The Commentariat -- September 30, 2019
Late Morning/Afternoon Update:
Josh Feldman of Mediaite: "There's new reporting this afternoon that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo took part in the now-infamous call between ... Donald Trump and Ukraine president Volodymyr Zelensky. Per the Wall Street Journal, Pompeo was one of the administration officials who listened in on the call: '... Mr. Pompeo's participation on the call hasn't been previously reported. Last week, a State Department official disputed the contention in a complaint filed under federal whistleblower laws by a Central Intelligence Agency officer that another top State Department official, counselor Ulrich Brechbuhl, listened in on the call.'... This weekend [Rudy Giuliani] said that Pompeo was 'aware' of what he was doing [in Ukraine]."
Mark Mazzetti & Katie Benner of the New York Times: "President Trump pushed the Australian prime minister during a recent telephone call to help Attorney General William P. Barr gather information for a Justice Department inquiry that Mr. Trump hopes will discredit the Mueller investigation, according to two American officials with knowledge of the call. The White House restricted access to the call's transcript to a small group of the president's aides, one of the officials said, an unusual decision that is similar to the handling of a July call with the Ukrainian president that is at the heart of House Democrats' impeachment inquiry into Mr. Trump. Like that call, the discussion with Prime Minister Scott Morrison of Australia shows the extent to which Mr. Trump sees the attorney general as a critical partner in his goal to show that the Mueller investigation had corrupt and partisan origins, and the extent that Mr. Trump sees the Justice Department inquiry as a potential way to gain leverage over America's closest allies. And like the call with the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelensky, the discussion with Mr. Morrison shows the president using high-level diplomacy to advance his personal political interests.... In making the request, Mr. Trump was in effect asking the Australian government to investigate itself. The F.B.I.'s counterintelligence investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election began after Australian officials told the bureau that the Russian government had made overtures to the Trump campaign about releasing political damaging information about Hillary Clinton." The Hill has a summary of the Times report here.
Andrew Desiderio of Politico: "The House Intelligence Committee on Monday issued a subpoena to Rudy Giuliani..., Donald Trump's personal attorney, as part of House Democrats' rapidly intensifying impeachment inquiry. The subpoena, issued in consultation with the House Foreign Affairs and Oversight panels, seeks documents related to Trump's efforts to pressure Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate 2020 contender and former Vice President Joe Biden. 'Our inquiry includes an investigation of credible allegations that you acted as an agent of the president in a scheme to advance his personal political interests by abusing the power of the Office of the President,' Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff wrote to Giuliani. Monday's letter was co-signed by Reps. Eliot Engel and Elijah Cummings, who chair the Foreign Affairs and Oversight committees, respectively."
Morgan Chalfant of the Hill: "President Trump said Monday that the White House is 'trying to find out' the identity of the intelligence community whistleblower who filed a complaint about the president's interaction with Ukraine. 'We're trying to find out about a whistleblower,' Trump told reporters in the Oval Office when asked if he knows the person's identity, alleging that they reported 'things that are incorrect.'... 'As the acting DNI testified last week, the law and policy supports protection of the identity of the whistleblower from disclosure and from retaliation. No exceptions exist for any individual,' [Mark] Zaid[, an attorney for the whistleblower,] said." Update: The New York Times report is here.
Eileen Sullivan of the New York Times: "President Trump on Monday questioned whether the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Representative Adam B. Schiff, should be arrested for treason for his description of a phone call Mr. Trump had with the president of Ukraine during a recent congressional hearing.... Mr. Trump has accused Mr. Schiff, of lying to Congress when Mr. Schiff summarized a portion of what Mr. Trump said to President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine during a July 25 phone call.... During a House Intelligence Committee hearing on Thursday, Mr. Schiff addressed a portion of the reconstructed transcript and introduced his summary of it saying, 'Shorn of its rambling character and in not so many words, this is the essence of what the president communicates.' Then, Mr. Schiff summarized Mr. Trump's comments and said: 'We've been very good to your country, very good. No other country has done as much as we have, but you know what, I don't see much reciprocity here. I hear what you want. I have a favor I want from you, though.' The summary appears to be drawn from several portions of the call, including statements from Mr. Trump to Mr. Zelensky." There's a Daily Beast item here.
Jacob Pramuk of CNBC: "The Senate would have to take up impeachment of ... Donald Trump if the House effectively votes to charge the president, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said Monday. 'I would have no choice but to take it up,' the Kentucky Republican told CNBC. 'How long you are on it is a different matter, but I would have no choice but to take it up based on a Senate rule on impeachment.'" ~~~
~~~ Quint Forgey of Politico: "Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell on Monday warned against foreign interference in U.S. elections, threatening that nations seeking to meddle in the 2020 races will 'have a serious problem' on their hands. 'Look, 2018 was a big success story,' the Kentucky Republican told CNBC, praising the Trump administration's efforts to safeguard last year's midterm elections."
John Wagner of the Washington Post: "Former senator Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) said in an op-ed published Monday that President Trump’s actions warrant impeachment and urged fellow Republicans not to support his reelection if he remains in office. In the piece for The Washington Post, Flake cited President Trump's July call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, in which Trump repeatedly urged Zelensky to investigate former vice president Joe Biden and his son at a time when the White House had suspended military aid to Ukraine." CNN's story is here.
Sergey Karazy of Reuters: "Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy said on Monday that Kiev was unlikely to publish its version of a transcript of a July 25 phone call with U.S. President Donald Trump, at the heart of an impeachment inquiry in Washington."
Tom Balmforth, et al., of Reuters: "The Kremlin said on Monday that Washington would need Russian consent to publish transcripts of phone calls between ... Donald Trump and ... Vladimir Putin. Congress is determined to get access to Trump's calls with Putin and other world leaders, the U.S. House Intelligence Committee's chairman said on Sunday, citing concerns that the Republican president may have jeopardized national security. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters Russia would be prepared to discuss the issue with Washington if it sent Moscow a signal, but that such disclosures were not normal diplomatic practice. 'Of course their publication is to some extent only possible by mutual agreement of the parties...,' Peskov said."
What do mike & Karen pence say to each other before they say their prayers?
Renae Merle & Mike DeBonis of the Washington Post: "Rep. Chris Collins is resigning from Congress and expected to plead guilty to insider-trading charges on Tuesday, following allegations last year that the Republican from New York schemed with his son to avoid significant losses on a biotechnology investment. Collins, President Trump's first congressional supporter, allegedly tipped off his son to confidential information about an Australian biotechnology company, Innate Immunotherapeutics, that he learned as a member of its board. Collins and several others used the information to avoid more than $700,000 in losses, according to prosecutors. He is scheduled to change his plea Tuesday afternoon in a Manhattan federal court. Collins's son, Cameron; and another family member are scheduled to change their pleas on Thursday." This is an update of a breaking story linked earlier (and deleted). Here's the Daily Beast story.
