from behind and you could watch the horses split apart, almost as if one went down, or was about to go down. Right then, it was obvious something was happening, even if we didn't get a good angle to see it as it occurred. It was disturbing and unsettling and a bit frightening for a few seconds. Then again, I think I reacted with empathy and concern, and we know those are human emotions that a certain White House resident is entirely lacking.
posted by sardonyx at 8:15 PM on May 5, 2019 [4 favorites]
posted by Doktor Zed at 12:57 PM on May 5
I don't know what Derby Donny was watching, but it wasn't the one I saw. At one point in the race (just after the interference), NBC was showing the field from behind and you could watch the horses split apart, almost as if one went down, or was about to go down. Right then, it was obvious something was happening, even if we didn't get a good angle to see it as it occurred. It was disturbing and unsettling and a bit frightening for a few seconds. Then again, I think I reacted with empathy and concern, and we know those are human emotions that a certain White House resident is entirely lacking.
posted by sardonyx at 8:15 PM on May 5, 2019 [4 favorites]
I'd be far more concerned about Key Wiki, a right-wing database of left-leaning activists and sympathizers I came across the other day. It's apparently based largely on public-facing Facebook data (liking leftist organizing pages, etc.), and reaches all the way down to small-time local-level people, documenting them by name and occupation and level of participation. It makes me think very dark thoughts about what could be done with a well-funded Cambridge Analytica-style effort if things really went south.
posted by Rhaomi at 8:18 PM on May 5, 2019 [26 favorites]
posted by Rhaomi at 8:18 PM on May 5, 2019 [26 favorites]
See the good things that happened when we flipped the House? The Senate is a much heavier lift, but luckily, at least in this election go-round, our only truly vulnerable Democrat is Doug Jones; we have no Heitkamps or Donnellys hanging on by their fingernails in red states and/or facing formidable Republican opponents. Flipping the Senate is hard but important.
The Senate is the end of American democracy. By 2040, 50% of the US population will live in 8 states, represented by 16 senators; the other 50% will be represented by 84 senators. The absolute best path to Democrats winning the Senate in 2020 involves winning in order Colorado, Arizona, Maine, North Carolina and Georgia. And that may be the best Senate map Democrats face again in our lifetimes. The Senate math only ever gets worse for Democrats. Never better. They already spent the only 60 seat majority we'll ever see, and maybe the only majority. And we got what we got.
posted by T.D. Strange at 8:21 PM on May 5, 2019 [28 favorites]
The Senate is the end of American democracy. By 2040, 50% of the US population will live in 8 states, represented by 16 senators; the other 50% will be represented by 84 senators. The absolute best path to Democrats winning the Senate in 2020 involves winning in order Colorado, Arizona, Maine, North Carolina and Georgia. And that may be the best Senate map Democrats face again in our lifetimes. The Senate math only ever gets worse for Democrats. Never better. They already spent the only 60 seat majority we'll ever see, and maybe the only majority. And we got what we got.
posted by T.D. Strange at 8:21 PM on May 5, 2019 [28 favorites]
If you insist on putting a progressive leftists woman on a pedestal...
Yes, it’s definitely just about making sure some woman is credited. I guess I can change bordering on sexist and just say sexist.
posted by chris24 at 8:34 PM on May 5, 2019 [8 favorites]
Yes, it’s definitely just about making sure some woman is credited. I guess I can change bordering on sexist and just say sexist.
posted by chris24 at 8:34 PM on May 5, 2019 [8 favorites]
You guys are essentially asking what the plan is if there is a coup. Which, yeah, I understand. But it's not the sort of thing you talk about in public.
What value is there in pretending it isn't possible? I mean if it's uncouth to talk about losing our democracy, how do we actually keep it?
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 8:34 PM on May 5, 2019 [12 favorites]
What value is there in pretending it isn't possible? I mean if it's uncouth to talk about losing our democracy, how do we actually keep it?
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 8:34 PM on May 5, 2019 [12 favorites]
The U.S. is deploying a carrier strike group and a number of bombers to the Middle East to serve as a deterrent to Iran based on new intelligence that suggests allied interests and American forces could be imperiled
Here's a map showing deployments of American forces in the Middle East, via the American Security Project. Based on that map, I suppose "allied interests and American forces" might mean Kuwait: it's the most proximate to Iran, at least by land, and I presume Iran is unlikely to cross the Persian Gulf and attack US forces directly. But Iran is pretty stretched at the moment, and the fact is that it's the US that has been threatening Iran. I think the deployment has to be seen in that light: if the US is going to physically enforce its blockade it will need to project its force out into the Gulf. A carrier strike group seems a plausible tool for that purpose.
