LaxPower Back-Up Stick

was that supposed to be 20 criticisms of Trump?

----moved my response to Old Salt to "Orange Duce" thread.....

a fan wrote: ↑Sun Dec 01, 2019 1:41 pm ----moved my response to Old Salt to "Orange Duce" thread.....

...doubling the waste of bandwidth. ..

Trump’s already using his office to cheat in 2020. You can’t look away.

Fox News judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napoitano: "[Trump] hasn't presented a defense and I don't know if he plans to. The evidence of his impeachable behavior at this point, in my view, is overwhelming."

Trinity wrote: ↑Sun Dec 01, 2019 5:11 pm Trump’s already using his office to cheat in 2020. You can’t look away.

Fox News judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napoitano: "[Trump] hasn't presented a defense and I don't know if he plans to. The evidence of his impeachable behavior at this point, in my view, is overwhelming."

Which raises the question, will Fox give Napolitano his walking papers if he continues...

Trump just ignored his first deadline to have his lawyers participate in the Judiciary Hearings. I’m guessing the whining about fairness will continue.

Will the (D)'s be chomping on KFC during this hearing too ?

Still no defense beyond the Kremlin alibi. Tweets his head on Rocky’s body but afraid to enter the ring. Let the whining proceed! Trump’s on his way to London where even Bo Jo doesn’t want to be seen with him.

Pretty interesting opinion piece from the Times about the constitutional conundrum we are in: what if the demagogue is enabled by cowards?

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/02/opin ... e=Homepage

"Donald Trump’s Republican congressional allies are throwing up different defenses against impeachment and hoping that something may sell. They say that he didn’t seek a corrupt political bargain with Ukraine, but that if he did, he failed, and the mere attempt is not impeachable. Or that it is not clear that he did it, because the evidence against him is unreliable “hearsay.”

It’s all been very confusing. But the larger story — the crucial constitutional story — is not the incoherence of the president’s defense. It is more that he and his party are exposing limits of impeachment as a response to the presidency of a demagogue.

The founders feared the demagogue, who figures prominently in the Federalist Papers as the politician who, possessing “perverted ambition,” pursues relentless self-aggrandizement “by the confusions of their country.” The last of the papers, Federalist No. 85, linked demagogy to its threat to the constitutional order — to the “despotism” that may be expected from the “victorious demagogue.” This “despotism” is achieved through systematic lying to the public, vilification of the opposition and, as James Fenimore Cooper wrote in an essay on demagogues, a claimed right to disregard “the Constitution and the laws” in pursuing what the demagogue judges to be the “interests of the people.”

Should the demagogue succeed in winning the presidency, impeachment in theory provides the fail-safe protection. And yet the demagogue’s political tool kit, it turns out, may be his most effective defense. It is a constitutional paradox: The very behaviors that necessitate impeachment supply the means for the demagogue to escape it.

As the self-proclaimed embodiment of the American popular will, the demagogue portrays impeachment deliberations as necessarily a threat to democracy, a facade for powerful interests arrayed against the people that only he represents. Critics and congressional opponents are traitors. Norms and standing institutional interests are fraudulent.

President Trump has made full use of the demagogic playbook. He has refused all cooperation with the House. He lies repeatedly about the facts, holds public rallies to spread these falsehoods and attacks the credibility, motives and even patriotism of witnesses. His mode of “argument” is purely assaultive. This is the crux of the Trump defense, and not an argument built on facts in support of a constitutional theory of the case.

Of course, all the presidents who have faced impeachment mounted a political defense, to go with their legal and constitutional case. And it is not unusual that they — and, even more vociferously, their allies — will attack the process as a means of undoing an election.

The difference in Mr. Trump’s case is not merely one of degree. Richard Nixon despised his opposition, convinced of their bad faith and implacable hatred for him. But it is hard to imagine Mr. Trump choosing (and actually meaning) these words to conclude, as Nixon did, a letter to the chair of Judiciary Committee: “[If] the committee desires further information from me … I stand ready to answer, under oath, pertinent written interrogatories, and to be interviewed under oath by you and the ranking minority member at the White House.”

Mr. Trump has instead described Adam Schiff, the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, as a “corrupt” politician who shares with other “human scum” the objective of running the “most unfair hearings in American history.”

These remarks are not merely one more instance of Mr. Trump’s failure to curb his impulses. This is his constitutional defense strategy. Mr. Trump’s White House counsel, informing the House of the president’s refusal to cooperate, declared that the impeachment process is unconstitutional and invalid — a “naked political strategy” — and advised that the president would not participate. It matters that the president’s lawyer, in a formal communication with the House, used rhetoric that might have been expected from the hardest-core political supporters. Once again, contrasts with past impeachments are illuminating. Bill Clinton’s White House counsel Charles Ruff testified before the House Judiciary Committee, pledging to “assist you in performing your constitutional duties.”