Tom Benning of the Dallas Morning News: "The Texodus continues. Clarendon Rep. Mac Thornberry on Monday announced that he will not run for reelection next year, making the 13-term lawmaker the sixth Texas Republican in Congress to head for the exits ahead of the 2020 election."
Caitlin Oprysko of Politico: "Ousted national security adviser John Bolton put on display the deep schisms between himself and ... Donald Trump on North Korea, publicly breaking with his former boss on Monday about how best to get Kim Jong Un's regime to wind down its nuclear weapons program. At one of his first public appearances since his abrupt and rocky departure from the White House, Bolton did not name the president but delivered an unmistakable airing of grievances. Specifically, he threw cold water on the president's assertion that North Korea is ready to make a deal and gave his 'unvarnished' view that Kim would not voluntarily give up his nuclear weapons under current conditions."
Matt Stieb of New York: On Friday, "Democratic Senator Ron Wyden revealed an 18-month investigation by the Senate Finance Committee determining that the National Rifle Association served as a 'foreign asset' for Russia in the run-up to the 2016 election.... The Senate investigation displays a damning level of executive-suite involvement, including a 2015 trip from former NRA vice-president Pete Brownell, who visited Russia 'primarily or solely for the purpose of advancing personal business interests, rather than advancing the NRA's tax-exempt purpose.' Not only was Brownell -- who later became the organization's president -- spending NRA funds for personal business, an email from Maria Butina to two senior NRA staffers reveals that he was in Russia because 'many powerful figures in the Kremlin are counting on Torshin to prove his American connections.' The Senate investigation also found evidence of the NRA attempting to obscure house payments for the trip.... What separates this Senate investigation from other concerns the NRA is facing -- allegations of lavish executive spending as the organization deals with substantial cash-flow problems; multiple crises in leadership -- is that it could affect its status as a non-profit.... And according to Marc Owens -- the former head of the Internal Revenue Service division overseeing tax-exempt enterprises -- the NRA is unlikely to exist without its non-profit status."
~~~~~~~~~~
"Treason, Bribery, or Other High Crimes," Ctd.
** Steve Coll of the New Yorker provides an excellent synopsis of the impeachment story, beginning at the beginning. Besides being a long-time writer & reporter on international affairs, Coll is dean of the Graduate School of Journalism at Columbia University. He's trustworthy.
Sheryl Stolberg of the New York Times: "Speaker Nancy Pelosi made a private appeal on Sunday to Democrats not to squander their chance to build public support for a full-scale impeachment inquiry into President Trump, pressing lawmakers to maintain a simple and somber message as she declared 'we are ready' to push forward with a politically divisive process. 'The polls have changed drastically about this,' Ms. Pelosi ... told her colleagues during a private conference call.... 'Our tone must be prayerful, respectful, solemn, worthy of the Constitution.'... Party leaders sent the rank and file home on Friday with instructions and talking points cards aimed at emphasizing the gravity of the moment. They contained two central messages for lawmakers to deliver to constituents: Mr. Trump abused his office, and Democrats would follow the facts." ~~~
~~~ Stolberg refers to this "60 Minutes" segment in which Scott Pelley lays out the impeachment story in very simple, straightforward terms and interviews Nancy Pelosi, Adam Schiff & House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy. It's worth watching the entire interview. A bit of it is newsworthy -- Schiff discusses subpoenaing Giuliani -- but it's also worth watching the brief McCarthy interview; the guy is dumb as a rock. Video & a transcript at the link. Update: Andrea Mitchell characterizes the McCarthy interview as "Kevin McCarthy getting tripped up on television." ~~~
~~~ Rebecca Falconer of Axios: "One letter from the whistleblower's lawyer first obtained by CBS News' '60 Minutes' outlined concerns that the whistleblower may be identified. The lawyer specifically cites President Trump's demand to know who gave the whistleblower the information and states that a $50,000 bounty has been issued for anyone with information relating to his client's identity." Mrs. McC: Gee, I know the whistleblower's name. I could collect $50K! But I won't. I hope none of the dozens of people who do know his name is hard up for cash. ~~~
~~~ Scott Lemieux in LG&$, through a series of tweets by others makes a critical point: "Had the whisteblower illegally brought the information to the [New York Times] directly, they would consider protecting his or her identity sacrosanct, but since legal channels were followed they're willing to at least risk identifying the individual[.]... It seems like this is a problem that really should be thought through." Lemieux is right. The Whistleblower Protection Act probably should be updated to make it a crime to identify a whistleblower who wishes to remain anonymous or to facilitate others to ID him or her. This would apply to news outlets as well as individuals or other entities -- like those who might make bids for the $50K bounty.
Bart Jansen & Christal Hayes of USA Today: "House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says she wants to move 'expeditiously' on the impeachment inquiry into whether ... Donald Trump abused his power by pushing Ukraine to investigate his political rival, Joe Biden.... The plan for now, according to lawmakers, is to prioritize the Ukraine investigation, which is being led by the House Intelligence Committee, while other panels wrap up their probes and send their best cases to the House Judiciary Committee. Then lawmakers will decide whether to bring forward articles of impeachment, which would require a full House vote. If it passes, Trump would be impeached.... Despite Congress going on a two-week recess, things are moving rapidly. The chairmen of the Foreign Affairs, Intelligence and Oversight and Reform committees gave [Secretary of State Mike] Pompeo until Oct. 4 to hand over documents about Trump's July phone call with Ukraine President Zelensky. The chairmen ... also plan depositions for five State Department officials over the break[.]... Along with the depositions, which will be taken in private, the House Intelligence Committee also scheduled a hearing on Oct. 4 with Michael Atkinson, the inspector general for the intelligence community, who received the whistleblower's complaint ... and deemed it credible and urgent. The hearing will also take place behind closed doors." ~~~
~~~ Mike DeBonis of the Washington Post on how Nancy Pelosi is turning to Intelligence Committee chair Adam Schiff to run the preliminary -- and probably definitive -- "fact-gathering" phase of the impeachment inquiry instead of to the Judiciary Committee, which would normally head such an inquiry. Mrs. McC: There's a piece on how Republicans were so upset with Schiff's opening statement in the Maguire hearing. I had heard Schiff's statement in real time & found nothing whatsoever wrong with it, so I listened again. Trump & his allies are really grasping at straws to demand Schiff's resignation because they didn't like the way he characterized Trump's call to Zelensky. It was accurate. (Also linked yesterday afternoon.)
Felicia Sonmez & Mike DeBonis of the Washington Post: "House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam B. Schiff said Sunday that his panel has reached an agreement to secure testimony from the anonymous whistleblower whose detailed complaint launched an impeachment investigation into President Trump.... In an appearance on ABC News's 'This Week,' Schiff (D-Calif.) ... said he expected the Intelligence Committee to hear from the whistleblower 'very soon' pending a security clearance from acting director of national intelligence Joseph Maguire..., noting that Maguire said in a hearing Thursday that he would allow the whistleblower to testify privately without constraints. One of the whistleblower's attorneys, Mark Zaid, said in a statement that bipartisan negotiations in both chambers are ongoing 'and we understand all agree that protecting whistleblower's identity is paramount.' He added that no date or time for the testimony has been set." The USA Today story is here.
