Trump Warns of Civil War

[Lucky]

The President of the United States called attention yesterday to a right-wing preacher's warnings that civil war would be at hand should the President be impeached.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/donald-trump-civil-war-impeachment-violence-removed-from-office_n_5d916a88e4b0019647aaa42d

[TotallyOz]

He trumpets the sounds of civil war and to be honest, I do his supporters are OK with it. 

[AdamSmith]

We may take at least a little comfort in recalling that those who initiated civil war in this country did not come to a good end.

Those however who started revolutionary war came out pretty well.

Vive la revolution 2020!

[RA1]

2 hours ago, AdamSmith said:

We may take at least a little comfort in recalling that those who initiated civil war in this country did not come to a good end.

Those however who started revolutionary war came out pretty well.

Vive la revolution 2020!

As a son of the South (you) how can you be so callous about happenings herein?  In retrospect it is easy to assume WE were lucky during the Revolutionary War.  Of course, the Brits were  "unlucky".  

I am hoping that not only you but I am hoping for much less than a revolutionary engagement of any kind in the USA.  We deserve LESS.

Best regards,

RA1

[Lucky]

I remember now that this is not the first time it has come up:

 

[AdamSmith]

14 hours ago, RA1 said:

I am hoping that not only you but I am hoping for much less than a revolutionary engagement of any kind in the USA.  We deserve LESS.

Best regards,

RA1

Did we not assay this very stratagem and tactic in 1865+?

[Latbear4blk]

After Trump invokes the Civil War, his mockers on Twitter rush to sign up

From WaPo.

[RA1]

On 10/1/2019 at 4:03 AM, AdamSmith said:

Did we not assay this very stratagem and tactic in 1865+?

Yes, but Lincoln was overcome by the Congress critters and was unable to negotiate peace.

Best regards,

RA1

[AdamSmith]

10 hours ago, RA1 said:

Yes, but Lincoln was overcome by the Congress critters and was unable to negotiate peace.

Best regards,

RA1

Lincoln himself launched Union forces into action in response to first-move aggression by the South at Fort Sumter.

Then, much later, after Northern military victory, John Wilkes Booth pulled the trigger on Lincoln before Lincoln could bring the already-negotiated peace to societal reality.

At what point in the timeline did Comgresscritters overcome Lincoln?

[RA1]

14 hours ago, AdamSmith said:

Lincoln himself launched Union forces into action in response to first-move aggression by the South at Fort Sumter.

Then, much later, after Northern military victory, John Wilkes Booth pulled the trigger on Lincoln before Lincoln could bring the already-negotiated peace to societal reality.

At what point in the timeline did Comgresscritters overcome Lincoln?

I believe that Lincoln tried very hard to avert war until Fort Sumter, when, as you say, he launched forces into action with the approval if not urging of Congress critters.  Of course I barely remember this being so young at the time.

Best regards,

RA1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[stevenkesslar]

This may not be civil war, but it is a remarkable admission on the part of Kurt Volker, who served as special envoy to Ukraine for a few years until he just quit.

To put it in context, I got to the actual testimony by way of a right wing piece in The Federalist.  The author of that piece claimed Volker's testimony "directly contradicts Democrats' impeachment narrative."  The author even conveniently provided a hyperlink to Volker's testimony. So I figured this is worth reading.

Here are some of the things Volker' statement said:

Testimony before the House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs, Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and Committee on Oversight

Amb. Kurt Volker Former U.S. Special Representative for Ukraine Negotiations

Quote

I also made clear to the Ukrainians, on a number of occasions, that Mayor Giuliani is a private citizen and the President’s personal lawyer, and that he does not represent the United States government.

In addition, I have known former Vice President Biden for 24 years, and the suggestion that he would be influenced in his duties as Vice President by money for his son simply has no credibility to me. I know him as a man of integrity and dedication to our country.

