Say It Ain't So, Joe

[stevenkesslar]

Trigger warning:  this one is gonna be a doozy.  You might want to take an aspirin and have a martini first.

First, let's start with Donald Trump's version of reality:

Now here's reality.  And this article, if you want to understand the truth, makes me look terse by comparison.  Don't blame me.  Facts can be complicated things, I guess.

Timeline: How Trump allies and propagandists teamed up to try to smear Biden over Ukraine

There is one snippet I will pull out of that timeline, regarding why I think this will ultimately be devastating for Trump.  If true, Rudy Ghouliani met then-General Prosecutor Lutsenko in Kiev early this year, and during the meeting Rudy Colludy wanted to discuss whether then-US Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch was "not loyal to President Trump".  In March of 2019, Lutsenko alleged - in an interview with Trump/Hannity-friendly Hill reporter John Solomon - that Yovanovitch handed him a list of people NOT to prosecute.  The State Department immediately called this a complete fabrication.  Lutsenko later walked it back and admitted the claim was, in fact, not true.  Lutsenko, who was let go by the new President last month, is also now saying that Hunter Biden broke no laws.

One lesson we can take from this is that the only time you can't believe a Ukrainian General Prosecutor is when his lips are moving.     Both General Prosecutor Lutsenko and his predecessor Shokin (the one Joe Biden bragged about getting fired) seem to make wild claims, depending on who is in power, and which way the wind is blowing.  No wonder the Ukrainian people just hired a professional actor and ironic comedian as their leader.

Another lesson is that it fits into the broader narrative that Trump views the entire US government as an extension of the Trump Organization.  We already know that both Ghouliani and Attorney General Barr come out of this looking like Trump's personal legal lap dogs. The key metric appears to be whether anyone who works for the US Government, like a career diplomat and US Ambassador to Ukraine, is "loyal to President Trump."  Ambassador Yovanovitch was fired this Summer, my guess because she was not the type that played ball with Rudy Colludy.  She is one of a number of key people that are going to be deposed by the House Intelligence Committee in the next few weeks.  I suspect the truth will come out, sooner rather than later.

That said, I can't imagine the truth is going to be very good news for Joe Biden and his candidacy.  

Let's get the reasons this will not legally hurt either Biden out of the way first.

One, there is nothing illegal about serving on any company's board, anywhere in the world.  If it were illegal, America's jails would be overcrowded with millionaires.  

Two, no specific allegations have ever been made about anything illegal Hunter Biden did on any board he has served on.  The fact that he joined the Burisma board years after the lawsuits and investigations started suggests that while the company and its owner may have had legal problems, Hunter Biden was brought on to help fix them - not to add to them.

Third, most of the credible evidence suggests that the investigation against Burisma was "dormant" during the period when Joe Biden and lots of Western officials were trying to get then-General Prosecutor Shokin fired.  After years of investigations and legal proceedings against Burisma's President, a Ukrainian oligarch, most of the cases were dropped.  The one substantive outcome occurred in 2016 when  Burisma did pay several million in back taxes in a tax evasion case.  Again, no one has ever alleged Hunter Biden did anything illegal.  

That said, there's a whole shitload of reasons to think this will hurt Joe Biden politically.

Solomon: These once-secret memos cast doubt on Joe Biden's Ukraine story

John Solomon, as I said earlier, is a right wing gadfly that Trump celebrates with tweets, and Sean Hannity uses regularly as a source for frothing about Clinton/Biden/Obama/Deep State/Mueller conspiracy theories.  I won't post them, but several recent articles talk about how other reporters at The Hill have complained about Solomon's biased journalism.  As a result, his byline was switched from that of a reporter, to that of an "opinion contributor".  Solomon will be leaving The Hill soon, he claims simply because he decided to set out on his own.  (I suspect a Fox News contract may lie in his future.)

That said, Solomon has enough facts that he can hang a story on it, as the above "opinion" piece written by him proves.   Whether it was "dormant" or not, there is a credible argument that something was in fact going on at Burisma at the time that Joe Biden insisted that General Prosecutor Shokin be fired.  This is a  February 2017 article that Solomon hyperlinked in the article above, in which a US attorney that defended Burisma is interviewed, explaining how all the legal matters were closed in a "legally sound manner":

John Buretta: For us it was important to close all cases against Burisma and Nikolay Zlochevskyi in a legally sound manner

Okay.  But even if you accept that, the fact that he said this in February 2017 suggests that legal matters against Burisma were somewhere on the radar in 2016, when Biden got Shokin fired.  As Solomon documents, meetings about these legal matters were held in 2016 with American lawyers and lobbyists with past or current ties to the Clintons or Bidens.  Again, these legal matters may have had nothing directly to do with any actions of Hunter Biden.  But Trump and Ghouliani can, and of course will, argue that firing Shokin was actually the centerpiece of a wicked plot that prevented the good guys from draining the Burisma swamp.

Here's Exhibit A in that argument, which Solomon hyperlinks in the article above.

https://www.scribd.com/document/427618359/Shokin-Statement

That is a deposition of former General Prosecutor Shokin - the guy Joe Biden got fired.  Joe Biden's name comes up repeatedly, and extremely negatively.  Here's the part that Solomon references in the article above:

Quote

In a newly sworn affidavit prepared for a European court, Shokin testified that when he was fired in March 2016, he was told the reason was that Biden was unhappy about the Burisma investigation. “The truth is that I was forced out because I was leading a wide-ranging corruption probe into Burisma Holdings, a natural gas firm active in Ukraine and Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, was a member of the Board of Directors,” Shokin testified.

“On several occasions President Poroshenko asked me to have a look at the case against Burisma and consider the possibility of winding down the investigative actions in respect of this company but I refused to close this investigation,” Shokin added.

Solomon himself is smart enough to note that you can dismiss all this as sour grapes on the part of a fired corrupt government bureaucrat.  But guess what?  That's not what Trump and Ghouliani are trying to do, as the new ad I posted above that Trump is tweeting out proves.

It is only going to get worse from here.  The deposition above is part of an ongoing case in Austria against Dymtro Firtash, another Ukrainian oligarch.  (Again, try reading this with a martini.  It may help).  Firtash was arrested in Austria in March 2014, and since then the US has been trying to extradite him in regards to  ................ wait for it ......................... charges that he had secured a titanium extraction permit in India through $18.5 million in bribes.