Doina Chiacu & David Morgan of Reuters: "Congress is determined to get access to Donald Trump's calls with Russian President Vladimir Putin and other world leaders, the U.S. House Intelligence Committee's chairman [Adam Schiff] said on Sunday ... on NBC's 'Meet the Press'..., citing concerns that the Republican president may have jeopardized national security.... Trump, in a series of Twitter posts on Sunday evening, said he wanted to 'meet' the whistleblower, who he called 'my accuser,' as well as 'the person who illegally gave this information' to the whistleblower. 'Was this person SPYING on the U.S. President? Big Consequences!' wrote Trump, who added without providing evidence, 'I want Schiff questioned at the highest level for Fraud & Treason.' The CBS program '60 Minutes' reported that the whistleblower is under federal protection after receiving threats." ~~~
~~~ Zachary Basu of Axios reports the full text of Trump's attacks on the whistleblower, his supposed "source" & Adam Schiff:
Like every American, I deserve to meet my accuser, especially when this accuser, the so-called 'Whistleblower,' represented a perfect conversation with a foreign leader in a totally inaccurate and fraudulent way. Then Schiff made up what I actually said by lying to Congress. His lies were made in perhaps the most blatant and sinister manner ever seen in the great Chamber. He wrote down and read terrible things, then said it was from the mouth of the President of the United States. I want Schiff questioned at the highest level for Fraud & Treason. In addition, I want to meet not only my accuser, who presented SECOND & THIRD HAND INFORMATION, but also the person who illegally gave this information, which was largely incorrect, to the 'Whistleblower.' Was this person SPYING on the U.S. President? Big Consequences! -- Donald Trump, in a series of tweets, Sunday night
~~~ BUT Trump Didn't Stop There. Matt Stieb of New York: "Gearing up for what promises to be a manic week of self-victimizing and lashing out at political opponents, the president previewed his state of mind on Twitter with a whirlwind Sunday even by his new standards. (Since the beginning of his presidency, Trump's tweeting has increased by 43 percent.) On Sunday, Trump sent off 46 messages on the platform, including retweets. Perhaps the most notable moment came when Trump tweeted a quote from Fox News contributor and megachurch Pastor Robert Jeffress:
....If the Democrats are successful in removing the President from office (which they will never be), it will cause a Civil War like fracture in this Nation from which our Country will never heal.' Pastor Robert Jeffress,@FoxNews -- Donald Trump, in a tweet, Sunday night ~~~
~~~ Chris Rodrigo of the Hill: "Republican Rep. Adam Kinzinger (Ill.) on Sunday criticized President Trump for quoting a pastor saying impeachment could trigger a 'Civil War-like fracture' in the country.... 'I have never imagined such a quote to be repeated by a President. This is beyond repugnant,' [Kinzinger tweeted.]"
Kylie Atwood & Evan Perez of CNN: "Former US Special Envoy for Ukraine Kurt Volker plans to appear at his deposition next Thursday in front of three congressional committees, according to a source familiar with his plans. The source would not say if the White House is seeking to use executive privilege to constrict Volker in terms of what he can say or provide. Volker's appearance before the Intelligence, Oversight and Reform and Foreign Affairs committees was announced just hours before the news broke Friday evening that he had resigned." (Also linked yesterday afternoon.)
Zack Budryk of the Hill: "Rep. Will Hurd (R-Texas) said Sunday the government 'should be protecting' the whistleblower behind a complaint alleging President Trump pressured Ukraine's president to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden's son, Hunter.... 'Having laws in place to ensure that folks throughout the government are able to get to the right committees information they think may be wrongdoing is important. There are troubling issues within the whistleblower report but they are allegations and I think that's why we should explore these allegations through hearings,' he added." Mrs. McC: Hurd, a former CIA officer, is retiring from the House. (Also linked yesterday afternoon.)
I don't want to be glib about this matter, but last year, retired former Sen. Judd Gregg wrote a piece in The Hill magazine saying the 3 ways ... to impeach one's self. And the 3rd way was to hire Rudy Giuliani. -- Former Trump advisor Tom Bossert on "This Week" today ~~~
~~~ Chris Francescani of ABC News: "... Donald Trump's first Homeland Security and counterterrorism advisor, who resigned after a year in the office, said on 'This Week With George Stephanopoulos' on Sunday that he is 'deeply disturbed' and 'frustrated' by the 'entire mess' that began in July with Trump's phone call with a young Ukrainian president.... Former Homeland Security advisor Tom Bossert, now an ABC News contributor..., described the allegations against Trump as extremely serious. '... it is a bad day and a bad week for this president and this country -- if he is asking for political dirt on an opponent. But it looks to me that the other matter, that's far from proven, was whether he was doing anything to abuse his power and withhold aid, in order to solicit such a thing,' Bossert said.... Bossert was sharply critical of Trump personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani, who was also a guest on the show." (Also linked yesterday.) ~~~
~~~ Sheryl Stolberg, et al., of the New York Times: "President Trump was repeatedly warned by his own staff that the Ukraine conspiracy theory that he and his lawyer were pursuing was 'completely debunked' long before the president pressed Ukraine this summer to investigate his Democratic rivals, a former top adviser said on Sunday. Thomas P. Bossert, who served as Mr. Trump's first homeland security adviser, said he told the president there was no basis to the theory that Ukraine, not Russia, intervened in the 2016 election and did so on behalf of the Democrats.... Mr. Bossert's comments, on the ABC program 'This Week' and in a subsequent telephone interview, underscored the danger to the president as the House moves ahead with an inquiry into whether he abused his power for political gain. Other former aides to Mr. Trump said on Sunday that he refused to accept reassurances about Ukraine no matter how many times it was explained to him, instead subscribing to an unsubstantiated narrative that has now brought him to the brink of impeachment." This is a revision of a story linked earlier Sunday night. ~~~
~~~ Mrs. McCrabbie: So part of Trump's ask of Zelensky was to cook up a story that Trump himself knew his own government repeatedly told him had been "completely debunked." ~~~
~~~ So Then. Lucien Bruggeman of ABC News: "Rudy Giuliani ... defended himself Sunday on 'This Week with George Stephanopoulos' from accusations lodged by a former White House official that he has trafficked unfounded theories about foreign interference in the 2016 presidential election.... Giuliani ... [told] Stephanopoulos, 'Tom Bossert doesn't know what he's talking about ... I'm not peddling anything.' [Giuliani] also sought to defend his role in pressing Ukrainians to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden.... 'This is not about getting Joe Biden in trouble,' Giuliani said. 'This is about proving that Donald Trump was framed by the Democrats.'... Giuliani also sought to undermine a whistleblower complaint.... 'The whistleblower says, "I don't have any direct knowledge, I just heard things,"' Giuliani said. 'I'm not saying [the whistleblower] was false, I'm saying he could have heard it wrong.'" (Also linked yesterday afternoon.) ~~~
~~~ Rishika Dugyala of Politico has a more colorful recounting of Giuliani's "This Week" appearance: "On Sunday -- armed with document after document that he held up to the camera -- ... Donald Trump's personal attorney doubled down on his corruption charges against former Vice President Joe Biden and the connection between the Democratic Party and Ukraine. He also cast doubt on whether he would testify before a House panel.... Giuliani started his attacks on the Obama White House and Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign. He denied ever courting the theory that Ukrainians hacked the Democratic National Committee and then framed the Russian government. Pivoting, he said there was still 'a load of evidence that Ukrainians created false information for the Obama White House. He also alleged 'the collusion that they claim happened in Russia happened in the Ukraine with Hillary Clinton.'... If Trump hadn't asked Ukraine to investigate Biden in his July 25 phone call, Giuliani said Sunday, 'He would have violated the Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution.'... Throughout the interview, Giuliani and host George Stephanopoulos had fiery back-and-forths, disagreeing about media partisanship and the factual accuracy of some of Giuliani's claims." (Also linked yesterday afternoon.) ~~~
~~~ Mrs. McCrabbie: So the new "strategy" is to claim that Trump had a Constitutional duty to send his personal lawyer around the world ginning up dirt on his political opponent? That should work.