The President was very skeptical. Given Ukraine’s history of corruption, that is understandable. He said that Ukraine was a corrupt country, full of “terrible people.” He said they “tried to take me down.” In the course of that conversation, he referenced conversations with Mayor Giuliani. It was clear to me that despite the positive news and recommendations being conveyed by this official delegation about the new President, President Trump had a deeply rooted negative view on Ukraine rooted in the past. He was clearly receiving other information from other sources, including Mayor Giuliani, that was more negative, causing him to retain this negative view.

On August 16, [newly elected Ukrainian President Zelensky's representative] Mr. Yermak shared a draft [statement] with me, which I thought looked perfectly reasonable. It did not mention Burisma or 2016 elections, but was generic. I conveyed this draft to Amb. Sondland, who agreed it was an excellent statement. We had a further conversation with Mayor Giuliani, who said that in his view, the statement should include specific reference to “Burisma” and “2016.” Again, there was no mention of Vice President Biden in these conversations.

Amb. Sondland and I discussed these points, and I edited the draft statement by Mr. Yermak to include these points to see how it looked. I then discussed further with Mr. Yermak. He said that for a number of reasons – including the fact that Mr. Lutsenko was still officially the Prosecutor General -- they do not want to mention Burisma and 2016. I agreed – and further said that I believe it is essential that Ukraine do nothing that could be seen as interfering in 2020 elections. It is bad enough that accusations have been made about 2016 – it is essential that Ukraine not be involved in anything relating to 2020. He agreed and the idea of putting out a statement was shelved. The point about Ukraine avoiding anything that could play into U.S. elections in 2020 is a message that I know our Chargé in Ukraine, Amb. Bill Taylor, reinforced in other meetings.

Notably, I did not listen in on the July 25, 2019 phone call between President Trump and President Zelenskyy, and received only superficial readouts about that conversation afterwards. In addition, I was not aware that Vice President Biden’s name was mentioned, or a request was made to investigate him, until the transcript of this call was released on September 25, 2019.

I have known Ambassador Yovanovitch since we served together in London in 1988. Throughout our careers, we have worked together at various times. When I was serving as the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs, I recommended her strongly to serve as U.S. Ambassador to Armenia, which she did quite capably. I have always known her to be professional, capable, dedicated to the national interest, and of the highest integrity.

The article in The Federalist used this testimony to argue that this whole business really was not about Biden or election interference, really.  It was about corruption.  And as far as Volker's involvement goes, I have no problem believing that is true.  If you read the whole testimony, Volker and almost all the professionals in the US foreign policy bureaucracy are on Zelensky's side. They are pushing hard for Trump to support Zelensky, and do not understand why Trump is not doing so.  That said, Volker clearly had the idea that Trump's coldness was rooted in the idea that somehow Ukrainians tried to "take me down".

While Volker comes off as a straight arrow, the bulk of the testimony suggests that the headlines that say Ghouliani was running a "shadow shakedown" for Trump sound pretty much correct, as the details emerge.

It's interesting that Volker has to keep pointing out that Ghouliani is not actually speaking for the US Government.  He is speaking for Trump.  And it is also clear that Ghouliani's message is clear:  he wants Ukraine to go after Biden, Burisma, and 2016.  It's quite plausible to assume Ghouliani did not stress this in his private conversations and texts to Voilker, since he knew him and Volker were working on very different and contradictory objectives.

The most damning line in the testimony to me is that Volker said "it is essential" that Ukraine NOT do exactly what Trump personally asked Ukraine's President to do:  interfere in the US 2020 election.  The real diplomats - Volker and Yermak - kept editing words like "Burisma" and "2016" out.  Trump of course put those words and other conservative conspiracy theories like "Crowdstrike" right back in.  And then he topped it off with the word that is the cherry on top of the icing of the cake:  "Biden".

Volker also clearly doesn't agree with the President and Ghouliani's take on Biden.  Trump is telling anyone in the world who will listen that Biden is corrupt as hell.  He seems to think that the primary foreign policy goal of Ukraine, China, Australia, and perhaps every other country in the world should be to prove that Biden is corrupt as hell.  Volker certainly undercut that narrative.