Now here's the real kicker:

Extradition of Firtash was cleared by the Austrian Supreme Court in June 2019[79] and by Austrian Minister of Justice Clemens Jabloner in July 2019.[80] In July 2019, it was reported that Robert Mueller's chief deputy, Andrew Weissmann, reached out to Firtash's US lawyers in June 2017 offering to “resolve the Firtash case” in exchange for information about Donald Trump and the case of Russian interference in the 2016 election. Firtash's legal team rejected the offer on the grounds that Firtash had "no credible information or evidence on the topics" outlined.[81][82] Extradition of Firtash has been suspended as a result of appeal by his defense team.[83]

So now we can link Joe and Hunter Biden back to Donald Trump's Theology Of Original Sin:  the Mueller report. 

You have a fired and discredited Ukrainian General Prosecutor (Shokin) defending a Ukrainian oligarch and attacking Joe Biden.  Claim 1 is that Biden got Shokin fired because Shokin was planning to investigate a company run by a bad Ukrainian oligarch, who paid Biden's son handsomely to serve on their board. Claim 2 is Biden was also at the center of a campaign to persecute a good Ukrainian oligarch, Dymtro Firtash. As Shokin states in his deposition:  "In my opinion, the initiator of the prevention of DF's [Dymtro Firtash's] return to Ukraine was the US Vice President Joe Biden ....  The events relating to DF and Biden in 2015 reveal the extent of the US administration's interference with Ukrainan domestic affairs and the eagerness to exercise control with the aim of advancing US interests."

Needless to say, it will be quite easy for Sean Hannity to connect all the dots and argue that when the Obama/Clinton/Biden/Deep State/Mueller plot to keep Trump from power failed, the focus of persecution against Good Oligarch Firtash shifted.  Mueller's henchman Weissmann offered to let him off the hook, in exchange for ratting out Donald Trump as part of Mueller's Russiagate hoax. 

In order to believe this makes any sense whatsoever, you of course have to believe that Bill and Hillary Clinton, Joe and Hunter Biden, Bob Mueller, and Andrew Weissmann are all rolling around in bed together.  (Even if you are drinking a martini, I beg you NOT to try to imagine what that would actually look like in real life.)

Needless to say, Hannity and Trump are certain to go there.

The axiom in politics is, "When you're explaining, you're losing."

Can someone please tell me how Joe "the Explainer" Biden is actually going to explain this one?

For Trump, the huge problem is that the coverup may be worse than the crime.  For Biden, the problem may be that the appearance of impropriety is worse than impropriety itself.

 

Edited September 28, 2019 by stevenkesslar

[KYTOP]

From reading this article by The Hill's investigative reporter it would seem to conflict with some items in the article you referenced. From reading The Hill investigative article I could understand why there might be a conversation Between the Ukrainian and US Presidents (Governments) concerning the Burisma investigation and possible interference of a former US Government official(s) into this investigation. The Ukraine is notorious for corruption so who knows where this goes. And Yes the US Government, present and past administrations, would be justified in withholding funds over corruption concerns just as it has with several other countries in the past. Link to the Hill article:

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/463307-solomon-these-once-secret-memos-cast-doubt-on-joe-bidens-ukraine-story

I do not think this whole mess will help either Biden or Trump. Biden may be the biggest loser though and I'm thinking it may be time to prepare myself for President Warren. In the meantime I wish to hibernate until it is all over. Don't care for all the Hate and fighting.

[stevenkesslar]

9 hours ago, KYTOP said:

From reading this article by The Hill's investigative reporter it would seem to conflict with some items in the article you referenced.

I'm a little confused by your statement because one of the three articles I hyperlinked was exactly the same one you did - from John Solomon at The Hill.  I assume you mean there was a conflict between Hill's article and the first one I hyperlinked, the timeline from Media Matters.  My sense is that Media Matters is accurate and they stuck to the facts, the facts, and only the facts.

As I said above, Hill certainly has facts to hang his insinuations on.  And Biden just looks sleazy.  But Solomon really has no facts that suggest either Biden did anything illegal.  He sounds more like Glenn Beck:  "I'm just asking questions!"

One thing I've been thinking about is this:  if there is an error in judgment by Biden, which Biden is it?  Joe Biden became the point man for Ukraine shortly after Putin's invasion.  By every credible account I have read, Joe Biden was the designated hatchet man for broadly felt concerns about Shokin that were shared by the US, the UK, the IMF, and maybe most importantly, lots of local reformers in Ukraine. 

The problem really started when Hunter Biden took a position on Burisma's board.  That definitely created a conflict of interest.  It's hard not to believe it was an overtly political move, and the only reason he was paid the big bucks is he happened to be the Veep's son.  He is also a recovering drug addict, and someone who just strikes me as sleazy.  All that said, at least if you only look at Ukraine, this is more like the father paying for the sins of the son than the son paying for the sins of the father.  Hunter Biden did nothing wrong, other than to be a sleazebag.  I don't know this disqualifies Joe Biden based on any reasonable standard or any known fact.  But it certainly doesn't look good.

I agree with your bottom line regarding a President Warren.  Her bumper sticker is "corruption is bad".  Both Trump and the Bidens seem to be offering examples of different forms of corruption.  The Biden sort - "pay to play" - is legal and broadly practiced.  The Trump sort goes further, and is certain to end up being an impeachable offense.

9 hours ago, KYTOP said:

And Yes the US Government, present and past administrations, would be justified in withholding funds over corruption concerns just as it has with several other countries in the past.

That's going to be very interesting to watch.  I think the verdict is in already that Trump clearly solicited foreign interference in the 2020 election.  Even Republicans are pretty much all saying Trump bringing up the Bidens was just wrong.  their argument is it just isn't something that merits impeachment.

How the "quid pro quo" thing plays out with public opinion depends on a whole bunch of facts that have yet to be uncovered.  We don't know what was happening in the months before that call.  But some things we do know suggest a concerted effort to make the alleged quid pro quo - you get money to take out Biden - really obvious.  Like Rudy Colludy popping up all over the place and making it clear as day that Trump wanted dirt on Biden.

