I wonder if the Democrats ought to very conspicuously praise Bill Barr for his decision to not give into Trump’s desire for rhetorical exculpation. Very, very conspicuously. On twitter, and in public, and elsewhere. Over and over again.
Hey, I think you could do an emoticon for that! 
Re: Barr - heard that on the radio 1st thing this a.m. That guy is confounding, the way he vacillates wildly between doing Trump’s bidding with no apparent sense of ethics, to giving evidence of having a spine/morality. :smack:
It really is going to be interesting to see what a few people in a few districts of 2-3 states have to say about the direction our nation will take. The more I hear, the less I think many peoples’ minds will change. There are apparently a great many people who accept what Trump is turning our presidency into, saying, “So what?!”
I’m wondering who those folk “in the middle” might be, and how they will react. Folk who actually have some preference that our president ought to adhere to SOME minimal standards of decency - whatever the politics involved.
Elections matter. Regardless of what happens with the KY governorship, the GOP is an overall 0-3 on elections since 2016.
There was a time, now quickly ending, where a lot of people thought they could possibly get away with this. But Trump himself… and the passing of time… and the growing discontent of the People towards the entire GOP slate, as expressed through our political and electoral actions… and the growing realization that this is actually a lot more than they bargained for (bribing foreign entities with taxpayer dollars to steal taxpayer votes? Few people signed up for that!)… and the realization that none of this is ever going to go away… and the sudden awareness that there are a FUCK LOT OF PEOPLE WHO AREN"T INVESTED IN THIS who are now testifying to Congress as if Trump doesn’t matter in the long-term… and seeing that Cohen, Flynn, Manafort, and a lot more of Trump cohorts are in jail… and they see how quickly they can become the enemy… and they see the quality of individual who is lining up for Trump vs. the chest of military ribbons on those testifying against him…
Combine the above with the election results and, yeah, some GOPers are sniffing the changing winds, and even for the worse of them, this is getting too much for them to handle. It’s funny seeing Matt Gaetz, who 2, 3 weeks ago led a foolish charge of 23 GOPers into the SCIF, now gives impeachment-related press conferences all by his lonesome, or, at best, with a few other low-wattage, low-character individuals standing by his side like Gym Jordan.
Much as I wish it were so, it isn’t: Special elections to the 115th United States Congress (2017-2018) - Ballotpedia
Point taken. They are 1-2 in total votes. But the shift can be seen even in those numbers: while the R’s took the overall house count 9-8, they went in with a 13-4 advantage. Not a single D lost to an R, but 4 R’s lost to D’s.
So I withdraw my concession ( 
) and conclude that the Dems did “win” 2017 even if they lost the overall House contests 9-8.
Lindsay Graham says that Trump’s Ukraine policy is “too incoherent” to amount to a quid pro quo: Graham: Trump’s Ukraine policy too ‘incoherent’ to pull off quid pro quo
Well, two things here. One, the thing that is absolutely clear is that if Ukraine did not give this (dirt on the Bidens) they would not get that (military assistance). There is no part of that that was ever unclear and it has been confirmed by multiple officials. Two, are we back to the “Trump is too dumb to be a crook” defense? I hope they run with that, it is the most entertaining option.
I like that Democrats are starting to use the term “extortion” rather than “quid pro quo”. I think it’s more accurate. Quid pro quo is where both sides agree to do something that benefits both parties. Ukraine was extorted into doing something against its will in order to get what it already had coming.
“Sir, the ticket… wait… are you Lindsey Graham, the Senator?”
“Yes I ay-am.”
“Wow. OK, Sir, the ticket shows you speeding at 77 miles per hour in a 50 zone. How do you plead?”
“Not Guilty, you’re honor.”
“Very good, plea entered. Would you mind making your case, Senator?”
“I got caught, right? Therefore, you should throw out this case.”
“I beg your pardon?”
“I got caught, you see. I was so incompetent at speeding that I couldn’t even do it correctly. The very fact that I got caught speeding means that my incompetency forces you to make a declarative judgement that I was too incompetent to speed, and that this case should be thrown out.”
“…”
“Your Honor?”
“…”
:nervous chuckles: “Sir?”
“Get. Out.”
Though, to be clear, trying to use the powers of a foreign state to aid your personal interests is criminal.
CNN:
So make Bolton take the House to court. Get his name on the record as having defied a subpoena.
That is the Republican plan-to tie as much up in the courts as possible as a stall tactic. It is better to just use the fact that he refused as further evidence of obstruction.
Bar that temporary misunderstanding I had about the Oversight Committee’s authority, I don’t have an issue with the current process.
~Max
Just to be clear, fighting a subpoena in court is not defying a subpoena. It’s exactly what you should do if you don’t think you should have to comply with it. And it is a pretty reasonable response if the president told him that his testimony would be covered by executive privilege and Trump was asserting the privilege. Bolton was a high level advisor, and if he was not involved in the conspiracy, the privilege may actually apply to whatever advice he tried to give.
I guess this is likely one reason he made clear that he intended to testify if subpoenaed – to let the White house know that Trump needed to actually assert the privilege to stop him.
Let 'em stall! Let’s drag this thing as far into next year as we can. More good stuff seems to turn up every day, and everything the House brings to light and verifies is ammunition against Trump in the campaign (if the Senate acquits) or against Pence (if they convict and remove).
A neat idea but it could backfire when the time comes to impeach Barr. His reluctance to accommodate Trump’s demands might be held as an example of his ‘fundamental integrity and respect for the law’.
Whose side are you on here? You seem to want to stall this thing until everyone tires out and gives up. Get this done with before they manufacture another Trump fiasco to draw attention from this one.
My fear is that a November impeachment followed by a December acquittal will let Trump crow about his innocence all next year. And if new impeachable offenses come to light, a second round will prompt nothing but shrugs and eyerolls.
Whereas an ongoing investigation allows those new offenses (and you know they’re out there) to be rolled into a much bigger, more damning indictment with the added bonus of being fresher in people’s minds as election day nears.
Let the Republicans crow “Four whole years, and they got nothing!”? Not smart.
Here’s another thing about giving them enough rope to hang themselves-If you don’t hang on to the other end of that rope it’ll disappear entirely.
Of course, the actual response is much better: a shrug, an added charge, and a statement telling Bolton, Kupperman, et al, it’s too late:
Democrats’ new moves show House could wrap up impeachment by Christmas
https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/07/politics/democrat-impeachment-timeline/index.html
“Naw, we good bro. We don’t need John Bolton. Y’all sit over there now and be quiet.”