Really, Joe? Michael Grynbaum of the New York Times: "Joseph R. Biden Jr.'s presidential campaign contacted top television anchors and networks on Sunday to 'demand' that Rudolph W. Giuliani, President Trump's personal lawyer, be kept off the air because of what they called his misleading comments about the Biden family and Ukraine. 'We are writing today with grave concern that you continue to book Rudy Giuliani on your air to spread false, debunked conspiracy theories on behalf of Donald Trump,' a pair of top Biden campaign advisers, Anita Dunn and Kate Bedingfield, wrote in the letter. 'Giving Rudy Giuliani valuable time on your air to push these lies in the first place is a disservice to your audience and a disservice to journalism,' the advisers wrote. The note, which was obtained by The New York Times, was sent to executives and top political anchors at ABC, CBS, CNN, Fox News and NBC, including star interviewers like Jake Tapper, Chuck Todd and Chris Wallace.... On Sunday, Mr. Giuliani made freewheeling appearances on 'Face the Nation' on CBS and 'This Week' on ABC to discuss the impeachment inquiry. Producers at both shows also requested interviews with Mr. Biden. The Biden campaign declined the invitation and instead offered its national co-chairman, Representative Cedric Richmond of Louisiana, an option that the producers rejected...." ~~~
~~~ The Daily Beast report, by Maxwell Tani & Sam Stein is here. They apparently broke the story.
Jacob Knutson of Axios: "White House senior adviser Stephen Miller claimed on 'Fox News Sunday' that the whistleblower who filed a complaint about President Trump's interactions with Ukraine is a 'deep state operative' who does not deserve to be honored for forwarding a 'partisan hit job.'... Miller has no evidence of who the whistleblower is. He also cited the intelligence community inspector general's finding that the whistleblower displayed 'arguable political bias,' but dismissed the IG's assessment that the complaint was 'credible' -- which has also been backed up by acting Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire." (Also linked yesterday.) ~~~
~~~ Zack Budryk of the Hill: "White House policy advisor Stephen Miller sparred with Fox News's Chris Wallace on Sunday over a whistleblower complaint against President Trump that has led House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) to announce a formal impeachment inquiry last week, saying Trump was the 'real whistleblower.' Miller blasted the complaint, which largely aligns with a White House summary of a call between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy, as a 'little Nancy Drew novel' that 'drips with condemnation, condescension and contempt for the president.... Wallace ... repeatedly pressed Miller on why the president had enlisted his personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, to get information on former Vice President Joe Biden's son's dealings in Ukraine. 'The president has got the State Department, he's got the CIA, he's got the Pentagon he's got a number of other agencies, why did he use three private lawyers to get information on Biden?' Wallace asked. Miller demurred on that question as well as Wallace's questions on why the White House delayed military aid to Ukraine, citing political corruption, despite the Pentagon certifying steps the nation had taken to address corruption. Wallace eventually called Miller's answers an 'exercise in obfuscation,' while the White House official shot back, saying there was 'a tone of judgment' in Wallace's questions...." (Also linked yesterday afternoon.)
Sarah Cammarata of Politico: "Sen. Lindsey Graham on Sunday repeatedly dismissed the whistleblower's complaint against ... Donald Trump as 'all hearsay.' 'This seems to me like a political setup. It's all hearsay. You can't get a parking ticket conviction based on hearsay. The whistleblower didn't hear the phone call,' the South Carolina Republican said on CBS's 'Face the Nation,' adding he has 'zero problems' with the president's phone conversation with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. Graham pushed back against host Margaret Brennan's assertion the whistleblower complaint largely matches the White House summary of the call. The evidence laid out in the complaint, she added, is based on information gathered from numerous White House officials. 'This whole thing is a sham ... Who is this whistleblower? What bias do they have? Why did they pick this whistleblower to tell a hearsay story? The transcript does not match the complaint,' Graham said. "This thing stinks.'" (Also linked yesterday afternoon.) ~~~
~~~ Mrs. McCrabbie: Oops! Loquacious Lindsey is acknowledging that numerous officials -- "they" -- supported the whistleblower's complaint & "picked" him from among themselves to make the complaint. ~~~
~~~ Jonathan Chait: "Graham's major talking point was the the accusations against Trump amount to 'hearsay.' He repeated the phrase 11 times, as though it were an incantation that, by magic, would cause the pile of evidence against Trump to disappear. But of course the evidence against Trump is not hearsay. All the basic facts of the plot have been confessed openly by the principles. The main charge is that Trump sent his personal lawyer to convince another country to investigate his political rival. Both the lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, and Trump have openly boasted about this for months. Trump has also admitted publicly that he ordered a halt to aid for Ukraine to increase leverage for his demand, and that he did so in order to force Ukraine to investigate 'corruption,' a word he helpfully translated as code for 'Biden.'... If the facts have been confirmed, they're definitely not hearsay. Graham just continued using the word 'hearsay,' even after [interviewer Margaret] Brennan had indisputably shown that the whistle-blower's account contained confirmed facts." (Here's Chait's earlier post on how Trump decoded "corruption.") ~~~
~~~ Mrs. McCrabbie: Lindsey Graham served in the Air Force as a defense lawyer, as the chief prosecutor in Europe & as a judge advocate (JAG). He knows what hearsay is & he knows what evidence is. Everything he has said so far about the pending impeachment of Donald Trump is a lie, including "and" and "the." ~~~
~~~ Update. Clutching at Paper Straws. Mrs. McCrabbie: Now I get why Lindsey is obsessed with the "hearsay" argument. Kevin Poulsen of the Daily Beast reports on a false story, first invented by the right-wing Federalist: "The article claimed 'the intelligence community secretly revised the formal whistleblower complaint form in August 2019 to eliminate the requirement of direct, first-hand knowledge of wrongdoing.'" As Poulson reports, the intelligence community's inspector general Michael Atkinson did change the form in August, but -- contra the Federalist claim -- the old form also allowed for hearsay reports. "A question on the [new] form explicitly anticipates tips based on secondhand information, and asks the whistleblower to check a box: 'I have direct and personal knowledge,' or, 'I heard about it from others.'... The major difference in the fields is that the old form includes three options instead of two, subdividing secondhand sources into outside source and 'other employees.'" Lindsey is no doubt hoping Atkinson's innocuous change to the form will discredit both Atkinson & the whistleblower, suggest they are in cahoots & maybe even invalidate the entire whistleblower complaint.