Lindsey Graham is the guy whose role in the Senate now seems to be to try to add as much political logic as possible to Trump's worst rants.  So he's the one advancing the most cogent argument about how this was really all good policy.  Trump just wanted our allies to pitch in, and he wanted to make sure the new guy was not corrupt.  That's the best argument anyone can make.  The White House has picked it up, so now what they are saying is that the DOD and NSC were simply conducting a "policy process" before releasing the funds.

Amid Impeachment Talk, WH Says Aid Delay Was Review-Based

In that regard, the very last paragraph of the whistle blowers complaint may be one of the most damning, if it holds up as the facts come out:

Quote

• On 18 July, an Office of Management and Budget (OMB) official informed Departments and Agencies that the President “earlier that month” had issued instructions to suspend all U.S. security assistance to Ukraine. Neither OMB nor the NSC staff knew why this instruction had been issued. During interagency meetings on 23 July and 26 July, OMB officials again stated explicitly that the instruction to suspend this assistance had come directly from the President, but they still were unaware of a policy rationale. As of early August, I heard from U.S. officials that some Ukrainian officials were aware that U.S..aid might be in jeopardy, but I do not know how or when they learned of it.

So it's clear, that quote was from the very last paragraph of the whistle blower's complaint. 

Part of why I think this is gaining momentum is that the whistle blower obviously is a professional who knows a lot about policies and processes and laws that would be applicable.  So if there was a "policy review" occurring within the NSC, you'd think the staff of the NSC who work on these matters would know about it, right?  With the exception of Lindsey Graham, most Republican Senators - including McConnell - have said they don't have a clue why the money was held up.  My sense is that at least hints that most Republicans are not going to throw themselves under the bus for Trump.

It's a minor point, but Trump's congratulatory tone on the phone call also doesn't quite fit with the idea that he had grave concerns about the new President being corrupt.  Zelenskyy was quite obviously sucking up to Trump in almost every sentence he spoke.  And Trump was bending over backward to tell Zelenskyy what a great guy he was, and what a wonderful and promising victory he had won.  Trump didn't really bring up any generic concern about Ukrainian corruption.  Like he didn't say, I need you to prove to me that you can run a country without massive corruption. 

In fact, the more I learn, the more it sounds like Trump implicitly was siding with corruption.  He talked about how unfair it was that Biden got Shokin fired, even though by almost every account Shokin was viewed as an ineffective and corrupt General Prosecutor.  Then Trump trashed his own Ambassador, a career diplomat who he had just sidelined.  It's going to be very interesting to learn what she has to say about Ghouliani's involvement.  To the degree that Trump articulated clearly what hoops Zelenskyy had to jump through, it was all about the Clinton/Biden/DNC conspiracy theories:  you make Biden and Clinton and Mueller and the Democrats look bad, and you'll make me happy.  That was the clear subtext to me.

Now that I've read the report of the US Inspector General who had to review the whistle blower's complaint, Trump seems to have one other huge problem:

Quote

"Other information obtained during the ICIG's preliminary review, however, supports the Complainant's allegation that, among other things, during the call the President 'sought to pressure the Ukrainian leader to take actions to help the President's 2020 reelection bid.'"

To make sure it's clear, that line is from the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community's report explaining why he thinks the whistle blower's allegations are credible and urgent.  And the Inspector General, Michael Atkinson, was appointed by Trump and appears to be a squeaky clean good government type who worked for DOJ for 15 years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Atkinson_(Inspector_General)

Atkinson received the Attorney General's Award for Distinguished Service for his work taking down Black Democratic U.S. Rep. William Jefferson, the corrupt Louisiana legislator who got caught with a bunch of money wrapped in aluminum foil in his freezer.  It's hard to argue a good cop type appointed by Trump himself had an axe to grind against Trump.

It's not clear yet what "other information" means in that quote above.  But if you take what the whistle blower says and what the IG agrees with, it's hard not to believe that a third of fourth of fifth person isn't going to come forward to confirm that Trump did in fact solicit a foreign leader to help his 2020 reelection campaign.

Again, we agree.  I think who Trump is most likely to have ended up helping is President Elizabeth Warren.

Edited September 29, 2019 by stevenkesslar

[stevenkesslar]

Excellent article that I think nails it:

Hunter Biden’s Perfectly Legal, Socially Acceptable Corruption

Donald Trump committed an impeachable offense, but prominent Americans also shouldn’t be leveraging their names for payoffs from shady clients abroad.

Quote

The renewed focus on Ukraine raises jangling questions: How did dealing in influence to burnish the fortunes of repugnant world leaders for large payoffs become a business model? How could America’s leading lights convince themselves—and us—that this is acceptable?

Voicing this question now invites an immediate objection: “false equivalence.” Let’s dispense with it. What Donald Trump has done—in this case, according to the summary of a single phone call, lean on a foreign president to launch two spurious investigations in order to hurt political rivals, offering the services of the U.S. Department of Justice for the purpose—is shockingly corrupt, a danger to American democracy, and worthy of impeachment.

But the egregiousness of these acts must not blind us to the culture of influence-peddling that surrounds and enables them. That culture is fundamental to the cynical state we are in, and it needs examining. All too often, the scandal isn’t that the conduct in question is forbidden by federal law, but rather, how much scandalous conduct is perfectly legal—and broadly accepted.

Let’s start with Hunter Biden. In April 2014, he became a director of Burisma, the largest natural-gas producer in Ukraine. He had no prior experience in the gas industry, nor with Ukrainian regulatory affairs, his ostensible purview at Burisma. He did have one priceless qualification: his unique position as the son of the vice president of the United States, newborn Ukraine’s most crucial ally. 

Some of these gigs require more ethical compromises than others. When allegations of ethical lapses or wrongdoing surface against people on one side of the aisle, they can always claim that someone on the other side has done far worse. But taken together, all of these examples have contributed to a toxic norm. Joe Biden is the man who, as a senator, walked out of a dinner with Afghan President Hamid Karzai. Biden was one of the most vocal champions of anticorruption efforts in the Obama administration. So when this same Biden takes his son with him to China aboard Air Force Two, and within days Hunter joins the board of an investment advisory firm with stakes in China, it does not matter what father and son discussed. Joe Biden has enabled this brand of practice, made it bipartisan orthodoxy. And the ethical standard in these cases—people’s basic understanding of right and wrong—becomes whatever federal law allows. Which is a lot.