The demagogue may be boundlessly confident in his own skills and force of political personality, but he cannot succeed on those alone. He can thrive only in political conditions conducive to the effective practice of these dark arts, such as widespread distrust of institutions, a polarized polity and a fractured media environment in which it is possible to construct alternative pictures of social realities. Weak political parties now fall quickly into line with a demagogue who can bring intense pressure to bear on party officials and officeholders through his hold on “the base.” As we have seen with Mr. Trump, the demagogue can bully his party into being an instrument of his will, silencing or driving out dissenters. Republican officeholders know that Mr. Trump can take to Twitter or to Fox News or to the podium at rallies — or all of the above — to excoriate them for a weak will or disloyalty.

This is how the Republican Party has become Mr. Trump’s party. It is also why that party will not conceive of its role in impeachment as entailing a constitutional responsibility independent of the president’s political and personal interests. It has come to see those interests as indistinguishable from its own. In this way the constitutional defense of the case against Mr. Trump and the defense of his own interests become one and the same. As another fabled demagogue, Huey Long of Louisiana, famously announced: “I’m the Constitution around here now.”

The implications for the constitutional impeachment process are dire. Until Mr. Trump, modern impeachment has ended with some generally positive assessment of its legacy. Nixon’s resignation appeared to indicate that serious charges could bring the parties together in defense of the rule of law. “The system worked” was a popular refrain, even if this was a somewhat idealized and oversimplified version of events. The Clinton impeachment suggested that the standards for an impeachable offense required a distinction between public misconduct and private morality, and Congress reclaimed its responsibility for impeachment from an independent counsel statute that was allowed to lapse.

The Trump impeachment is headed toward a very different summation. A demagogue can claim that Congress has forfeited the right to recognition of its impeachment power, then proceed to unleash a barrage of falsehoods and personal attacks to confuse the public, cow legislators and intimidate witnesses. So long as the demagogue’s party controls one of the two chambers of Congress, this strategy seems a sure bet.

When this is all over, we will not hear warm bipartisan praise for how “the system worked.” The lesson will be that, in the politics of the time, a demagogue who gets into the Oval Office is hard to get out."

But by all means, keep scraping the mud off his boots, and tidying your lips with the paper towels that Duce bestows......

old salt wrote: ↑Sun Dec 01, 2019 11:46 pm Will the (D)'s be chomping on KFC during this hearing too ?

That was indeed a dumb political stunt. Presumably they won't be so inept in their messaging this time.

But yes, The Trump White House is "chicken".
They have no defense on the facts or the law, and they know it.

All they have is the whine to go with that chicken.

seacoaster, thanks for posting that opinion piece.
It's indeed the constitutional conundrum we're in.

And if we don't recognize the danger of the fascist demagogue...

That's why I think the Dems should slow way down and work through the courts to ensure that subpoenas can't be ignored...by any Administration.

As removal is extremely unlikely, that principal is far more important than the exercise of 'impeachment'.

A reasonable/plausible position coming from the GOP side.

TL/DR: Of course Trump did it. Of course what Trump did was wrong. But his offense deserves a minor penalty, not the death penalty.

Fleischer doesn't offer any reasoned analysis on why Trump's offense here is not so serious. Which is a pretty huge omission. But at least he doesn't gaslight your intelligence and common sense by denying reality.

Presumably the kool aid Trumpsters would write Fleischer off as a just another RINO deep stater.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/ ... 300670002/

He wants to pretend it’s one reckless phone call, not the nut-crushing months-long shakedown the Democrats can easily prove in a Senate trial.

When the House Intelligence Committee held depositions of key witnesses, President Trump’s lawyers cried: “Unfair! Secret hearings!” In fact, a slew of Republicans had the right to ask questions, though some chose not to attend. When the hearings moved to a public phase, the White House hollered: “Unfair! Trump’s lawyer isn’t present!” When the House Judiciary Committee, chaired by Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), invited Trump’s lawyers to attend, the response was: “Unfair! We’re not coming!”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... mps-bluff/

CU88 wrote: ↑Mon Dec 02, 2019 2:28 pm When the House Intelligence Committee held depositions of key witnesses, President Trump’s lawyers cried: “Unfair! Secret hearings!” In fact, a slew of Republicans had the right to ask questions, though some chose not to attend. When the hearings moved to a public phase, the White House hollered: “Unfair! Trump’s lawyer isn’t present!” When the House Judiciary Committee, chaired by Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), invited Trump’s lawyers to attend, the response was: “Unfair! We’re not coming!”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... mps-bluff/

I think that the White Hose strategy is to de-legitimize the proceedings by ignoring it.

Sadly, this may work.

This is what Ukraine’s ‘interference’ looked like, according to Republicans

Phillip Bump shows the nonsense present in the Rs interest in Ukraine:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... ts-wrapper

How stupid do these Republicans think their supporters are? Wait, never mind.

Facepalm

Ok. Pretend this is true. Ukraine interfered in our elections.