posted by Joe in Australia at 8:42 PM on May 5, 2019 [1 favorite]
Here's a map showing deployments of American forces in the Middle East, via the American Security Project. Based on that map, I suppose "allied interests and American forces" might mean Kuwait: it's the most proximate to Iran, at least by land, and I presume Iran is unlikely to cross the Persian Gulf and attack US forces directly. But Iran is pretty stretched at the moment, and the fact is that it's the US that has been threatening Iran. I think the deployment has to be seen in that light: if the US is going to physically enforce its blockade it will need to project its force out into the Gulf. A carrier strike group seems a plausible tool for that purpose.
posted by Joe in Australia at 8:42 PM on May 5, 2019 [1 favorite]
Micah Zenko
Bolton framing a routine deployment of the Lincoln to CENTCOM AOR as an attempt to frighten Iran is an especially weak and hollow threat. Here's the Navy announcing Bolton's "announcement" one month ago.
Abraham Lincoln Carrier Strike Group Departs on Deployment
posted by chris24 at 8:46 PM on May 5, 2019 [13 favorites]
Bolton framing a routine deployment of the Lincoln to CENTCOM AOR as an attempt to frighten Iran is an especially weak and hollow threat. Here's the Navy announcing Bolton's "announcement" one month ago.
Abraham Lincoln Carrier Strike Group Departs on Deployment
posted by chris24 at 8:46 PM on May 5, 2019 [13 favorites]
The Senate math only ever gets worse for Democrats. Never better.
This fatalistic analysis assumes that Democrats will never become a truly leftist, working class party. Admittedly they're far from that now, but there is a long history of workers' movements in the rural US, and if we could reboot something like Grangerism as an anti-corporate, pro-cooperative force on the hinterlands it seems absolutely possible to retake some "deep red" territory.
posted by contraption at 8:49 PM on May 5, 2019 [6 favorites]
This fatalistic analysis assumes that Democrats will never become a truly leftist, working class party. Admittedly they're far from that now, but there is a long history of workers' movements in the rural US, and if we could reboot something like Grangerism as an anti-corporate, pro-cooperative force on the hinterlands it seems absolutely possible to retake some "deep red" territory.
posted by contraption at 8:49 PM on May 5, 2019 [6 favorites]
This fatalistic analysis assumes that Democrats will never become a truly leftist, working class party.
Based on the actions of present leadership, I can't think of a better bet.
posted by T.D. Strange at 9:05 PM on May 5, 2019 [5 favorites]
Based on the actions of present leadership, I can't think of a better bet.
posted by T.D. Strange at 9:05 PM on May 5, 2019 [5 favorites]
Y'all are still talking like the red states voted for Trump for economic reasons when every single goddamn analysis shows that's wrong. Unless that leftist, working class party is also racist and xenophobic it's not gonna win the red states.
posted by Justinian at 9:10 PM on May 5, 2019 [20 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 9:10 PM on May 5, 2019 [20 favorites]
p.s. im not goddamning at you guys, only at the racists and xenophobes.
posted by Justinian at 9:13 PM on May 5, 2019 [4 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 9:13 PM on May 5, 2019 [4 favorites]
The biggest electoral bloc in this country is still people who don't show up to vote, and it's not impossible that those people could be mobilized to vote against the oligarchs. Of course it's a longshot, longshots are what we have left.
posted by contraption at 9:17 PM on May 5, 2019 [16 favorites]
posted by contraption at 9:17 PM on May 5, 2019 [16 favorites]
Y'all are still talking like the red states voted for Trump for economic reasons when every single goddamn analysis shows that's wrong
It may be wrong, if any one thing is, but I wouldn't be surprised if a change in "economic reasons" for people who make less than, let's say $300K/yr is a pretty good wedge.
posted by rhizome at 9:21 PM on May 5, 2019
It may be wrong, if any one thing is, but I wouldn't be surprised if a change in "economic reasons" for people who make less than, let's say $300K/yr is a pretty good wedge.
posted by rhizome at 9:21 PM on May 5, 2019
Giving up on the idea of ever winning an election in a red state again means giving up on American democracy, period. Don't get me wrong, it's a valid thought. But unless it comes along with embracing and promoting radical non-electoral methods (for example, mass civil unrest and uprisings to grind the state to a halt or destroy it*) then it means essentially accepting living/dying under fascism for the rest of whatever excuse there might be for a future. Why bother engaging in these threads then?