Who among us has not admired or supported people who have engaged in or provided cover for this kind of corruption? How did we convince ourselves it was not corruption? Impeachment alone will not end our national calamity. If we want to help our country heal, we must start holding ourselves, our friends, and our allies—and not just our enemies—to its highest standards.

I'm about 1000 % certain that this is just going to reinforce what happened under the surface in the 2018 election, and also where the 2020 election was headed anyway.  There will be a huge focus on the broader culture of corruption, and the need to clean it up.

(If you believe in the magic of Trump and his tweets, this was of course already settled in 2016, when he was elected to drain the swamp.  Let's not go there.)

I'll put up a second article, both to illustrate why this will hurt Biden, and why it won't really deflect from Trump.

Now that Sarah Sanders Huckabee is gone, I guess Fox News and his Twitter feed are about all Trump has to rely on.  (Oh, and The Divine Miss Graham, of course.)

Good luck with that, Donald.  I don't think this will get you very far.  The fact that the polls on impeachment have shifted so quickly pretty much tells me that what I thought was true is true:  Americans are not stupid, and they know corruption and bullshit when they see it.

Busting Biden myths on Ukraine – Conduct of Joe and Hunter raises troubling questions

By Peter Schweizer, Jacob McLeod | Fox News

Quote

Point 1: There was an “absolute wall” between Hunter Biden’s business and Vice President Biden.

I think that is the core of Joe Biden's problems.  Not a whole lot of people are going to believe that.  As The Atlantic article point to, I think the image that most resonates for me about Biden's problems has nothing to do with Ukraine.  It's the image of Joe and Hunter Biden walking off Air Force Two together in China, shortly before Hunter scored a $1.5 billion equity deal with the Chinese. 

There's not a whole lot of artistic ways to put lipstick on that pig.  There wasn't a wall between them.  There wasn't even an airplane between them.

Quote

Point 2: The Burisma investigation doesn’t represent a conflict of interest for Joe Biden.

Burisma began paying Hunter Biden as a legal advisor after British authorities opened a corruption investigation into the company’s owner. Shortly afterward, Ukrainian authorities launched an investigation of their own.

Some in the media, such as the Washington Post’s fact-checker, have repeated the claim that the Burisma investigation had been “shelved” by late 2015, when Joe Biden called for the prosecutor in charge to be fired.

But according to Burisma’s own attorneys, the case was not formally closed until September 2016, months after the prosecutor was fired. Others, such as Transparency International, say the matter remained open until November 2016.

The illogic of that argument collapses on itself really quickly.

Anyone with a sense of fairness would note that Hunter was asked to join that board after Joe was already in charge of dealing with Ukraine.  So unless there is a tape recording of some conversation where Joe is telling Hunter to join the board and clean up on fees and contracts, the conflict of interest seems to be Hunter's - not Joe's.

There's also the minor problem of explaining why Hunter has a legal problem, simply because he joined the board of a company whose boss had had legal problems for years.

The really illogical part of this that reflects very badly on Trump is that his own words make absolutely no sense.  He misspoke, based on his own transcript, and said that Biden tried to get rid of a prosecution.  When he actually should have said Biden did get rid of a prosecutor. 

You can go full blown conspiracy theory and argue that Biden's intent was to stop a prosecution.  But there's no evidence of that.  In fact, what makes no fucking sense to me whatsoever is that Biden's critics are arguing exactly the opposite.  They are pointing out that after Biden fired the prosecutor, the investigation and prosecution of Burisma did in fact continue.  So Fox Fake News wants to have it both ways.  Why am I not surprised?

As I stated elsewhere, the final outcome is that Burisma did get nailed for past tax evasion - which had nothing to do with the Bidens - and Burisma coughed up several million in back taxes.  At some point I expect Hunter Biden or somebody will come forward with a credible argument that Hunter's role on the board was to clean the company's policies and governance up.

The argument that Biden got Shokin fired to protect Burisma and his son is incredibly weak.  But based on the facts Fox itself is reporting, to make the argument you really have to argue that the real problem with Joe Biden is that he's incompetent.  If his goal was to shut down the case against Burisma, it obviously didn't work.

The part of this I love is that it really casts a spotlight on the endemic corruption of revolving doors between corporations and governments, former government officials getting rich by joining corporate boards, and the families of government officials getting rich by doing the same.  The Trump family and Team Trump's Cabinet of Billionaires is hardly in a position to sit in moral judgment on that one.

One interesting tell is that Elizabeth Warren herself was described as "flustered" when she was asked whether a President Warren would allow the child of her Vice President to sit on the board of a foreign company.

Quote

KEENE, N.H. – Sen. Elizabeth Warren spotlighted her longstanding calls for the impeachment of President Trump at a campaign event on Wednesday, emphasizing, “I hope we do this and I hope we do this quickly.”

But, she also appeared to unintentionally swipe at a rival Democrat vying for the White House – former Vice President Joe Biden – over his family’s role in the Ukraine controversy that led the House of Representatives to launch a formal impeachment inquiry into Trump.

Taking questions from reporters following a town hall event in the first-in-the-nation presidential primary state of New Hampshire, the Massachusetts Democrat was asked if she would allow her vice president’s child to serve on the board of a foreign company if she were president. Warren quickly answered, “no.”

When asked why, she said, in a rare moment where she appeared flustered: “I don’t know. I have to go back and look at the details.”

The "details" to which Warren was referring are from the two ethics plans she's unveiled to tackle corruption in government. Her campaign later clarified to the Washington Post that the plans wouldn't prevent any child of a vice president from serving on such a board.

You can interpret that any number of ways, based on your feelings about Warren.  To me what it says is that even the candidate who has been most outspoken about corruption didn't really have a clear answer for where you draw the line.

This is going to be really, really good.

 

Edited September 29, 2019 by stevenkesslar

[tassojunior]

The Biden Pay-to-Play stinks to high heaven. It had to be dealt with at some point. Making Biden the "victim" of Trump's impeachable offense was the answer. Now, not only is the story about the revelation crime instead of the corruption, but either you rally behind Biden or you're not a good Democrat. Genius move. 