** Justin Baragona & Scott Bixby of the Daily Beast: "In a bombshell report Sunday morning, Fox News reported that two frequent guests on the right-leaning cable news channel were 'working off the books' to help ... Rudy Giuliani dig up dirt on ... Donald Trump's leading Democratic opponent -- and that the only person who knew about their involvement was the president himself.... 'Two high-profile Washington lawyers, Joe diGenova, who's been a fierce critic of the Democratic investigation, and his wife Victoria Toensing were working with Giuliani to get oppo research on Biden,' Wallace said at the top of his broadcast. Giuliani has denied working with any other attorneys in his quest for Ukrainian-provided information on the Biden family in recent appearances on Fox News, denials that the network's own reporting now call into question. 'No,' Giuliani told Fox News' Maria Bartiromo on Sunday Morning Futures, when asked if he had worked with other attorneys. 'I didn't work with anybody to try and get dirt on Joe Biden.'... This week, during an appearance on Tucker Carlson Tonight, diGenova blasted Fox News senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano as 'a fool' for assessing that Trump had committed a crime during his July 25 call with the Ukrainian president." ~~~
~~~ Web Is so Tangled, It's Hard to Follow. Josh Marshall of TPM: "... material that has been surfacing from The Hill's 'opinion' reporter John Solomon and then echoed by Giuliani seems to originate with [Dimtry Firtash,] one of Ukraine's richest and most powerful oligarchs who is a former business partner of Paul Manafort and had to flee Ukraine after the overthrow of pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych in 2014. He is in Austria, fighting extradition to the United States to face bribery charges.... As part of Firtash's effort to avoid extradition from Austria to the United States, he asked [the now-'fired prosecutor' Viktor] Shokin to swear out the affidavit in which Shokin accuses Biden of getting him fired to protect his son Hunter. (... There was no investigation of Hunter Biden or the company on whose board he sat at the time Shokin was fired.) So to review, former Manafort business partner Firtash asks Shokin to swear out an affidavit in which he accuses Biden. The affidavit quickly gets into the hands of Giuliani and Solomon. And who just recently went to work for Firtash's legal team? None other than diGenova and Toensing.... So the duo who we now learned has been working on behalf of the President with Rudy Giuliani to extort the Ukrainian government just signed on to represent the oligarch behind the affidavit in which the disgraced prosecutor says Joe Biden got him fired." ~~~
~~~ The New York Times Editors don't mention diGenova & Toensing, BUT they do say ... "President Trump's assaults on democracy are rarely solo endeavors. His schemes often entangle, by chance or by choice, an array of accomplices, enablers, observers and victims -- many of whom will need to be heard from as House members begin investigating the Ukraine scandal as part of the impeachment inquiry announced last week.... Among the many persons of interest in this investigation: whichever White House and State Department staff members who were listening in on Mr. Trump's July 25 phone call with the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelensky; those who subsequently received a readout of that call; and those involved in the effort to 'lock down' the record of it. The lines of inquiry quickly spiral. But here are a few notable figures -- in addition, of course, to the whistle-blower himself -- who could prove particularly useful to House investigators. Rudy Giuliani..., Bill Barr..., Mick Mulvaney..., Mike Pompeo..., Kurt Volker..., Gordon Sondland..., Mike Pence..., John Bolton..., Michael Atkinson.... Lawmakers will also need to hear from whoever was charged with moving the transcript of Mr. Trump's July 25 call from the usual computer system to the special server, maintained by the National Security Council, reserved for 'classified information of an especially sensitive nature.'... Then there are the 'multiple U.S. government officials' whom the whistle-blower cites as his sources -- the ones whom Mr. Trump has compared to spies and has implied deserve to be executed for treason."
Sanjana Karanth of the Huffington Post: "A former Ukrainian prosecutor general reportedly told ... Rudy Giuliani that he saw no evidence of wrongdoing by former Vice President Joe Biden and his son as Trump alleged, according to the Los Angeles Times. Yuriy Lutsenko, Ukraine's former top law enforcement who was fired last month, told the LA Times in an interview published Sunday that he told Giuliani that authorities with the United States should launch their own investigation if they have evidence of potential misconduct by the Bidens, but to not use Ukraine to seek political vengeance that could affect the 2020 U.S. election. 'I told him I could not start an investigation just for the interests of an American official,' Lutsenko, a politician aligned with former Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko, told the LA Times.... Lutsenko also told The Washington Post on Thursday that the former U.S. vice president's son did not break any Ukrainian laws while serving on Burisma's board.... Lutsenko's statements to the LA Times should be taken with caution considering the whistleblower's complaint says he was a source for Giuliani and Trump on many unsubstantiated claims about Ukrainian corruption investigations, including the ones related to the Bidens.... Lutsenko was also involved in the U.S. State Department removing U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch in May, which happened as Giuliani increased pressure on the new Zelensky administration to get involved in U.S. politics." ~~~
~~~ Mrs. McCrabbie: See also Steve Coll's commentary on Lutsenko, linked above.
Tim Murphy of Mother Jones: "The Post story catches the president explicitly telling the hostile power that attacked his political rival and interfered with the cornerstone of American democracy that is was all totally fine with him. It doesn't take a whole lot of imagination to wonder what that means for 2020." --s (Also linked yesterday afternoon.)
Jennifer De Pinto, et al., of CBS News: "More than half of Americans [55%] -- and an overwhelming number of Democrats [87%] -- say they approve of the fact that Congress has opened an impeachment inquiry into President Trump. But as the inquiry begins, there is no national consensus on how to assess the president's actions. Partisans have immediately and predictably split: most Democrats call the president's handling of matters with Ukraine illegal, and deserving of impeachment. Most Republicans call his actions proper — or, even if improper, then still legal -- and feel they're an example of things that past presidents typically did, too." (Also linked yesterday afternoon.)