*boy that would be a shame
posted by Rust Moranis at 9:26 PM on May 5, 2019 [15 favorites]
*boy that would be a shame
posted by Rust Moranis at 9:26 PM on May 5, 2019 [15 favorites]
Jan Schakowsky, Illinois congresswoman, released a video today on her Facebook page in which she says that her constituents are asking questions about healthcare, and not about impeaching Trump. My prediction is that that's the talking point you will hear from Democrats in the future. They did not try to hold Trump accountable, because the American people did not care. So if you're upset at all that you're representatives aren't moving forward with impeachment, don't expect them to own up to their failure to do their duty. They are likely going to blame you.
posted by xammerboy at 9:52 PM on May 5, 2019 [2 favorites]
posted by xammerboy at 9:52 PM on May 5, 2019 [2 favorites]
It's not unreasonable to conclude that, thanks to the median voter theorem, the relative sizes of the Democratic and Republican parties will remain near 50% for the foreseeable future. When the country arguably shifted rightward in the 80s and 90s, both parties went rightward and maintained near-50% support, and should the Republican party ever regain its sanity, when there's a leftward shift they will move leftward. Or, failing that, we can turn to the partisanship explanation, and say that 50/50 is pretty baked in for a long time to come. It's only under a scenario where Republicans remain insane and partisanship disappears that we can imagine a super-majority for Democrats, but my bet would be that if the Democrats start making serious gains into the region of 55% or 60%, many Republican politicians will come to their senses just enough to start shifting leftward just enough to bring the partisan divide back to 50/50.
Given that there are multiple forces keeping partisanship near 50/50 even if popular opinion shifts leftward, it's worth thinking about what that means for the Senate. And the basic upshot is that, given the rural prevalence of Republicans, we end up with a permanent Senate majority of around 55-60 Republicans, give or take. What that means is that, no matter how successful you are at shifting public opinion leftward, as long as Republicans don't deliberately refuse to ever more leftward or as long as partisanship remains strong, nothing leftward will ever be passed again unless it makes the 50th Senator (if the filibuster is abolished) or the 60th senator (if it isn't) happy -- and both of those are likely to remain Republicans, especially the 60th.
So anyway, that's a long way of saying a grand popular movement isn't enough. The Senate will remain a huge bar for Democrats from here on out unless something is done about its inherent pro-Republican bias. Abolishing the filibuster will at least give Democrats a few more chances to break the 50% mark before even that becomes increasingly unattainable.
posted by chortly at 9:57 PM on May 5, 2019 [4 favorites]
Given that there are multiple forces keeping partisanship near 50/50 even if popular opinion shifts leftward, it's worth thinking about what that means for the Senate. And the basic upshot is that, given the rural prevalence of Republicans, we end up with a permanent Senate majority of around 55-60 Republicans, give or take. What that means is that, no matter how successful you are at shifting public opinion leftward, as long as Republicans don't deliberately refuse to ever more leftward or as long as partisanship remains strong, nothing leftward will ever be passed again unless it makes the 50th Senator (if the filibuster is abolished) or the 60th senator (if it isn't) happy -- and both of those are likely to remain Republicans, especially the 60th.
So anyway, that's a long way of saying a grand popular movement isn't enough. The Senate will remain a huge bar for Democrats from here on out unless something is done about its inherent pro-Republican bias. Abolishing the filibuster will at least give Democrats a few more chances to break the 50% mark before even that becomes increasingly unattainable.
posted by chortly at 9:57 PM on May 5, 2019 [4 favorites]
I’ve spent this weekend terrifying myself with the podcast It Could Happen Here. It’s about the potential for civil war, civil unrest, and the factors driving us towards it. It ties in to the discussion we’re having about the creep and staying power of fascism.
posted by SecretAgentSockpuppet at 10:07 PM on May 5, 2019 [10 favorites]
posted by SecretAgentSockpuppet at 10:07 PM on May 5, 2019 [10 favorites]
Jan Schakowsky, Illinois congresswoman, released a video today on her Facebook page in which she says that her constituents are asking questions about healthcare, and not about impeaching Trump.
Isn't this easily ("easily") countered? Take a look at her schedule this week and tell me Congress can't do both healthcare and impeachment at the same time. They're doing tons of shit all the time, maybe just not with homework like a prosecution of impeachment might be? Shame can be put into service to get her nose to the grindstone, however, and public demands for her to focus less on funding wars or whatever could have an effect. Hell, impeach Barr at the same time. What's important can change at any time, no need to treat these things differently.
posted by rhizome at 10:12 PM on May 5, 2019 [3 favorites]
Isn't this easily ("easily") countered? Take a look at her schedule this week and tell me Congress can't do both healthcare and impeachment at the same time. They're doing tons of shit all the time, maybe just not with homework like a prosecution of impeachment might be? Shame can be put into service to get her nose to the grindstone, however, and public demands for her to focus less on funding wars or whatever could have an effect. Hell, impeach Barr at the same time. What's important can change at any time, no need to treat these things differently.
posted by rhizome at 10:12 PM on May 5, 2019 [3 favorites]
Trump picks former Border Patrol chief to lead ICE (Kelly Cohen, Vox)
posted by ZeusHumms at 10:18 PM on May 5, 2019 [5 favorites]
Mark Morgan, a veteran FBI agent who was in charge of the US Border Patrol during the final days of the Obama administration, has been chosen by President Trump to lead Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). [...]Curious.