[stevenkesslar]

On 10/7/2019 at 4:35 PM, tassojunior said:

The Biden Pay-to-Play stinks to high heaven. It had to be dealt with at some point. Making Biden the "victim" of Trump's impeachable offense was the answer. Now, not only is the story about the revelation crime instead of the corruption, but either you rally behind Biden or you're not a good Democrat. Genius move. 

True enough, on the surface.  No Democrat will trash Biden.  It didn't work well for either Harris or Castro.  

Behind the scenes, there are all the telltale signs of panic.  Can't we run Michelle?  I mean, maybe we're going to need to reboot Hillary 2.0 even?

I doubt Biden will be gone by Iowa.  He may still win the nomination, although I'd bet money that we'll see a repeat of 2008.  Once Obama won Iowa, everything changed.

Meaning Biden will likely stay in just long enough to prevent his folks from consolidating around someone else.

https://morningconsult.com/2020-democratic-primary-2/

Scroll down and look at people's second choices.

What's interesting is that if Harris drops out, Warren benefits more than anyone else.  If Mayor Pete drops out, Warren benefits more than anyone else.

The only person who could drop out and benefit Biden is Bernie - barely.  Biden would get 31 % of his supporters, and Warren would get 27 %.

My gut all year has been that Bernie and Elizabeth were not going to have a food fight with each other.  They are too smart, too principled, and most important they have spent way too much time being outsiders.  They know how to play David much better than how to play Goliath.  So I figured they were going to do what they have been doing:  be a great tag team for progressive ideas.

For now at least, I think it's better for Bernie to stay in.  Based on the trend, the math is working out that either Elizabeth will have enough delegates on her own, or her and Bernie will have enough together.  No one has voted yet, so maybe it will all change.  But Biden is not gaining support, and Ukrainegate is not helping.

As you keep saying, Bernie appeals to a segment of people who think both parties more or less suck.  I think it is better for Bernie to stay in, like he did in 2016.  Assuming he does not win the nomination, which after his heart attack looks unlikely, he will have to figure out a way to pass the torch to Elizabeth.  I think he will figure that out when the time comes.

Edited October 10, 2019 by stevenkesslar

[tassojunior]

4 hours ago, stevenkesslar said:

True enough, on the surface.  No Democrat will trash Biden.  It didn't work well for either Harris or Castro.  

Behind the scenes, there are all the telltale signs of panic.  Can't we run Michelle?  I mean, maybe we're going to need to reboot Hillary 2.0 even?

I doubt Biden will be gone by Iowa.  He may still win the nomination, although I'd bet money that we'll see a repeat of 2008.  Once Obama won Iowa, everything changed.

Meaning Biden will likely stay in just long enough to prevent his folks from consolidating around someone else.

https://morningconsult.com/2020-democratic-primary-2/

Scroll down and look at people's second choices.

What's interesting is that if Harris drops out, Warren benefits more than anyone else.  If Mayor Pete drops out, Warren benefits more than anyone else.

The only person who could drop out and benefit Biden is Bernie - barely.  Biden would get 31 % of his supporters, and Warren would get 27 %.

My gut all year has been that Bernie and Elizabeth were not going to have a food fight with each other.  They are too smart, too principled, and most important they have spent way too much time being outsiders.  They know how to play David much better than how to play Goliath.  So I figured they were going to do what they have been doing:  be a great tag team for progressive ideas.

For now at least, I think it's better for Bernie to stay in.  Based on the trend, the math is working out that either Elizabeth will have enough delegates on her own, or her and Bernie will have enough together.  No one has voted yet, so maybe it will all change.  But Biden is not gaining support, and Ukrainegate is not helping.

As you keep saying, Bernie appeals to a segment of people who think both parties more or less suck.  I think it is better for Bernie to stay in, like he did in 2016.  Assuming he does not win the nomination, which after his heart attack looks unlikely, he will have to figure out a way to pass the torch to Elizabeth.  I think he will figure that out when the time comes.

"The Plan" is still, implausible as it seems, for Kamala to be nominated as the grand "compromise" "youthful" candidate. The DNC, Wall Street and Silicon Valley really want her. Her two roll-outs have been disasters but the DNC is very hard headed (and stupid).

We'll see how Warren shakes out as a progressive. I'm hopeful. But I've been saying for a while if Bernie sinks and Warren doesn't seem "the one" he should withdraw and endorse Tulsi. Many people think she's the only one who can beat Trump in a close race. A Bernie endorsement would propel he. But let's see how Warren develops for now. 

 

Edited October 10, 2019 by tassojunior

[stevenkesslar]

6 hours ago, tassojunior said:

"The Plan" is still, implausible as it seems, for Kamala to be nominated as the grand "compromise" "youthful" candidate. The DNC, Wall Street and Silicon Valley really want her. Her two roll-outs have been disasters but the DNC is very hard headed (and stupid).

We'll see how Warren shakes out as a progressive. I'm hopeful. But I've been saying for a while if Bernie sinks and Warren doesn't seem "the one" he should withdraw and endorse Tulsi. Many people think she's the only one who can beat Trump in a close race. A Bernie endorsement would propel he. But let's see how Warren develops for now. 

 

I've tried to stay ecumenical about Bernie and Elizabeth all year.  I've been hoping, as I said, they would tag team on progressive messages.  And they have not disappointed.

I also figured Tulsi's best shot at VP was with Bernie.  That's looking less likely now.  I also thought Bernie might pick Warren, in part because he might have needed her to have enough delegates.  Now, it would likely be the opposite.  Warren could conceivably pick him.  Although his heart attack just gave her a good reason not to, assuming she can get enough delegates on her own.

If Bernie drops out and endorses, I see zero percent chance he endorses anyone but Warren.  They have been friends and allies for a long time.  So she is now tied to Biden in the polls and the betting market favorite, and Bernie is gonna endorse Tulsi instead?  Dream on.

The more interesting question is:  would Warren consider Tulsi?  My guess is no.  Warren already has a lot of people saying she's too far left.  Tulsi doesn't solve that problem,.  And she adds to it in that she is polling in the low single digits, and even a lot of "liberal" Democrats just despise her. 