It's not clear from the quote above, but the other irony is that Volker was actually in Ukraine, meeting with Zelensky and his staff over a period of days, when the phone call between Trump and Zelensky occurred.  As Volker says, he was not involved in that call. 

That makes two things clear.  First, Trump and Ghouliani were basically working at cross purposes to their own State Dept. and most of Congress, including key Republican Congressional leaders.  It doesn't surprise me that the Ukrainians figured out pretty quickly that Ghouliani probably had way more influence on Trump than Volker did.

Second, it underscores that the alleged "shakedown" was not just about one phone call on one day.  It involved a whole series of meetings and conversations.  Ghouliani at the center of it, often working at cross purposes to a number of US diplomats.  And as the details emerge, it is incredibly clear that Zelensky and his team were getting the message that Ghouliani and Trump expected them to investigate "corruption".  And not just any corruption.  Specifically, the words they kept using were "Biden", "Burisma", and "2016".  

The fact that a right-wing screed like The Federalist can take this testimony and argue that it "directly contradicts" the Democrats' impeachment narrative shows just how far toward civil war Trump has brought America.  I actually think the perfect bumper sticker for the Trump era was spoken by Ghouliani himself back in 2018:

Giuliani: ‘Truth isn’t truth’

So in classic Trump/Ghouliani style, we have a collection of convoluted sentences and conspiracy theories.  And the basic idea seems to be that election interference is not election interference.  And if the grown ups in the room disagreed with Trump about Biden, Burisma, 2016, and his approach to Ukraine, that obviously proves that Trump is right, and everybody who disagrees is part of the "deep state" or something.  After all, truth isn't truth.  Just take it from Rudy.

It will be interesting to see what fired Ukraine Ambassador Yovanovitch says.  Volker reinforced what everyone else is saying:  she was a consummate professional.  So I expect we will get more interesting details about how the interests of the US and its diplomatic corp were headed in one direction, and Trump and Ghouliani and their lawyers and henchmen were headed in exactly the opposite direction.

 

Edited October 5, 2019 by stevenkesslar

[stevenkesslar]

And under the same category - No, God damn it!  The truth is not the truth! - you gotta love this:

Top US diplomat threatened to quit over Ukraine dealings

Quote

A top U.S. diplomat to Ukraine suggested last month that he would "quit" his post amid concerns President Trump was withholding military aid to the country for political reasons, according to text message transcripts released by House Democrats on Thursday night.

In a Sept. 8 text to Volker and Sondland released by House Democrats on Thursday, Taylor voiced concerns that Ukraine would make good on providing an unspecified "interview" but that Trump would renege on providing military aid to the country.

"The nightmare is they give the interview and don't get the security assistance," Taylor texted to Volker and Sondland, according to the transcripts released by Democrats. "The Russians love it," he added of that prospect, "(And I quit)."

The next day, Taylor warned Sondland that Trump's previous decision to withhold almost $400 million in assistance to Ukraine had already strained relations between the two allies to the benefit of Russia, which launched an incursion into Ukraine in 2014 and still supports rebel forces in eastern parts of the country.

"The message to the Ukrainians (and Russians) we send with the decision on security assistance is key," Taylor wrote. "With the hold, we have already shaken their faith in us. This is my nightmare scenario."

Sondland, a hotelier and former Trump mega-donor, responded with confidence that "we have identified the best pathway forward."

Taylor, however, was skeptical, saying "it's crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign."

Sondland pushed back hard, saying Taylor was "incorrect" about Trump's reasons for withholding the funding.

"The president has been crystal clear no quid pro quo's of any kind," Sondland wrote. "The President is trying to evaluate whether Ukraine is truly going to adopt the transparency and reforms that President Zelenskiy promised during his campaign. I suggest we stop the back and forth by text if you still have concerns. "

Indeed.  We sure wouldn't want a paper trail, would we?  It might make what is happening clear.

So just remember guys.

A quid pro quo is not a quid pro quo.

Election interference is not election interference.