As the leader of US Border Patrol, Morgan was criticized by the union representing border patrol officers for being unsuited to executing President Trump’s vision for the US/Mexico border.
In November 2016, the executive board of that union wrote an op-ed for the far-right website Breitbart calling Morgan a “disgrace,” citing, in particular, a Congressional testimony during which he said supported immigration reform. In 2017, Morgan said he was asked by his superiors to leave his post as Border Patrol chief, and he ultimately resigned.
More recently, Morgan has made it clear he is onboard with Trump’s immigration policies.
posted by ZeusHumms at 10:18 PM on May 5, 2019 [5 favorites]
the basic upshot is that, given the rural prevalence of Republicans, we end up with a permanent Senate majority of around 55-60 Republicans, give or take.
What I'm saying is that while the rural prevalence of Republicans has been the reality for a while, it's not a fact of nature and shouldn't be conceded as a given. Cities trend younger and more diverse, yeah, but things like common carrier broadband and postal banking should hold immediate appeal to people living outside developed areas.
If structured and messaged properly, I think even big programs like Medicare for All and a Green New Deal could be sold to people who consider themselves libertarian-flavored Republicans who value individual freedom and opportunity; we just need to drive home the idea that corporations are power structures not dissimilar from the state in terms of their liberty-stealing capacity. There's been a long and disingenuous campaign from the right to brand socialism as antithetical to the protestant work ethic, when in fact they're pretty closely aligned. Socialists don't want "free stuff," we want the sanctity of work to be respected.
posted by contraption at 10:19 PM on May 5, 2019 [17 favorites]
What I'm saying is that while the rural prevalence of Republicans has been the reality for a while, it's not a fact of nature and shouldn't be conceded as a given. Cities trend younger and more diverse, yeah, but things like common carrier broadband and postal banking should hold immediate appeal to people living outside developed areas.
If structured and messaged properly, I think even big programs like Medicare for All and a Green New Deal could be sold to people who consider themselves libertarian-flavored Republicans who value individual freedom and opportunity; we just need to drive home the idea that corporations are power structures not dissimilar from the state in terms of their liberty-stealing capacity. There's been a long and disingenuous campaign from the right to brand socialism as antithetical to the protestant work ethic, when in fact they're pretty closely aligned. Socialists don't want "free stuff," we want the sanctity of work to be respected.
posted by contraption at 10:19 PM on May 5, 2019 [17 favorites]
Putting in another recommendation for It Could Happen Here. It's alarming, for sure, and it's uncomfortable to hear confirmation of your own worry that your neighbors might murder you, but I find a lot of relief in the open discussion of where we're likely headed. History doesn't end with the failure of electoralism and we need to have our eyes and minds open for how to engage with and survive that history.
posted by Rust Moranis at 10:20 PM on May 5, 2019 [10 favorites]
posted by Rust Moranis at 10:20 PM on May 5, 2019 [10 favorites]
> There is a flavor of leftist neoliberalism-is-the-true-enemy type who has latched on to that talking point because they heard someone once compare the individual mandate to Romneycare.
No interest in reviving this exhausting debate, but this is a ridiculous and insulting characterization. And you of all people certainly know that. Whatever the relevance of Romneycare may be, the heart of the ACA (preexisting conditions + individual mandate) is literally from a 1989 Heritage Foundation proposal.
posted by shenderson at 11:11 PM on May 5, 2019 [11 favorites]
No interest in reviving this exhausting debate, but this is a ridiculous and insulting characterization. And you of all people certainly know that. Whatever the relevance of Romneycare may be, the heart of the ACA (preexisting conditions + individual mandate) is literally from a 1989 Heritage Foundation proposal.
posted by shenderson at 11:11 PM on May 5, 2019 [11 favorites]
Virtually the entire Republican party has voted time after time after time to repeal the ACA because the ACA is moderate Republicanism? That doesn't make any sense.
