That’s a reasonable point.
But let Biden fall on the sword if it’s what’s necessary.
Hey, if his willingness to sacrifice himself in order to get Bolton results in Trump being removed, Biden will be celebrated in a glorious chapter in the history books—even if he never does become President himself.
The Trump administration is telling GOP senators they better not vote for witnesses. From a Politico article:
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/28/trump-bolton-impeachment-senate-107988
- bolding mine*
Oh noes! Not a full-fledged trial!
I’d like to believe that, but I’ve gotta think it’s only going to happen if a large proportion magically decide to start getting their news from some source that is not FOX.
I’ve got to confess that watching Republicans twisting themselves into knots in an effort to avoid hearing Bolton’s testimony is some quality entertainment (of a low sort).
Has anybody else watched Parnas’ recording of his dinner with Trump when the president orders the Ukraine ambassador fired? I wasn’t aware that it was available online.
Note: he recorded the dinner on his phone, so most of the “video” is just staring at the ceiling. And the audio is annoyingly interrupted by the sounds of silverware and eating, along with frequent cross talk.
But it is a frank listen of our president having an intimate discussion with high dollar donors (including Jack Nicklaus’ grandson). As you might expect, he’s as dense as he is in public, and doesn’t seem to possess any deep knowledge of any particular subject (he’s basically a typical 70year old FOX news watcher, with lots of superficial - and oftentimes ignorant - opinions about whatever topic comes up).
I’ll confess that I only listened to the first 40 minutes; it goes for over an hour. But I did get to the part where Parnas gives his famous input about the ambassador (I don’t think Trump really ordered her killed) along with later, when Parnas asks Trump about letting the cannabis industry engage in banking (Trump Jr gets really excited at this point).
A fascinating listen.
I don’t trust them at all. We’ll see, but your read on this doesn’t make much sense to me.
I guess when all the GOP senators say not guilty they will have to briefly remove Trump’s dick from their mouth
Oh, the NY Daily News outdid themselves today.
McConnell as “Chicken Kiev” :snerk
ETA: scroll through the article. Lots of other good front page covers there.
In the same vein, last night Lawrence O’Donnell speculated that McConnell’s revelation — that he didn’t have the votes at that time to preclude witnesses — was intended as a wake-up call to the right wing media machine that they’d better get cracking and lean on any Senators who might be suspected of wobbling. O’Donnell specifically mentioned Hannity and Limbaugh; Fox News went without saying.
Is there a transcript somewhere?
~Max
Apropos of nothing, but in the inevitable movie made from this shitshow, I suggest that we recruit William H Macy to play John Bolton. Color his hair gray, throw some glasses on him, and he’s a dead ringer.
I haven’t compared this to the recording in its entirety, but it looks accurate from the brief skim I just did.
Earlier in our conversation you wrote,
This is what I interpret as your argument that President Trump’s defense is absurd on its face, and therefore undeserving of serious consideration. You are arguing that, if I were the judge, I should immediately find for the prosecutors because the defense offered is absurd on its face. In order to decide whether the defense is actually absurd, I have to reconcile what you say with what the defense says.
The defense argument is not that President Trump was “acting as a government agent fighting corruption”. Neither does the defense argue that President Trump “was trying to operate rogue outside of our govt”. These two statements are not stipulated to, these statements are not findings of fact (yet), and it would be unjust to find for the prosecution before even considering the defense based on contested premises.
Then you bring up the “chain of command”. I construe your third argument as being, “the defense is absurd because the President kept something (?) from his chain of command (?)”. It is implied that keeping this something (what?) from this chain of command (what chain of command?) is absurd. The question marks indicate what I do not understand of your argument.
Originally I was confused because normally, keeping something from the chain of command means not telling your supervisors what’s going on. The president doesn’t have “supervisors” per se, and I assume you are well aware of that. That is why I specifically asked what you mean by “chain of command” in this instance.
In this most recent post #248 you appear to hint that the chain of command includes the President’s “own foreign office”. So, I assume, when you argue the president is keeping something from his chain of command, you mean he is keeping something from his foreign office.
That being resolved, what is it specifically that the president kept from his foreign office, and why is it patently absurd (impeachable) for him to do so?
~Max
No, either you are moving beyond the defense argument and into your own opinion, or you misunderstand the defense argument.
The defense argument is that the whistleblower had nothing to do with the timing of Mr. Trump’s decision to release the hold on funds.
~Max
I’m pretending to be a judge and juror, even though I am not a Senator, because that’s my idea of democracy. I don’t actually get to vote in the Senate because our form of government is that of a republic, not a democracy. I will compare my Senator’s views with my own, and take that into consideration when I next vote for a Senator in 2022.
I give the defendant the benefit of the doubt on each issue, because that conforms to my personal standard of justice even in the present context. We have (had) a dedicated thread on that issue, “[THREAD=885046]What should be the standard of proof in a Senate impeachment trial?[/THREAD]”
I disagree with you that I am exceeding a benefit of the doubt. I will agree that the President says stuff and then lets others rationalize his words after the fact, but I don’t think the President is a king and I don’t understand what you mean by “a grid of unreality”.
~Max
McConnell watches what he says very carefully. He said he didn’t have the votes in order to pressure those on the fence with the full wrath of the right wing media about to fall on those who dare cross the Dear Leader. I think the will ultimately prevail and there will be no witnesses and we’ll see acquittal on Friday. As a Democratic partisan, I think that is the best outcome. This trial will go down as a sham and energize Democrats for the fall. We all know the outcome, let’s get the outcome in such a way as to make Republicans look as bad as possible.
Unless Mr. Giuliani makes that statement under oath, I will continue to look at his position in this affair as one of the President’s special envoys in official capacity. I am totally in favor of Mr. Giuliani answering this question under oath, however. There may be questions run into Mr. Trump’s client-attorney privilege, especially if Mr. Giuliani is asked about personal conversations with the President, but this question about his status is not one of them.
For that matter, the question of Mr. Giuliani’s capacity could be answered by Mr. Trump himself, in writing or in a deposition.
The defense brief does not address Mr. Giuliani’s role in the affair.
~Max
If there is any exculpatory explanation raised, you need to prove that it is unreasonable, to the satisfaction of whatever person you are trying to convince (be it me or a Senator or whoever).
~Max
If true, Senator Barrasso is full of himself.
~Max