Dan Friedman of Mother Jones: "Giuliani's dealings in Ukraine exploded into public view this month, with the revelation that Trump pressured the country's new president, Volodymyr Zelensky, to work with Giuliani and Attorney General William Barr to dig up dirt on former Vice President Joe Biden and information to discredit Mueller's probe.... But the former New York mayor's involvement in Ukraine and other former Soviet bloc countries has been more extensive and even more sketchy than these disclosures indicate." --s (Also linked yesterday afternoon.) ~~~
~~~ Mrs. McCrabbie: Friedman covers many of Giuliani's previous ventures & adventures in the old USSR. No wonder he saw nothing wrong with taking a paying gig with at a Kremlin-backed "conference" just as his part in Trump's impeachment scandal hit front pages across the U.S. "Colluding with Russia the entire former Soviet bloc" is what Rudy does for a living.
Presidential Race 2020 ~~~
~~~ Not that most of the preceding stories aren't about the presidential race.
"Inequality Tax." Jeff Stein of the Washington Post: "Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) is unveiling a plan on Monday that would dramatically increase taxes on corporations that pay their CEOs far more than their workers, adding to the growing suite of policy proposals to expand taxes in the Democratic presidential race. Under Sanders's plan, the government would increase a firm's corporate tax rate if its highest-paid employee earns more than 50 times that of its average worker -- an attempt to encourage companies to distribute their profits more equally. The plan would only apply to companies with more than $100 million in annual revenue." The CNN story is here. Mrs. McC: Excellent idea.
Way Beyond the Beltway
Hong Kong. Julia Hollingsworth of CNN: "Hong Kong police fired blue dye from a water cannon, rounds of tear gas and a live warning shot as protesters lit fires and threw petrol bombs and bricks on Sunday in clashes ahead of the 70th anniversary of the People's Republic of China. Despite organizers not requesting permission from authorities, thousands of protesters marched in the 17th consecutive weekend of unrest. Hong Kong's Hospital Authority said 48 people were admitted for treatment, including one person in critical condition. More than 150 people were arrested over the weekend, police said in a news conference Monday. On Friday, police announced that a total of 1,578 people had been arrested over the course of the protests." ~~~
~~~ Greg Torode, et al., of Reuters: "Last month, Beijing moved thousands of troops across the border into [Hong Kong].... The state news agency Xinhua described the operation as a routine 'rotation' of the low-key force China has kept in Hong Kong since the city's handover from Britain in 1997.... It was a plausible report: China has maintained a steady level of force in the territory for years, regularly swapping troops in and out.... A month on, Asian and Western envoys in Hong Kong say they are certain the late-August deployment was not a rotation at all, but a reinforcement. Seven envoys who spoke to Reuters said they didn't detect any significant number of existing forces in Hong Kong returning to the mainland in the days before or after the announcement. Three of the envoys said the contingent of Chinese military personnel in Hong Kong had more than doubled in size since the protests began."
Saudi Arabia. AP: "Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman said in a television interview that he takes 'full responsibility' for the grisly murder of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi, but denied allegations that he ordered it. 'This was a heinous crime,' Prince Mohammed, 34, told '60 Minutes' in an interview that aired Sunday. 'But I take full responsibility as a leader in Saudi Arabia, especially since it was committed by individuals working for the Saudi government.' Asked if he ordered the murder of Khashoggi, who had criticized him in columns for The Washington Post, Prince Mohammed replied: 'Absolutely not.' The slaying was 'a mistake,' he said." ~~~
~~~ Mrs. McCrabbie: I hesitated to even link this story, as it's such B.S., but it is a good example of spin. Maybe Trump should follow MBS's lead: "I take full responsibility for everybody's completely misinterpreting every word I've said, but I'm as innocent as the Baby Jesus."
Share Article
Reader Comments (28)
Hard for me to tell what the country is dealing with here.
The Pretender blames Schiff for saying what the Pretender himself said he said; Stephen. Miller hastens to blame the Deep State (which I know of only by hearsay); and Rudy adopts and changes so many positons in so short a time that he makes his boss' tweets seem the model of steady sanity.
Then there's poor Lindsay, who sounds like a sixth grader who read too many Perry Mason novels at too early an age and still thinks the stories are real.
Really. Are these guys all nuts? All of them. Suffering from the same outbreak of mental illness they say causes all the mass shootings?
I know listening to them, even reading about them, is making me nuts.
It puts me in mind of my grandmother's harsh judgment from another time when she was forced to be around insufferable people a little too long . "If I had a gun, I'd a shot him."
Of course, she didn't have a gun, but I think I know how she must have felt when she said it. These are contemptible people, all of them, and the next time one of them thumbs his nose at a House committee, I'd not draw a gun, but I would eschew the parody and slap him (there seem to be no visible hers as yet) with contempt (Barr would make a broad target, I'm thinking, if a committee can get him in its sights), so fast, right then and there, that he'd spin in his chair.
The revelation of two Faux News lawyers working with Giuliani to rekindle conspiracy theories is another weekly reminder of how completely this White House has been packed with anti-intellectual, tinfoil-hat goons from America's most successful media network.
No serious post-mortem analysis of how this American tragedy has befallen this once great nation can be undertaken without an entire tome dedicated to the poisoning of the nation's airwaves with reality free diatribes spouted off by a collection of the vilest, most cynical, most powerful political operators in the country.
That serious analysts look to Fox News and the (Australian/British/American) Murdochs to make or break a President is so damning for the health of our democracy, but the balance is so engrained and delicate that no one wants to single out the cancerous elephant in the room.
Maybe the careless Jefress (shoulda added a hyphen before "like") is right. Impeachment will solidify the divide between the reality-based population and the fox news followers.
I met a man who had been a journalist and diplomat, and done great things, but by the time I met him he was watching fox news and had gone to the dark side. He still subscribed to the NYTimes but mostly reveled in sneering at everything in it. The most memorable outburst was when I said the phrase "privatization of Social Security" and he exploded, saying W had never suggested anything of the sort. I'm guessing this was around 2006.
@Nisky: Keep in mind that the Nixon impeachment hearings started out wobbly but its end sealed the deal and the country for the most part was for it unlike the Clinton impeachment which zeroed in on a sleazy sexual liaison––because "they" had failed to come up with anything else to do him in although not for lack of trying. At the time someone said if Clinton had only said "I didn't fuck her" that would have prevented further inquiry because at that time Congress would have blanched at that word and closed the case. The New Yorker had half their magazine allotted to voices from everyone worth putting out their two cents on this and every one of them sided with Clinton albeit some with reservations on the cover-up. Many pointed out how other presidents managed to "getaway" with multiple sexy times and it was never reported and unless it interfered with their command at the helm it was none of our business. ( although I recall JFK's bedding down some saucy foreign somebody that raised concern).
What we have now is like the Nixon inquiry but a hundred times more crooked, deceitful, and dangerous. We already have a stark divide in this country but that fact should not in any way prevent us from ferreting out the disastrous anomaly this sick, demented man has done to our country. Our hope is that those that cotton to blow-hards and charlatans will think collectively as a nation rather than individually. I know––fat chance that, but maybe enough.