to be fair, very little in republicanism of *any* stripe these days makes much sense
posted by halation at 11:49 PM on May 5, 2019 [4 favorites]
to be fair, very little in republicanism of *any* stripe these days makes much sense
posted by halation at 11:49 PM on May 5, 2019 [4 favorites]
It does seem very fatalistic to give up on the senate already. Things change, first slowly then all at once. I think climate change and the Green New Deal could be a platform that could make people vote blue across the country. People love their cars and their beef, but they also love the land, and would be open to ideas they could see make sense. (Based on conversations with conservative people on a road trip more than ten years ago, so take this with a whole cup of salt).
posted by mumimor at 12:08 AM on May 6, 2019 [5 favorites]
posted by mumimor at 12:08 AM on May 6, 2019 [5 favorites]
Mod note: A few deleted. If you want to discuss saltwater fish extinction news you can make a new post or talk about it in this currently open climate change thread. Update: new thread. (Also, re deletions: if you are raging out at other commenters here, I ask you with 100% sincere empathy to take it as a sign to step back, breathe, get away from the screens, and take care of yourself a bit. Please.
posted by taz (staff) at 12:10 AM on May 6, 2019 [10 favorites]
posted by taz (staff) at 12:10 AM on May 6, 2019 [10 favorites]
Whatever the relevance of Romneycare may be, the heart of the ACA (preexisting conditions + individual mandate) is literally from a 1989 Heritage Foundation proposal.
The Heritage Plan Was Paul Ryan’s Wet Dream And Was Nothing Like the Affordable Care Act. The ACA expanded Medicaid for millions, while the Heritage Foundation plan would have gutted Medicaid and replaced Medicare with vouchers. The combo of coverage for preexisting conditions + an individual mandate was the law in countries like Switzerland and the Netherlands long before anybody seriously proposed it in the US.
Giving Republicans credit for Democratic successes is a poor strategy to obtain future and better successes, and just plain inaccurate in this case.
posted by zachlipton at 2:07 AM on May 6, 2019 [32 favorites]
The Heritage Plan Was Paul Ryan’s Wet Dream And Was Nothing Like the Affordable Care Act. The ACA expanded Medicaid for millions, while the Heritage Foundation plan would have gutted Medicaid and replaced Medicare with vouchers. The combo of coverage for preexisting conditions + an individual mandate was the law in countries like Switzerland and the Netherlands long before anybody seriously proposed it in the US.
Giving Republicans credit for Democratic successes is a poor strategy to obtain future and better successes, and just plain inaccurate in this case.
posted by zachlipton at 2:07 AM on May 6, 2019 [32 favorites]
fluttering hellfire: We've got to keep flipping state level seats and maintaining the ones we have so that we also have viable, experienced legislators to run for the '22 and '24 Senate.
And also for its own sake! I think that's been one stumbling block for liberals -- we tend to think so very globally. Republicans have achieved national success by the accumulation of "local" focus by their leaders -- the global sutff is left to well-disguised paragandists like Sinclair.
chortly: It's not unreasonable to conclude that, thanks to the median voter theorem, the relative sizes of the Democratic and Republican parties will remain near 50% for the foreseeable future. When the country arguably shifted rightward in the 80s and 90s, both parties went rightward and maintained near-50% support, and should the Republican party ever regain its sanity, when there's a leftward shift they will move leftward.
I'd say that's complicated by the possibility of a true discontinuity in the spectrum of public opinion, especially on social rather than economic issues. Trump exposed a small rift among Republicans between Racism Lite and No Seriously Let's Have an Ethnostate. Conservatism has long had this problem of being dominated by its own extreme right tip, and in the long run that's supposed to be a recipe for losing elections to the more mainstream faction.
This is why the "autopsy" written after Romney's loss in 2012 could never truly be followed -- it called for making more appeals to voters of color, but you simply can't do that and expect to hold on to the white nationalists (not in the same way you can craft an economic plan that compromises on tax rates or whatever), at some point they expect the favor returned. So instead, the party simply bypassed popular-majority elections anyway and relied on gerrymandering, state boundaries, the electoral college, etc. If they could find that smooth coninuum again, they could return to being more "normal", though once you've had a taste of fascist praxis why ever go back?
posted by InTheYear2017 at 4:57 AM on May 6, 2019 [9 favorites]
And also for its own sake! I think that's been one stumbling block for liberals -- we tend to think so very globally. Republicans have achieved national success by the accumulation of "local" focus by their leaders -- the global sutff is left to well-disguised paragandists like Sinclair.
chortly: It's not unreasonable to conclude that, thanks to the median voter theorem, the relative sizes of the Democratic and Republican parties will remain near 50% for the foreseeable future. When the country arguably shifted rightward in the 80s and 90s, both parties went rightward and maintained near-50% support, and should the Republican party ever regain its sanity, when there's a leftward shift they will move leftward.