If Warren is nominated, who she picks will tell us a huge amount.  I think the conventional wisdom will be she should pick some White male like Tim Kaine for "balance".  Hopefully if she goes that route she picks someone like Sherrod Brown.  Brown might be a good choice if it didn't mean losing one more Senate seat.  I still haven't given up on the idea of Warren/Sanders, but I know that would be like doubling down on horror to Biden Democrats.  Plus it's the same Senate problem.  Vermont has an R Governor.

I actually hope she picks a progressive woman.  I like the idea of doubling down and saying it's time for women for a change.  But I don't think that would be Tulsi. I'm not sure who it would be.

Edited October 11, 2019 by stevenkesslar

[stevenkesslar]

18 hours ago, tassojunior said:

But I've been saying for a while if Bernie sinks and Warren doesn't seem "the one" he should withdraw and endorse Tulsi

Speaking of Tulsi, can anyone translate this into reality?

The DNC and corporate media are trying to hijack the entire election process

Quote

In this 2020 election, the DNC and corporate media are rigging the election again, but this time against the American people in the early voting states of Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada.

They are attempting to replace the roles of voters in the early states, using polling and other arbitrary methods which are not transparent or democratic, and holding so-called debates which are not debates at all but rather commercialized reality television meant to entertain, not inform or enlighten.

In short, the DNC and corporate media are trying to hijack the entire election process.

I'm honestly not sure I understand what that means.

It's something about debates on corporate media and the polls.  But I'm not sure I get how that disenfranchises voters in Iowa.

What this actually made me think is that if there is a villain, it's the calendar. It's never been clear to me why Iowa should have more say then California, for example.  But they do.  I think the theory is that the way we do it here vets candidates more thoroughly.  But spending a year or two being thoughtful and then electing President Toxic kind of blows that theory to shit.  2016 was more like a root canal.  Can't we just get it done in a month?

I'm not a huge fan of CNN or MSNBC or Fox.  But I've watched debates and town halls put on by all three and I found them informative.  The Fox town hall with Sanders was one of the most enjoyable just because it was so counterintuitive.  It was very informative, because it got a little bit deeper under Bernie's hood. If there's a problem with the debates so far it's that there's just too many debaters on stage. Ironically, Tulsi will help solve that problem if she boycotts the next debate.

This is why I doubt Warren(or Biden) would pick Tulsi.  It was easy for me to get around her prior learned and then unlearned homophobia.  What I really admire about her is that she is a passionaite one woman army against aggressive militarism and endless war.  I would not mind seeing her Secretary of State.  

That said, my fear with a President Tulsi is it would just be weird all the time.  This is just weird.

 

Edited October 11, 2019 by stevenkesslar

[stevenkesslar]

The funny thing is that the President of Ukraine now actually is a former comedian.  And somehow this whole thing is turning into a real life comedy, or tragedy.  You just can't make this shit up.

The Ukraine Plot Yields Its First Two Arrests

Quote

As The Wall Street Journal first reported, two men who assisted in Rudy Giuliani’s investigations in Ukraine on behalf of Donald Trump were arrested Wednesday night. Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman, both Soviet-born, naturalized American citizens, had been subpoenaed to testify to Congress today and Friday in connection with the impeachment inquiry to Trump; they were apprehended at Dulles Airport, outside of Washington, D.C., trying to leave the country on one-way tickets.

In a letter to House Democrats last week, attorney John Dowd—last seen representing Trump in connection with Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation—wrote, “Please be advised that Messrs. Parnas and Fruman assisted Mr. Giuliani in connection with his representation of President Trump.” This was apparently intended to shield Parnas and Fruman: Dowd argued some of what Democrats sought from them was protected by attorney-client privilege. But with the arrests today, that argument adds to Trump’s problems. Attorney-client privilege does not cover the commission of crimes, and now the connection to the president has been established.

Parnas and Fruman’s schemes are a little hard to follow. Prosecutors charged them, as well as two other men, with conspiracy, false statements to the FEC, and falsifying records. An indictment charges that the men engaged in a straw-donor scheme to illegally donate money to a congressman—former Representative Pete Sessions, a Texas Republican—at the behest of a Ukrainian official, to get help in trying to get the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine fired. (Sessions wrote a letter calling for the diplomat’s firing, and she was eventually removed.) In another scheme, they funneled money from a Russian foreign national, again in violation of the law, into donations, using a legal recreational-marijuana enterprise as a front.

The fact that Trump’s corruption-seekers were, themselves, allegedly corrupt begs a comparison to Richard Nixon’s crew of Plumbers, who were convened to investigate leaks of classified information but were eventually arrested for crimes of their own. The White House has argued that the Democratic impeachment inquiry is illegitimate because Trump did nothing wrong and there’s nothing to investigate, but each new piece of information—much less federal indictments—makes that harder to sustain.

Even before the arrests, there was evidence the public wasn’t buying it. A Fox News poll released Wednesday found an eye-popping 51 percent of Americans want Trump impeached and removed from office. Another 4 percent want him impeached but not removed. The poll shows growing support in practically every group, across ideological and demographic categories. Some are especially worrisome for Trump: Suburban women favor impeachment and removal, 57-33. More than half of respondents think the Trump administration is more corrupt than previous presidencies. Among those who oppose impeachment, only one in five say Trump did nothing wrong.

The same Fox News poll also shows that Trump's allegations against the Bidens make no difference to 64 % of voters.  10 % say the allegations make them LESS likely to vote for Joe Biden.  21 % say they are MORE likely to vote for Biden because of Trump's allegations.

Oops.  It's just not working out well for President Toxic.  Wonder why?

Edited October 11, 2019 by stevenkesslar

[stevenkesslar]

Marie Yovanovitch says Trump ousted her over ‘unfounded and false claims’

Quote

Marie L. Yovanovitch, the former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, told House impeachment investigators Friday that she was abruptly forced out of her role in May at the direction of President Donald Trump.

Defying State Department orders to ignore the House's demand for her testimony, Yovanovitch said Deputy Secretary of State John Sullivan told her that there was “a concerted campaign” against her — one based on “unfounded and false claims by people with clearly questionable motives.” Yovanovitch attended her deposition in defiance of the State Department’s orders.

