The know-nothing GOP

[Recording Engineer]

President Trump, who didn't even do that much.

JR

So what did he do?

 

[fazer]

That said modern culture has changed since then (#METOO et al), which would have given President Clinton a much bumpier ride now under current mores.  (Just about finished reading The Madness of Crowds, and yes we have much work to do to avoid all those landmines).


JR

I listened to Douglas Murry on the Rubin Report and have been wanting to read his book. 

On another Rubin Report,  I heard Bridget Phetasy describe Trump as. 

"The Troll in Chief"  pretty apropos.  ;D 

 

[Recording Engineer]

They were worried about the chief executive of our poor foundling nation being corrupted by wealthy foreign countries.

JR

And that right there is exactly what people were concerned about when the investigation of Trump started.

 

[hodad]

It is unlikely to happen, but not because it would be too straightforward and clear.

Our founders had a completely different problem in mind when they wrote the impeachment remedy. They were worried about the chief executive of our poor foundling nation being corrupted by wealthy foreign countries.  The constitution is intentionally vague about what high crimes, are but clearly they are expected to be rare, and significant. Not a party politics disagreement. 
JR

Insisting that this is just a party politics disagreement won't make it so .  This was an attempt to abuse the power of the presidency to blackmail the leaders of a foreign nation into attacking a political opponent. 

If you're paying attention, the evidence is mounting.  Not just the Bolton info but more info from  a Ukrainian official who details pressure applied buy Sondland.  The more stuff comes out, the more all the defenses of Trump crumble. 

 

[pucho812]

I don't see this as an abuse of power. See that's the rorschach test to it all. It's there if you want to see it. I don't care what gets discussed between two leaders of nations. To me that's their gig.  But because the current government leaks like a sieve we found out they were talking. So what.  If you truly believe he was digging up dirt on a political rival, then you must accept the obvious, that all the debates and all the nonsense that is the DNC primary has already been decided, that they will run Joe Biden as the one against trump.  Otherwise Biden is no more a political rival then I am, plus at the time Biden did not even announce he was running yet.  Now if you exam the phone call and not the Schiff parody, there really is nothing their indicating abuse of power.  But then again it's their if you want to see it. 
collusion fell flat,  Obstruction fell flat, the mueller report fell flat,  and this will fall flat too.  OH well the beauty to it all is you can come back and elect a new person. Politicians are like diapers, change often for the same reasons.

 

[hodad]

Listening to the Q & A in the Senate:  Schiff absolutely trashed the "let the voters decide" illogic.  Besides the fact that if a president is corrupting an election, letting a corrupted election proceed isn't really "letting the voters decide," he pointed out that if an impeachment can't be held proximate to an election, then only a president in his 2nd term could be impeached.  That's not in the Constitution, and it's pretty obvious that was not the framers' intent. 

 

[JohnRoberts]

Listening to the Q & A in the Senate:  Schiff absolutely trashed the "let the voters decide" illogic.

I wondered who was watching

Besides the fact that if a president is corrupting an election, letting a corrupted election proceed isn't really "letting the voters decide,"

not a "fact" in evidence, an unproved speculative and pejorative partisan spin.

he pointed out that if an impeachment can't be held proximate to an election, then only a president in his 2nd term could be impeached. 

You can impeach a president at any time "if" indeed there are high crimes.... 

none in evidence after years of multiple investigations at huge taxpayer expense. 

This "Trumped" up Ukraine drama is not remotely a high crime, even if true..

That's not in the Constitution, and it's pretty obvious that was not the framers' intent.

I am pretty sure this political dog and pony show was not part of their plan either.

I expect there will likely be some call for witnesses (Bolton has a new book coming out to sell). Because this is clearly a political exercise in the court of public opinion, republicans would be smart to resist the temptation to summarily dismiss these substandard articles, and go through the motions of adding even more witnesses to appear "fair" . :

Of course opinions vary...

JR

 

[hodad]

I wondered who was watchingnot a "fact" in evidence, an unproved speculative and pejorative partisan spin.
You can impeach a president at any time "if" indeed there are high crimes.... 

You can't have things both ways.  I think that's the point here.  Trump's team is arguing against impeachment because it "invalidates" an election, or that it will impinge on the upcoming one.  Or that because we're close to an election, it should be "left to the voters to decide."  (I've seen similar from at least one person here as well.)

And here you say you can impeach a president at any time.....Okay. 

As to high crimes, maybe you should actually do a little research there.  Outside of Dershowitz, almost no constitutional experts agree with your stance. 

As Schiff pointed out, the fact that Trump demanded only an announcement of the investigation and not an actual investigation points up quite clearly that this was purely political and had nothing to do with national interests.  In fact, if you consider that Giuliani was working on the Ukraine/Biden scam well before Trump involved the politicos, it's likely that even Trump's people discerned that this was a purely political pursuit. 

Trump's abuses of power are exactly the kind of thing the framers were concerned about, and they fit perfectly well within the "high crimes and misdemeanors" category. 

 

[JohnRoberts]

You can't have things both ways.  I think that's the point here.  Trump's team is arguing against impeachment because it "invalidates" an election, or that it will impinge on the upcoming one.  Or that because we're close to an election, it should be "left to the voters to decide."  (I've seen similar from at least one person here as well.)

I have not been listening to the recent TV arguments... I made that argument some time ago.

And here you say you can impeach a president at any time.....Okay. 

yes...  if high crimes are discovered.

As to high crimes, maybe you should actually do a little research there.  Outside of Dershowitz, almost no constitutional experts agree with your stance. 

I guess they are all wrong... while I feel in pretty good company with Dershowitz.... 