I would suggest two "hers" Ken: Kellyanne + Susan Collins...
@P.D. Pepe: Good point about Clinton & prior presidents' liaisons. The Articles of Impeachment against Clinton that passed in the House were not directly about the blow jobs but about his lying to a grand jury & attempting to obstruct justice re: both Paula Jones & Lewinsky. Clinton didn't lie every day the way Trump does, but he did lie when it mattered to him. BTW, "I didn't fuck her," according to both Clinton & Lewinsky, as I recall, was true.
Something else: I was thinking yesterday about Sarah Palin and how she was a harbinger for someone like Trump to "make it" to the big tent. I recall the flurry over this woman who caught so many in her clutches just by being "like all of you out there–-an every day mom who cares" not caring a wit if she was addressing only one gender because she knew the other would find her worth wetting their pants over. But the other reason I was thinking about her was that she, too, garbled the English language. We called her "The Wild Wordsmith of Wasilla" and I marveled at the similarity with that other wordsmith that twitters away day after day. Here's my favorite example of Palin's wonders:
"My concern has been the atrocities there in Darfur and the relevance to me with that issue as we spoke about Africa and some of the countries there that were kind of the people succumbing to the dictators and the corruption of some collapsed governments on the continent, the relevance was Alaska’s investment in Darfur with some of our permanent fund dollars."
And, she concluded, “never, ever did I talk about, well, gee, is it a country or a continent, I just don’t know about this issue.”
Where is she now? Here today, gone tomorrow and the man that thought he'd have a leg up because of her is dead. History––-always good to remind ourselves of failures and successes. The idea here is to learn from them.
NJC:
Good point. Those two and more, like the Fox lawyer lady. But I was thinking only of women likely to be called to testify in front of a House committee, and now that you mention her, Kellyanne might fit the bill. She has to be privy to some of the White House dirt, she likes to preen in front of cameras, she lies readily and often, and she is very "contemptible." A natural target for the kind of citiation I'd like to see imposed.
P. D.
Sean Wilentz nicely locates Sarah and many others in the Republican Party's slide into their present sorry (and dangerous) state. All of their awfulness has not been there all along, but much of it has, and it's getting more awful (this is Ken now) all the time.
https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2019/10/10/american-carnage-republican-decay/
My curiosity led me to check out the presidential line of succession
after Nancy Pelosi via Wikipedia. It's a scary list of characters like:
Mike Pompeo, Steven Mnuchin, William Barr, Sonny Perdue,
Ben Carson, Rick Perry, Betsy DeVos. FYI.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/united_states_presidential_line_of_
secession
@ PD
Lets not forget the other cautionary lesson from the Palin episode, i.e. that VP running mate selection is extremely important, and being "all in" for a candidate at this point can potentially turn sour when s/he picks the partner - something we voters don't get to weigh in on until the very end.
Speaking of past Presidential liaisons, I must admit that I've often wondered about the current one in office whose reputation of countless previous bedding adventures is doing in the White House. Are there ladies visiting? Is the Secret Service maintaining a discreet silence. With everything that Trump has gotten away with so far...I can't imagine that he'd overlook missing out on this 'perk'— or should we call it executive privilege?
Re: Adam Schiff's précis of the Orange Menace's treasonous phone call.
It seems lots of people are soiling their undies over this. I heard it, as Marie did, in real time. It wasn't a word for word reenactment (and neither is that "transcript"), but no one could say it didn't capture the flavor and intent of the communication. "We help you guys a lot. Now I need a favor. Get me dirt on Joe Biden." There's no mistaking the direction here. "We give you money. You want more? Do what I tell ya." I've also been reading that Schiff shouldn't have been as direct in his transmission of the OM's intent. He maybe should have gone easy (Treason Lite?) so's people wouldn't think he was partisan.
Okay. Hold it right there. The idea here is that had Schiff been more circumspect, more, shall we say, euphemistic, that R's and the Foxbots wouldn't cry "partisan!"? Had he recited "Mary had a little lamb" dressed in a Confederate uniform and waving the stars and bars, they'd scream "partisan!". So why not be direct? If you're trying to make a point, then make it.
I didn't hear any of these Trumpbots complain about Devin Nunes' absolute bullshit hyper-partisan, whiny-baby screed that followed Schiff's relating of the Orange Menace's mobster maneuverings. Talk about fiction! But it's okay as long as it mirrors Trump's own declaration that his call was "perfect" (by the way, who describes things like a telephone call as "perfect"? You know who? Con artists. That's who. "We got 'im. He's hooked. It was perfect!").
Schiff needed to make a point. He did it. He didn't give a word by word recreation because there is none. At least none that we've seen so far. And leave us not forget that the "transcript", such as it is, is a work of authorial fiction to the extent that it is not an exact word for word document. Trump's people fed us their version. And as bad as it is, I'm betting the actual call was worse.
And don't forget, they're going to scream and whine and complain about everything from here on out. As for "civil war-like" outcomes, promised by a psychotic zealot, what should we do? Fold our tents and go home because wild-eyed confederates will be pissed? Sorry. I'm pissed that Trump stole the election, but I've not promised to pick up my marbles and go home. Democrats are doing what needs desperately to be done, what the Constitution directs. If Adam Schiff's recitation of Trumpy's treasonous manipulations are too dramatic for some, well, pardon me all to hell. We don't have a lot of time to waste here. Yes, things need to be done in the proper fashion, but too often the lede gets buried by being too cutesy.
Years ago, I was given a good piece of advice about writing. I was working up a political argument but employing a somewhat stodgy academic approach, laying out the background, the rationale, adding plenty of supporting references, and what I thought were a couple of clever historical allusions, etc. before finally getting to the point. My boss at the time read it and told me no one would get past the second paragraph. "It reads like a journal article. No one will care. Tell them what you want right up front."
Good advice. And that's what Schiff is doing. Make the point up front then do the slogging. Don't wait until everyone is asleep for your Clarence Darrow moment. Tell them right from the get-go. "This guy is a traitor!"
Because he is. And if Devin Nunes and Foxbot loonies like Jeffress don't like it, too fucking bad.
Forrest,
I dunno. It seems like Fatty might try to take the half pence down with him. If that happens and it begins to look like "Madame President" is in the offing, I'm hoping Pelosi gets herself some kick-ass bodyguards. With all this talk about shootings and hangings and "other ways to deal" with people they don't like, there are more than a few unhinged red-staters who might not like the idea of their Dear Leader being replaced by a Democrat, and a woman to boot.
@Akhilleus: Thanks for explaining what Trump means by a "perfect" phone call, an adjective he's repeated numerous times. I thought it was odd. I've never had a conversation I would describe as "perfect." I might say someone had made a "perfect comeback," or had used a "perfect analogy," or something like that in the course of the conversation. But 30-minute conversations aren't "perfect," unless -- as you write -- it took 30 minutes of mob-speak to get to, "We got 'im. He's hooked. It was perfect!"