Yovanovitch said she had “minimal contacts” with Giuliani, adding: “I do not know Mr. Giuliani’s motives for attacking me.” She speculated that Giuliani’s associates “believed that their personal financial ambitions were stymied by our anti-corruption policy in Ukraine.”

She also said U.S. interests are “harmed” when “private interests circumvent professional diplomats for their own gain, not the public good.” It appeared to be a reference to Giuliani’s efforts to leverage government officials to dig up dirt on Biden.

“The harm will come when bad actors in countries beyond Ukraine see how easy it is to use fiction and innuendo to manipulate our system,” she said. “In such circumstances, the only interests that will be served are those of our strategic adversaries, like Russia, that spread chaos and attack the institutions and norms that the U.S. helped create and which we have benefited from for the last 75 years.”

Yovanovich's statement represented a top-to-bottom rebuke of the president, his associates, and his foreign policy — a rare takedown from a career diplomat who has sought to avoid the spotlight ever since her ouster. Yovanovitch expressed her “deep disappointment and dismay” at efforts to undermine trust in American institutions, and warned that “this nation’s most loyal and talented public servants” are running for the exits. She also said other countries would likely exploit the same dynamic that led to her ouster to undermine U.S. foreign policy.

 

Edited October 11, 2019 by stevenkesslar

[TotallyOz]

I do think if Biden drops out, that may give rise to Hillary 2.0. And, while I don't want to see her run again, I'd be happy for her to enter.

That said, hell, I just watched a town hall with Elizabeth, and she was amazing. She is funny, fast and genuine. I am very impressed with everything about her.

[stevenkesslar]

Bolton Objected to Ukraine Pressure Campaign, Calling Giuliani ‘a Hand Grenade’

Quote

“I am not part of whatever drug deal Sondland and Mulvaney are cooking up,” Mr. Bolton, a Yale-trained lawyer, told Ms. Hill to tell White House lawyers, according to two people at the deposition. (Another person in the room initially said Mr. Bolton referred to Mr. Giuliani and Mr. Mulvaney, but two others said he cited Mr. Sondland.)

It was not the first time Mr. Bolton expressed grave concerns to Ms. Hill about the campaign being run by Mr. Giuliani. “Giuliani’s a hand grenade who’s going to blow everybody up,” Ms. Hill quoted Mr. Bolton as saying during an earlier conversation.

The testimony revealed in a powerful way just how divisive Mr. Giuliani’s efforts to extract damaging information about Democrats from Ukraine on President Trump’s behalf were within the White House.

 

Of President Toxic's many unexpected and remarkable achievements, this one has to go near the top of the list.

Who woulda thunk he'd figure out a way to turn John Bolton, The Hawk Who Wants To Blow Up The World, into a national hero?  

Edited October 15, 2019 by stevenkesslar

[TotallyOz]

16 hours ago, stevenkesslar said:

Bolton Objected to Ukraine Pressure Campaign, Calling Giuliani ‘a Hand Grenade’

 

Of President Toxic's many unexpected and remarkable achievements, this one has to go near the top of the list.

Who woulda thunk he'd figure out a way to turn John Bolton, The Hawk Who Wants To Blow Up The World, into a national hero?  

Not so fast. We don't know the full story yet.

[stevenkesslar]

On 10/15/2019 at 9:56 AM, stevenkesslar said:

Of President Toxic's many unexpected and remarkable achievements, this one has to go near the top of the list.

Who woulda thunk he'd figure out a way to turn John Bolton, The Hawk Who Wants To Blow Up The World, into a national hero?  

 

18 hours ago, TotallyOz said:

Not so fast. We don't know the full story yet.

 

Just to be clear, that was sarcasm on my part.

John Bolton will never be a hero.

[stevenkesslar]

Sorry, but Democrats need to talk about Hunter Biden

Democrats are afraid to talk about Hunter Biden. Trump won’t be.

By Ezra Klein

Quote

It wasn’t illegal for Hunter Biden to take that job. But Hunter Biden himself has admitted it was “poor judgment.” It’s reminiscent of nothing so much as the $675,000 Hillary Clinton took for giving speeches to Goldman Sachs: not illegal, but a kind of soft corruption that voters find loathsome.

Clinton and Biden both make the same argument: The money — in Clinton’s case direct, in Biden’s case to his son — didn’t affect their decisions. I believe Biden on this. But these are huge sums and represent a kind of DC back-scratching and influence-trading that voters dislike. Getting paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for doing basically no work is a rare gift, and the cost of accepting that gift or of letting a family member accept it is it can be used against you in a future election.

Booker, like other Democrats I’ve heard, analogized talking about Hunter Biden’s job in Ukraine to talking about Hillary Clinton’s emails — an unfair smear that is legitimized when raised by the media or other candidates. “I am having deja vu all over again,” he said.

Me too, but for a different reason.

In 2016, Bernie Sanders famously refused to attack Clinton’s emails in the debates. “The American people are sick and tired about hearing about your damn emails,” he said to applause. The result was that rather than Democrats realizing how damaging that story was — and how ineffective Clinton was at putting it to rest — during the primary, they found that out in the general election.

 What would be playing into Trump’s hands is ignoring an obvious vulnerability so that he can exploit it later.

 

Edited October 17, 2019 by stevenkesslar

[AdamSmith]

10 minutes ago, stevenkesslar said:

Sorry, but Democrats need to talk about Hunter Biden

Democrats are afraid to talk about Hunter Biden. Trump won’t be.

By Ezra Klein

 

Actually unjustified trash that sweeps Biden off the stage can’t come soon enough.

Time enough for Warren or Bernie once in office to set things right.

insofar as whatever our America has today  it has become.

[RA1]

I am sorry but I just don't get it.  Once one accepts or maybe worse expects something for nothing we are indeed on a down hill slide as a country/culture.  There are many things I do not like about Trump the man and Trump the President but I cannot imagine the Congress critter or the US electorate approving very many of the current Democrat candidate's proposals.  They don't make sense, we cannot afford them and likely will not pass muster (meaning enactment).  

I like many of the candidates as people, I even like their ideas but regard them as Utopian and unachievable.  