Asking Zelensky to go after Biden is not corruption.  It is simply proving how much The President hates corruption.

And most important:  the truth is not the truth.

Once you grasp these facts, it just makes everything so much easier.

And that also means you can stop reading Politico.  It is now absolutely clear they are just part of the deep state.

The U.S. diplomat who questioned Trump's Ukraine scheme

Quote

William Taylor, the veteran diplomat in charge of the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine, is being hailed within foreign policy circles as a hero of sorts — a straight shooter who plays by the rules even in a chaotic political environment.

Whether Taylor knew those texts would one day be public is unclear, but friends and associates say that either in person or in print, he’ll tell you exactly what’s on his mind.

“He’s quiet, very smart, very measured. He’s also forthright. He says what he thinks,” said Patrick Kennedy, a former senior State Department official who’s long known Taylor.

Another former U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity, was more blunt: “He’s the only honorable man in this disgusting drama.”

 

Edited October 5, 2019 by stevenkesslar

[pazubane]

The draft-dodger (5 times) want to play war game? Fuck him 

[stevenkesslar]

Michigan Democrat confronted over support of impeachment inquiry at town hall

There's an interesting 4 minute video embedded in that article that is worth watching if you want to understand the nature of Trump's civil war.  (I also think it should be thought of as Putin's civil war.  More on that below.)

I think the video describes the essential nature of what is happening in America.  It also embodies what I think we have to do to "win" the civil war.  In essence, the way to win the civil war is to speak the truth, and be civil.  I think Rep. Slotkin modeled that is this video.

She is a former CIA analyst (for some, that means "deep state" analyst, of course) who was one of the moderate women who won in 2018 in a Republican House district that had supported Trump in 2016.

She seems to have several crazy ideas.  First, that there are things called facts.  Second, that you can investigate these things called facts.  Third, that investigating facts carefully leads you to a thing called truth.  Fourth, that upon learning that truth you can act in a way that makes sense, and is ethical.

I know.  I know.  Who would elect such a crazy person with such radical ideas?

The video also models what you do if you are a Trumpian who wants to believe what you want to believe.  First, you shout.  Second, you shout more.  Third, you use simple sentences like, "LIes!" and "Fake news!"   These things can't really be debated.   Because any time some one presents a fact you just call it a lie, or fake news, and you're done.  It's easy.  You can practice this as home tonight.  Just be VERY loud.  It is much better when you are loud, and sound very angry.

Now, in fairness, some Trumpian in the video did make a decent argument, by yelling the word "corruption".  So if you are a Trumpian, you can argue logically that the guy who brought us Trump U and Trump steaks and only lies when his lips are moving has suddenly developed a hard on for fighting corruption.  And as Sen. Romney (a Republican) helpfully pointed out, this boner that Trump has for corruption only gets fully hard when it involves Joe Biden, who just happens to be the leading Democratic contender.

You can believe that has nothing, nothing, nothing to do with politics.  It is just that Donald Trump is the only one who tells you the straight truth, and everybody else is a deep state liar.  Including that Slotkin woman, who is a deep state liar who needs to be dumped.  You can believe that.  It's a wonderful fantasy.  

This is the nature of the civil war in America today.  The Trump folks are going to shout and follow their leaders and say "Fake News!  Lies!"  (Repeat 5000 times).

There is no point in talking to them, unless you like shouting.  Rep. Slotkin of course has to talk to them, and talk nicely.  But she's not going to persuade them, because they have absolutely no interest in listening, whatsoever.  Or in facts.

So Slotkin is doing what needs to be done.  Focus on facts.  Organize.  Win.  The fact that she is now the elected leader of that district models exactly what the solution is.  Her being the US Rep. there took a hell of a lot of work, and organizing, and focusing on facts.  And now of course they are coming after her with "Fake news!" and "Lies!"

I find this video encouraging.  Because the true Trumpians are like rats on a sinking ship.  Of course they don't want to believe that it is a fact that the ship is sinking.  They will just call it fake news and lies.