I'm kinda wishing Joe Biden's lawyers had not sent that letter about kicking Giuliani and his lies off the air. First, there are other ways to make that point. Second, even liars get to talk, according to the Constitution. There are other remedies. Third, it gives him and the Fox nuts even more (actual) ammunition. They make up probably 80% of what they scream about, but handing them something like this on a platter is not very smart.
Get your ass booked on Upchuck Todd's show and go toe to toe with the asshole. So, okay, maybe you don't like howling on TV like he does, or maybe you don't relish him calling you a retard or screaming at you to shut up, but trying to direct the media not to let him speak just makes you (and Biden, and by extension Democrats) look weak and fearful. In tennis they call this an unforced error, which we don't need.
Is he a lying, delusional, treasonous putz, spewing his excremental exegeses across the media landscape? Absolutely. But this was not a good idea, in my opinion. And if Biden approved this dumbbell idea (which I'm guessing he must have), his judgment is questionable.
@MAG: Yeah, I've thought about that, too. Yes, if Trump's "executive time" did include romps with the ladies while Melanie was tucked away in her own bedroom, the Secret Service would keep mum. But I wouldn't be surprised if all this president* stuff had tuckered out old Tucker Fanboy. My guess is he's not getting anything on the side because he's too tired from watching Tucker & Sean & tweeting back their accolades & conspiracy theories.
Maybe we'll find out differently some day. It would be nice, though, if news of a few romps leaked out now & Lindsey -- who argued impeaching Clinton was "about restoring honor and integrity to the office." -- had to deal with that.
Bea and MAG: I'm not sure that these days even the old standard of "dead girl or live boy" would scandalize the true believers. They have really gone tribal.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/30/opinion/republicans-trump-impeachment.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage
@Akhilleus
Agree with you about the the Biden lawyer letter but would extend your warning about handing things to the opposition on a platter to Schiff's parodic summary of the Pretender-Ukraine call.
Sure, its substance was accurate and its method attention getting, but I wonder whose attention Schiff was hoping to grab. Mine? I kinda liked it because I'm one of those snotty liberals who thinks he knows everything and considers irony and hyperbole to be good friends.
But I also wondered at its effect on others, particularly on those who aren't so sure about this impeachement thing.
Actually, I didn't wonder. I was sure it would rouse the rightists, who have no appreciation for irony when they detect its presence at all, and provide them with ammunition for their rants about how unfairly they're treated by the left.
So I thought why do it? It did grab attention, but it also predictably provided the enemy with a frame about which to raise one of their typical complaints, and I don't know what effect it might have had on the fence-sitters.
Not knowing that, I'd rather Schiff had taken another tack.
@Ken Winkes: I don't think Democrats should handicap themselves by playing by Marquess of Queensberry rules whilst Republicans hit below the belt with brass knuckles. Tell the truth & look serious, but don't pull your punches except when there's a strategic reason to do so. And let Trump & Co. scream foul. Nothing is going to stop them. When they don't have a real gripe, they make up one (see smear of Michael Atkinson above). As @Akhilleus wrote above, "Had [Schiff] recited 'Mary had a little lamb' dressed in a Confederate uniform and waving the stars and bars, they'd scream 'partisan!'."
Ken,
As I mentioned, I don't think those who support Trump's treason would be convinced by any number of facts. Fence sitters, if they are truly uncommitted as of yet and are not brain dead or immune to facts, will, I believe, come around as the proceedings progress, especially after the whistleblower testifies.
Maybe Schiff could have done it differently, but it wasn't hysterical (like those on the right) and it wasn't untruthful (ditto). I also think we have to take into account the pressure cooker that must be official Washington at this point. Trump has pretty much promised that no official business will get done. He's on the warpath and it will be a never ending toilet flush of lies, even more, judging by the tweet storms over the weekend, than anyone has seen thus far. So I don't blame Schiff for wanting to cut through the crap (so to speak).
This is an existential battle for America and yes, we need to be judicious, but for far too long, in my opinion, Democrats have tried to be nice (ie, civil) only to get their teeth kicked in. If there's any time in our lifetimes to get tough with the bad guys, this is it.
And there's one more thing. Someone (a right-winger, I believe) last week opined that Pelosi would not have pulled the trigger on this thing if she had only one bullet in the chamber. There might be more to come, and if those fence sitters remain undecided at that point (or even after it becomes irrefutable that Trump is a traitor), well, they're not going to matter anyway.
Bea and Akhilleus,
So we disagree a teensy bit, but lest you think I'm too soft I offer my reaction to this:
https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-resign-2019-family-immunity-1276990
NO IMMUNITY for the SOB. None. I want him and his family stripped of their ill-gotten fortune and put behind bars. For a long time. Period.
And tho' our prisons are already overcrowded, I would be happy to supply a much longer list of deserving candidates. Lindsey is making me particularly cranky.
Ken, that Newsweek article is from January
Patrick,
Thanks for pointing that out.
I should have noted that up front. Just thought it an appropriate platform on which to display my deep anger about the Pretender and his gang of enablers. I feared I was painting myself as one of those nice guys who are satisfied to finish last as long as they can still feel good about themselves.
It's one of the problems with the "We go high, when they go low" thing, and on a personal level I haven't solved it. Probably never will.
The pearl clutchers are going after Schiff because he scares the shit out of them. He's no nonsense, speaks clearly on teevee, doesn't hesitate to call out BS even if it's done diplomatically, and very intelligent. I'm glad Pelosi handed him the reins of this impeachment shit show.
And the fact that the Presidunt*s defense team had the whole weekend to come up with whiny threats about "deep state" paranoia that doesn't message beyond the right wing echo chamber, and even claimed Schiff as treasonous, shows you these clowns aren't taking this seriously, or are so far bogged down in the fever swamps they can't think straight. The crazy train is going to go raving mad, derail, and take a lot of victims down with it.
Safari,
We hope. So far, astoundingly few of the losers, liars, traitors, Trumpists, thugs, racists, misogynists, morons, Foxbots, guttersnipes, gullions, knaves, and crapulous cretins have been summarily dominoed into insignificance and orange-jumpsuitery. More’s the pity.
Deeply saddened by this. Another obit forthcoming. Listening to Jessye Norman singing Strauss’ “Four Last Songs” (“Vier Letze Lieder”) - - like nobody else.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/30/obituaries/jessye-norman-dead.html
Yves Smith piece in Naked Capitalism summarizes R. Hunter Biden's tenure at Burisma, and floats the question: who really owns this shell company?
https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2019/09/from-2014-r-hunter-biden-should-declare-who-really-owns-his-new-ukrainian-employer-burisma-holdings.html
What did Joe and John Kerry know? Is this really all water under the bridge - nothing to see here? Sounds like a mess of chaos to me. I don't think anyone wants to figure it out, and there are some oligarchs that like it that way.