Best regards,

RA1

[AdamSmith]

7 hours ago, RA1 said:

I am sorry but I just don't get it.  Once one accepts or maybe worse expects something for nothing we are indeed on a down hill slide as a country/culture.  There are many things I do not like about Trump the man and Trump the President but I cannot imagine the Congress critter or the US electorate approving very many of the current Democrat candidate's proposals.  They don't make sense, we cannot afford them and likely will not pass muster (meaning enactment).  

I like many of the candidates as people, I even like their ideas but regard them as Utopian and unachievable.  

Best regards,

RA1

‘Something for nothing?’

Please define.

Obamacare was funded entirely by a 1.5% tax on the wealthiest 1.5% or thereabouts.

Who said in the vast majority “yes!” Gates, Buffett, et al.

’We need a stable republic for our business & labor needs, and reliable affordable health care is the table on which all the rest of that stands.” Said they & their ilk.

[stevenkesslar]

President Toxic is so fucked.   He is so totally fucked.

quid pro quo

/ˌkwid ˌprō ˈkwō/

noun

 

1. a favor or advantage granted or expected in return for something

Mulvaney brashly admits quid pro quo over Ukraine aid as key details emerge -- and then denies doing so

 

Gallup poll: Majority of Americans now support Trump's impeachment, removal

Quote

Currently, 52% say Trump should be impeached and removed from office, while 46% say he should not be. This is roughly the opposite of what Gallup found in June when asked in the context of special counselor Robert Mueller's investigation.

I'm actually confused.   Mostly, I have been simply assuming that the Republicans will NOT convict in the Senate.  And the polls still show Republican voters have barely budged on their support for Trump.  It's feeling more and more like a cult.

Now it's stinking so bad that I think they may have to force him to resign, like Nixon did.

So is it better to clear the slate, even if that means a President Pence?

Or is it better to have the Republicans vote not to convict, so they can all go off to election together, like lambs to slaughter, next Fall?

 

 

Edited October 18, 2019 by stevenkesslar

[RA1]

12 hours ago, AdamSmith said:

‘Something for nothing?’

Please define.

Obamacare was funded entirely by a 1.5% tax on the wealthiest 1.5% or thereabouts.

Who said in the vast majority “yes!” Gates, Buffett, et al.

’We need a stable republic for our business & labor needs, and reliable affordable health care is the table on which all the rest of that stands.” Said they & their ilk.

I realize some of these folks must feel guilty for having so much money and they have the right to give away all of their money if they so choose to do so.  But the beneficiaries of government largess, what did they do to "earn" or deserve it?  I have no wish for anyone to be deprived of opportunity or suffer health issues which might be addressed.  But I do object to the government taking my money for these purposes.  I am perfectly willing to donate  but not to the government.

There are a lot of other "free" ideas in play.

Best regards,

RA1 

[AdamSmith]

10 hours ago, RA1 said:

But I do object to the government taking my money for these purposes.  I am perfectly willing to donate  but not to the government.

To repeat my specific point, there are plenty of areas where ‘progressive’ taxation on the very very rich — NOT the middle class — is something THEY, the rich, agree with. As advancing the rich’s OWN financial & material interests, by stabilizing society and thus making the middle class (who do most of the ‘purchasing’ that drives the economy) better able to do so.

Your remark assigning ‘guilt’ to Gates, Buffett, et al. is, very frankly, beneath you.

Your post is about onerous over-taxation of the middle class.

Which the recent Republican tax ‘cuts’ that greatly benefited corporations will do. They will exact an enormous financial toll on that very middle class when those tax cuts without any offsetting spending reductions drive interest rates through the roof. Which of course will even more greatly profit the rich while ruining the middle and lower classes.

My post was about something else entirely, which I have enumerated here just now in this post.

I hope you can see the difference.

[RA1]

13 hours ago, AdamSmith said:

To repeat my specific point, there are plenty of areas where ‘progressive’ taxation on the very very rich — NOT the middle class — is something THEY, the rich, agree with. As advancing the rich’s OWN financial & material interests, by stabilizing society and thus making the middle class (who do most of the ‘purchasing’ that drives the economy) better able to do so.

Your remark assigning ‘guilt’ to Gates, Buffett, et al. is, very frankly, beneath you.

Your post is about onerous over-taxation of the middle class.

Which the recent Republican tax ‘cuts’ that greatly benefited corporations will do. They will exact an enormous financial toll on that very middle class when those tax cuts without any offsetting spending reductions drive interest rates through the roof. Which of course will even more greatly profit the rich while ruining the middle and lower classes.

My post was about something else entirely, which I have enumerated here just now in this post.

I hope you can see the difference.

How very "progressive" of you.  I do see your point but I don't think things work that way.  As someone recently said, we should move to Canada if the capitalistic and democratic society is what we seek.  Personally I have already spent way too much time being cold and have no wish to repeat.

My point is that if any of the current democratic nominees were to be elected we would by necessity have much more taxation on everyone.  Regardless there is not enough money to pay for these schemes (here I use the British sense of scheme).  

The very wealthy may agree to more taxes but some of their motives may be less than philanthropic.  Those that have agreed to the "pledge" have done so fully realizing there is no dollar or time commitment involved.

We have to find some other means of agreement.

Best regards,

RA1

[AdamSmith]

9 hours ago, RA1 said:

How very "progressive" of you.  I do see your point but I don't think things work that way.  As someone recently said, we should move to Canada if the capitalistic and democratic society is what we seek.  Personally I have already spent way too much time being cold and have no wish to repeat.

My point is that if any of the current democratic nominees were to be elected we would by necessity have much more taxation on everyone.  Regardless there is not enough money to pay for these schemes (here I use the British sense of scheme).  

The very wealthy may agree to more taxes but some of their motives may be less than philanthropic.  Those that have agreed to the "pledge" have done so fully realizing there is no dollar or time commitment involved.

We have to find some other means of agreement.

Best regards,

RA1

Agree.  We will just have to agree to disagree. For now, anyway.

Personally, I see E. Warren as almost the next coming of FDR. 

But then I suppose that sends you wretching to the toilet. 

[TotallyOz]

I do think some of the proposals being thrown out there are pipe dreams and will never see the light of day. I understand why they do it. They need to energize their base and when one wins, they will go to the center. I like Pete. He is consistent and level headed. (and gay)