Which Republican Congressman wants to explain why they've signed off on sending Billions of dollars to Ukraine, every year, for the last few decades?

Including, obviously, the aid that was finally released this summer?


So stupid. This is where we are as a nation. Our leaders don't have to even TRY to make logical sense with their lies. And followers eat it up.

We posted this article at almost the exact same time, Red...! Here's my version:

This is what Ukraine’s ‘interference’ looked like, according to Republicans [WaPo]

“During the first public impeachment hearing held by the House Intelligence Committee last month, ranking Republican Devin Nunes planted his party’s goal posts for what it sought to uncover.

“First,” the California congressman said, “what is the full extent of the Democrats’ prior coordination with the whistleblower, and who else did the whistleblower coordinate this effort with? Second, what is the full extent of Ukraine’s election meddling against the Trump campaign? And third, why did Burisma hire Hunter Biden, what did he do for them, and did his position affect any U.S. government actions under the Obama administration?”

None of those questions actually have anything to do with the point of the impeachment inquiry, which is to consider how President Trump leveraged his position to pressure Ukraine to announce investigations of the Bidens and of a theory Trump had about 2016 election interference. What’s more, the first and third have readily obvious responses. The role of the whistleblower was, by that point, established, the person’s initially reported concerns broadly validated by later testimony. The hiring of Hunter Biden by the Ukrainian energy company Burisma can itself be easily explained: It probably sought influence with the administration of President Barack Obama, though there has been no evidence that his position influenced administration policy.

That second question, more than the other two, has emerged as a central point of focus among defenders of Trump. Over the weekend, Sen. John Neely Kennedy (R-La.), for example, reiterated his previous claims that there was something to assertions that Ukraine interfered in the 2016 election. In doing so, he joined Nunes and many others in suggesting, first, that this happened and, second, this is exculpatory for Trump’s behavior.

Given the primacy of this question about what Ukraine did, it’s worth outlining the evidence that Republicans have pointed to during the impeachment hearings and on social media as constituting Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election."

So, Deranged Trump Supporters (DTS) what EXACTLY was the WORST thing Hunter Biden did? Did he pay off Ukrainian politicians or others to aid the DNC and attack the Trump candidacy? Did he hide the incriminating DNC server? Does any of this have ANYTHING to do with what Don the Con did? Right. Thought so.

Total Foolishness.

..

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Mon Dec 02, 2019 9:57 am

old salt wrote: ↑Sun Dec 01, 2019 11:46 pm Will the (D)'s be chomping on KFC during this hearing too ?

That was indeed a dumb political stunt. Presumably they won't be so inept in their messaging this time.

But yes, The Trump White House is "chicken".
They have no defense on the facts or the law, and they know it.

All they have is the whine to go with that chicken.

seacoaster, thanks for posting that opinion piece.
It's indeed the constitutional conundrum we're in.

And if we don't recognize the danger of the fascist demagogue...

That's why I think the Dems should slow way down and work through the courts to ensure that subpoenas can't be ignored...by any Administration.

As removal is extremely unlikely, that principal is far more important than the exercise of 'impeachment'.

That was indeed a dumb political stunt. Presumably they won't be so inept in their messaging this time.

You are being very generous there in that assumption MD.

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Mon Dec 02, 2019 5:23 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Mon Dec 02, 2019 9:57 am

old salt wrote: ↑Sun Dec 01, 2019 11:46 pm Will the (D)'s be chomping on KFC during this hearing too ?

That was indeed a dumb political stunt. Presumably they won't be so inept in their messaging this time.

But yes, The Trump White House is "chicken".
They have no defense on the facts or the law, and they know it.

All they have is the whine to go with that chicken.

seacoaster, thanks for posting that opinion piece.
It's indeed the constitutional conundrum we're in.

And if we don't recognize the danger of the fascist demagogue...

That's why I think the Dems should slow way down and work through the courts to ensure that subpoenas can't be ignored...by any Administration.

As removal is extremely unlikely, that principal is far more important than the exercise of 'impeachment'.

That was indeed a dumb political stunt. Presumably they won't be so inept in their messaging this time.

You are being very generous there in that assumption MD.

Actually it was a presumption, not an 'assumption'. Small, but relevant difference.

As I said, it was dumb. And it would be epically dumb to repeat that mistake.
I 'presume' they won't go there again, indeed there's been quite a lot of basis to suggest that the Dems have smartened up on the tone and optics of this process.

'That said, politicians are fully capable of idiotic mistakes, so I don't 'assume' they won't.

In my own view, they should agree with Trump that it's unfortunate that the first hearing has been scheduled to be when he's out of town. I'd offer to postpone it up to week, if he wants to come to the hearing and agrees to release the subpoenaed documents and lift the bans on his subordinates' testimony.

Likewise, I think they should slow down and force the courts to deal with the subpoenas. That's actually more important to the 'checks and balances' than the exercise of a House impeachment, with a Senate committed to a partisan rejection of removal.