I'd say that's complicated by the possibility of a true discontinuity in the spectrum of public opinion, especially on social rather than economic issues. Trump exposed a small rift among Republicans between Racism Lite and No Seriously Let's Have an Ethnostate. Conservatism has long had this problem of being dominated by its own extreme right tip, and in the long run that's supposed to be a recipe for losing elections to the more mainstream faction.
This is why the "autopsy" written after Romney's loss in 2012 could never truly be followed -- it called for making more appeals to voters of color, but you simply can't do that and expect to hold on to the white nationalists (not in the same way you can craft an economic plan that compromises on tax rates or whatever), at some point they expect the favor returned. So instead, the party simply bypassed popular-majority elections anyway and relied on gerrymandering, state boundaries, the electoral college, etc. If they could find that smooth coninuum again, they could return to being more "normal", though once you've had a taste of fascist praxis why ever go back?
posted by InTheYear2017 at 4:57 AM on May 6, 2019 [9 favorites]
News You May Have Missed for 5 May 2019
posted by joannemerriam at 5:26 AM on May 6, 2019 [5 favorites]
posted by joannemerriam at 5:26 AM on May 6, 2019 [5 favorites]
So, why the fuck isn't Barr in jail right now. He has the report. He isn't complying. Why would we give Trump any benefit of running out the clock. The faster we start hearings, the faster we start doing damage to Trump prior to the election.
posted by angrycat at 5:59 AM on May 6, 2019 [22 favorites]
posted by angrycat at 5:59 AM on May 6, 2019 [22 favorites]
Ben Smith (Buzzfeed)
Bizarre the extent to which the "electability" conversation leaves out the fact that the only Democrat elected in two decades is black.
Joy Reid (MSNBC)
Not to mention the only Democrat since Carter to go north of 50 percent in the popular vote....
Carter 1976: 50.1%-48%
Clinton 1992: 43%-374%-18.9%
Clinton 1996: 49.2%-40.7%-8.4%
Gore 2000: 48.4%-47.9%
Obama 2008: 52.9%-45.7%
Obama 2012: 51.1%-47.2%
H. Clinton: 2016: 48.2%-46.1%
Barack Obama won by the most crushing majorities any Democrat had since LBJ: winning by 10 million and 5 million votes in 2008 and 2012 respectively. Next best Dem performer? A woman: Hillary Clinton, who won the popular vote by 3 million votes. Just sayin... #electability
posted by chris24 at 6:21 AM on May 6, 2019 [47 favorites]
Bizarre the extent to which the "electability" conversation leaves out the fact that the only Democrat elected in two decades is black.
Joy Reid (MSNBC)
Not to mention the only Democrat since Carter to go north of 50 percent in the popular vote....
Carter 1976: 50.1%-48%
Clinton 1992: 43%-374%-18.9%
Clinton 1996: 49.2%-40.7%-8.4%
Gore 2000: 48.4%-47.9%
Obama 2008: 52.9%-45.7%
Obama 2012: 51.1%-47.2%
H. Clinton: 2016: 48.2%-46.1%
Barack Obama won by the most crushing majorities any Democrat had since LBJ: winning by 10 million and 5 million votes in 2008 and 2012 respectively. Next best Dem performer? A woman: Hillary Clinton, who won the popular vote by 3 million votes. Just sayin... #electability
posted by chris24 at 6:21 AM on May 6, 2019 [47 favorites]
So, why the fuck isn't Barr in jail right now.
Mainly because a judge would look much more favorably (in theory) at affirming a contempt charge if it were levied after a few weeks of waiting for him to comply, rather than after a few days.
posted by darkstar at 6:22 AM on May 6, 2019 [9 favorites]
Mainly because a judge would look much more favorably (in theory) at affirming a contempt charge if it were levied after a few weeks of waiting for him to comply, rather than after a few days.
posted by darkstar at 6:22 AM on May 6, 2019 [9 favorites]
Giving Republicans credit for Democratic successes is a poor strategy to obtain future and better successes, and just plain inaccurate in this case.