This call to authority (constitutional experts) depends on how your echo chamber ranks your experts.

As Schiff pointed out, the fact that Trump demanded only an announcement of the investigation and not an actual investigation points up quite clearly that this was purely political and had nothing to do with national interests.  In fact, if you consider that Giuliani was working on the Ukraine/Biden scam well before Trump involved the politicos, it's likely that even Trump's people discerned that this was a purely political pursuit. 

Practicing politics is not a high crime or the swamp would have been drained already.  Trump is still practicing (politics), but slowly getting better with time.

Trump's abuses of power are exactly the kind of thing the framers were concerned about, and they fit perfectly well within the "high crimes and misdemeanors" category.

Opinions vary....  we'll see how this plays out.

JR

PS: My apologies to list I am not trying to throw gas on this fire....

 

[Recording Engineer]

This "Trumped" up Ukraine drama is not remotely a high crime, even if true.. I am pretty sure this political dog and pony show was not part of their plan either.

JR

Then why the massive hoopla? Why not say yep, I did it and be done with it from the very beginning? Why bring it up now at this stage; most likely where the final defense will land. On top of that, why block testimony from the beginning?

 

[iturnknobs]

I wondered who was watching

I hope people who to choose to comment have chosen to watch...

 

[hodad]

I have not been listening to the recent TV arguments... I made that argument some time ago. yes...  if high crimes are discovered. I guess they are all wrong... while I feel in pretty good company with Dershowitz.... 

This call to authority (constitutional experts) depends on how your echo chamber ranks your experts. P
JR

Not just authority but precedent.  The goalpost moving, the duplicity, the willful self-deception of Rs is astonishing. 

Did you actually watch the Q & A? 

First off, Schiff is masterful.  He is not always perfect, but he is an amazing lawyer. 

Second, most of the R argument is misdirection and irrelevant points.  Much of what I heard from them seemed nothing more than an effort to convince stupid people that Trump actually had a case of any sort. 

You trust Dershowitz, the man who swears he kept his underwear on while getting massages from 14 year olds, over 98% of historians and constitutional scholars?  Heck, even Dershowitz disagreed with Dershowitz--before he started palling around with Jeffrey Epstein.

 

[JohnRoberts]

Not just authority but precedent.  The goalpost moving, the duplicity, the willful self-deception of Rs is astonishing. 

Did you actually watch the Q & A? 

no

First off, Schiff is masterful.  He is not always perfect, but he is an amazing lawyer. 

is that a good thing?

Second, most of the R argument is misdirection and irrelevant points.  Much of what I heard from them seemed nothing more than an effort to convince stupid people that Trump actually had a case of any sort. 

I concede a televised appeal to public opinion is addressing the lowest common denominator from both parties... not my idea of watchable TV (they are not targeting mensa members).

You trust Dershowitz, the man who swears he kept his underwear on while getting massages from 14 year olds, over 98% of historians and constitutional scholars?  Heck, even Dershowitz disagreed with Dershowitz--before he started palling around with Jeffrey Epstein.

Classy? Lowly ad hominem attack. Dershowitz wrote a book (Guilt by accusation) about the personal smears he has suffered since losing the fawning approval of the left over some of his principled opinions about law. He is currently exchanging lawsuits with Epstein accuser (Giuffre) claiming defamation. This is arguably another example of the #METOO movement getting out of control.  Epstein may be a scumbag but even scumbags deserve legal representation.

Lets stick to facts, not subjective speculation and worse....

JR

PS: I have seen one video clip from Dershowitz testimony, not that compelling IMO. 

 

[hodad]

Lets stick to facts, not subjective speculation and worse....

JR

PS: I have seen one video clip from Dershowitz testimony, not that compelling IMO.

Facts:  the stuff about getting a massage at Epstein's place and the sordid detail of keeping his underwear on comes from Dershowitz.  I did make a guess as to the age of the masseuse. 
Facts:  Dershowitz has publicly stated that he believes the age of sexual consent for females should be lowered to 14.  (Do you consider Dershowitz your go-to legal authority on this matter as well?)

I will say that I think Dershowitz's incredibly awkward phrasing led people to misinterpret him yesterday.  But even giving him the benefit of the doubt on that, what he said still doesn't apply here.  Conditioning aid on an announcement of an investigation (with no follow-through necessary) is not, in any way I can think of, in the public interest. 

EDIT:  I watched the clip of Dershowitz.  I was giving him waaaaay too much benefit of the doubt.  I'm sorry I was more generous to him than I should have been.  Now I know better. 

 

[sodderboy]

This has been vibrating the air around me often lately.
I've loved this album since I first heard it, especially Son of Orange County.  Such great playing and energy flow, and at Tricky Dick's expense!

Enjoy!

Mike

 

[JohnRoberts]

This has been vibrating the air around me often lately.
I've loved this album since I first heard it, especially Son of Orange County.  Such great playing and energy flow, and at Tricky Dick's expense!

Enjoy!

Mike

Thanks I love Zappa RIP. He was a full on classical musician/composer...

Trouble coming (freak out).

Tricky Dick drafted me in 1970 so f' him.

I loved watching Frank testify before congress when Tipper Gore was trying to censor rock music. Frank spanked them.

JR

PS: A friend of mine is still in touch with/working with Dweezil... Z didn't suck either.

 

[Tubetec]

I found a rare radio interview with FrankZ once,
all about the 'misseducational system' I think he termed  it ,
he tore the system a brand new exit hole in a most intelligent and charming way 

People nowadays are to afraid to say anything meaningful in case their FB/YT rating takes a hit .
Everythings couched in mediocrity for maximum palatability and minimum offense.