Romneycare was an actual thing, though, unlike the Heritage Foundation plan. Romney gets too much credit for it (let's give credit both to Massachusetts health-care activists and Democratic supermajorities in both houses of the legislature), but the fact is that the closest the US had gotten to that point to health care for all actually went into effect in Massachusetts under Romney and made it possible for a lot of people (raises hand) to get (relatively) affordable health insurance, without worrying about prior-condition clauses and the like. And, yes, it had the individual mandate. The stupidest, saddest thing was when the state screwed up the switch over to an Obamacare-compliant system and had to spend lots of money fixing the new system (which was built by the same contractor that was busy screwing up the initial federal system).
posted by adamg at 6:26 AM on May 6, 2019 [2 favorites]
Romneycare was an actual thing, though, unlike the Heritage Foundation plan. Romney gets too much credit for it (let's give credit both to Massachusetts health-care activists and Democratic supermajorities in both houses of the legislature), but the fact is that the closest the US had gotten to that point to health care for all actually went into effect in Massachusetts under Romney and made it possible for a lot of people (raises hand) to get (relatively) affordable health insurance, without worrying about prior-condition clauses and the like. And, yes, it had the individual mandate. The stupidest, saddest thing was when the state screwed up the switch over to an Obamacare-compliant system and had to spend lots of money fixing the new system (which was built by the same contractor that was busy screwing up the initial federal system).
posted by adamg at 6:26 AM on May 6, 2019 [2 favorites]
So if Congress holds Barr in contempt, and a judge upholds it, who actually takes him to jail? Is that a thing that can happen if the Executive decides to defy the other branches? I feel like people keep thinking that we're dealing with ordinary circumstances, where everyone agrees to play by the rules, but we're not. The current administration doesn't give a fuck about the Constitution or the rule of law. Does Congress have an independent enforcement mechanism?
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 6:33 AM on May 6, 2019 [2 favorites]
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 6:33 AM on May 6, 2019 [2 favorites]
Does Congress have an independent enforcement mechanism?
The Uncharted Territory Mounties?
posted by Harry Caul at 6:37 AM on May 6, 2019 [1 favorite]
The Uncharted Territory Mounties?
posted by Harry Caul at 6:37 AM on May 6, 2019 [1 favorite]
Yeah, I feel like we're headed for full-scale constitutional crisis (as opposed to quiet constitutional crisis, which we've probably been in for a while), and I wish I was more confident that it would end well.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 6:38 AM on May 6, 2019 [16 favorites]
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 6:38 AM on May 6, 2019 [16 favorites]
Looks like committee vote on Barr contempt citation this Wed, for possible House vote 'later this month'. < Politico
posted by Harry Caul at 7:10 AM on May 6, 2019 [9 favorites]
posted by Harry Caul at 7:10 AM on May 6, 2019 [9 favorites]
I’ve spent this weekend terrifying myself with the podcast It Could Happen Here. It’s about the potential for civil war, civil unrest, and the factors driving us towards it. It ties in to the discussion we’re having about the creep and staying power of fascism.
I'm not ready to go into full "it's probably going to happen here" mode yet. Mostly because it's too scary and stressful. But if Democratic leadership is still doing "possibly later this month" in a few more months, I'm going to switch from "how can I push Democrats towards action" to "how can I prepare myself and my family for what is coming."
posted by diogenes at 7:29 AM on May 6, 2019 [16 favorites]
I'm not ready to go into full "it's probably going to happen here" mode yet. Mostly because it's too scary and stressful. But if Democratic leadership is still doing "possibly later this month" in a few more months, I'm going to switch from "how can I push Democrats towards action" to "how can I prepare myself and my family for what is coming."
posted by diogenes at 7:29 AM on May 6, 2019 [16 favorites]
Does Congress have an independent enforcement mechanism?
The House and Senate each have a Sergreant-at-arms that reports to them with arrest powers. Additionally, the US Capitol Police uniquely reports to the legislature, not the executive.
posted by Uncle Ira at 7:46 AM on May 6, 2019 [10 favorites]
The House and Senate each have a Sergreant-at-arms that reports to them with arrest powers. Additionally, the US Capitol Police uniquely reports to the legislature, not the executive.
posted by Uncle Ira at 7:46 AM on May 6, 2019 [10 favorites]
I'd be far more concerned about Key Wiki, a right-wing database of left-leaning activists and sympathizers I came across the other day.
Where would we go to talk if taking here started to seem like a bad idea?
(I know this thread isn't the place to figure it out. Should this be an AskMe or a MetaTalk? MeFi Mail me if you've got any thoughts on the subject.)
posted by diogenes at 8:20 AM on May 6, 2019 [8 favorites]
Where would we go to talk if taking here started to seem like a bad idea?
(I know this thread isn't the place to figure it out. Should this be an AskMe or a MetaTalk? MeFi Mail me if you've got any thoughts on the subject.)
posted by diogenes at 8:20 AM on May 6, 2019 [8 favorites]
Business Leaders Oppose 'License To Discriminate' Against LGBT Texans (Wade Goodwyn for NPR, May 6, 2019)
posted by filthy light thief at 8:30 AM on May 6, 2019 [34 favorites]
In Austin, Texas, a new raft of anti-LGBT legislation is working its way through the state legislature. One of the bills would allow state licensed professionals of all stripes — from doctors and pharmacists to plumbers and electricians — to deny services on religious grounds. Supporters say the legislation is needed to protect religious freedoms. But opponents call them "religious refusal bills" or "bigot bills."Emphasis mine -- THIS should be the loudest message.
...
A coalition of more than 1,000 Texas and national businesses called Texas Competes are also lobbying against the bills. It includes many of the nation's biggest tech companies including Facebook, Google and Amazon.
One of the bills, Senate Bill 17, specifically allows licensed professionals to discriminate based on sincerely held religious beliefs. Dale Carpenter, a constitutional law professor at the Dedman School of Law at Southern Methodist University, says the bill would allow licensed service providers to discriminate without worrying that their state occupational license might be threatened by their actions.
...
For Republican legislators, this type of legislation puts them in a tough spot. Two years ago a bathroom bill, which singled out transgender public school students and other transgender Texans, tore the Texas GOP in two.
The business community and chambers of commerce hated it. San Antonio was about to host the NCAA Men's Final Four Basketball Tournament and the city was terrified the NCAA would pull out if the bathroom bill became law. It passed the Senate but then Speaker of the House, San Antonio Republican Joe Straus, killed it.
A hero to business but loathed by his party's powerful evangelical wing, Straus retired from politics not long after.
...
"One in ten trade shows held in America are held in Texas. I've got a hundred million dollar's worth of business that's currently at risk, if this legislation were to pass," says Jones. "Based on our experience with the bathroom bill they have a provision in their contracts that spells out that, should Texas pass any form of discriminatory legislation, then they can cancel their meeting in Texas or in Dallas without any penalties."
...
Rural communities are most vulnerable if doctors or pharmacists refuse service because alternatives are usually scarce or non-existent. Moreover, opponents of the legislation worry that municipal non-discrimination ordinances in Dallas, Fort Worth, Austin, El Paso and San Antonio could be rendered unenforceable if the bill were to pass.
posted by filthy light thief at 8:30 AM on May 6, 2019 [34 favorites]
Rural communities are most vulnerable if doctors or pharmacists refuse service because alternatives are usually scarce or non-existent.
The cruelty is the point.
posted by Gelatin at 8:41 AM on May 6, 2019 [17 favorites]
The cruelty is the point.
posted by Gelatin at 8:41 AM on May 6, 2019 [17 favorites]
"To be or not to be, ay, there's the point"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
NEW US POLITICS MEGATHREAD!!!!!!!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
posted by Little Dawn at 9:49 AM on May 6, 2019 [13 favorites]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
NEW US POLITICS MEGATHREAD!!!!!!!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
posted by Little Dawn at 9:49 AM on May 6, 2019 [13 favorites]
Emphasis mine -- THIS should be the loudest message.
I don't think "gay people in Texas might not have a local doctor" is as salient as it might appear, even reworded. I suggest finding an open-minded doctor who works for a hospital or organization that is likely to take advantage of the new law, and say that "the government wants to take your doctor away from you." Or that message could be promulgated raw, with a royal-you assuming that it will affect everybody, that is, "you, because gay people are us, too."
posted by rhizome at 11:44 AM on May 6, 2019 [2 favorites]
I don't think "gay people in Texas might not have a local doctor" is as salient as it might appear, even reworded. I suggest finding an open-minded doctor who works for a hospital or organization that is likely to take advantage of the new law, and say that "the government wants to take your doctor away from you." Or that message could be promulgated raw, with a royal-you assuming that it will affect everybody, that is, "you, because gay people are us, too."
posted by rhizome at 11:44 AM on May 6, 2019 [2 favorites]
🥛🍪🍪
posted by petebest at 1:51 PM on May 6, 2019 [11 favorites]
posted by petebest at 1:51 PM on May 6, 2019 [11 favorites]
« Older Now, Tracey, let's not rehash the coroner's report... | Major report finds NZ's environment is in serious... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
that's hillarious option # 1.
option # 2, per anonymous wapo sources, is that "Mueller decided he could not come to a conclusion on the question of obstruction because it was difficult to determine Trump’s intent and because some of his actions could be interpreted innocently..." which, given what trump openly told lester holt, means the mueller team was essentially compromised, either directly or due to their sympathies for power.
good job all. bring on 2020.
posted by wibari at 9:42 PM on April 17, 2019 [28 favorites]