I said you could call this Putin's civil war because my theory (which is not a fact) is that Putin and his Internet Research Agency worked very hard to create this tone in America in 2016.  If you are a Trumpian, you think Bob Mueller is a Democrat who spends his time licking Hillary Clinton's feet and concocting an elaborate "Russia hoax".  In fact, he is a lifelong Republican who documented in hundreds of pages of detail how Putin and his IRA interfered and created a huge disinformation campaign during the 2016 election.

It never struck me as likely that someone like Putin would leave smoking guns behind.  If it's Putin and it involves a gun, it normally means somebody is going to blow your brains out if you are a journalist or political opponent.  And no one will ever figure out who did it.  Putin does not leave smoking guns behind.  That said, there is no question that Mueller uncovered much of the details of what Putin's team did in 2016.

Why did Putin do it?  Was it to benefit Trump? I thought Pelosi was correct to avoid impeachment after the Mueller report came out, because Mueller was not able to factually answer those questions - at least beyond a reasonable doubt.  I find it completely plausible that Putin wanted to pay back Hillary Clinton for not being nice to Putin when she was Secretary of State.  I also find it plausible that Putin cared less about who won and cared more about making democracy look like a useless and even harmful food fight.  I also find it plausible that Trump, who has had a lifelong aversion to facts and the truth, was simply a coincidence of history.  Again, everything in this paragraph is a theory.  I know the difference between theories and facts.  But I do think it makes sense to keep in mind that Putin may not have started this civil war, but he did do his level best to throw lots of gasoline on to the fire.

Regardless, the approach to ending the civil war is the same.  It is going to be trench warfare, probably for years to come.  And Slotkin is modeling exactly how you fight and win.

 

Edited October 6, 2019 by stevenkesslar

[AdamSmith]

9 hours ago, stevenkesslar said:

Michigan Democrat confronted over support of impeachment inquiry at town hall

There's an interesting 4 minute video embedded in that article that is worth watching if you want to understand the nature of Trump's civil war.  (I also think it should be thought of as Putin's civil war.  More on that below.)

I think the video describes the essential nature of what is happening in America.  It also embodies what I think we have to do to "win" the civil war.  In essence, the way to win the civil war is to speak the truth, and be civil.  I think Rep. Slotkin modeled that is this video.

She is a former CIA analyst (for some, that means "deep state" analyst, of course) who was one of the moderate women who won in 2018 in a Republican House district that had supported Trump in 2016.

She seems to have several crazy ideas.  First, that there are things called facts.  Second, that you can investigate these things called facts.  Third, that investigating facts carefully leads you to a thing called truth.  Fourth, that upon learning that truth you can act in a way that makes sense, and is ethical.

I know.  I know.  Who would elect such a crazy person with such radical ideas?

The video also models what you do if you are a Trumpian who wants to believe what you want to believe.  First, you shout.  Second, you shout more.  Third, you use simple sentences like, "LIes!" and "Fake news!"   These things can't really be debated.   Because any time some one presents a fact you just call it a lie, or fake news, and you're done.  It's easy.  You can practice this as home tonight.  Just be VERY loud.  It is much better when you are loud, and sound very angry.

Now, in fairness, some Trumpian in the video did make a decent argument, by yelling the word "corruption".  So if you are a Trumpian, you can argue logically that the guy who brought us Trump U and Trump steaks and only lies when his lips are moving has suddenly developed a hard on for fighting corruption.  And as Sen. Romney (a Republican) helpfully pointed out, this boner that Trump has for corruption only gets fully hard when it involves Joe Biden, who just happens to be the leading Democratic contender.

You can believe that has nothing, nothing, nothing to do with politics.  It is just that Donald Trump is the only one who tells you the straight truth, and everybody else is a deep state liar.  Including that Slotkin woman, who is a deep state liar who needs to be dumped.  You can believe that.  It's a wonderful fantasy.  

This is the nature of the civil war in America today.  The Trump folks are going to shout and follow their leaders and say "Fake News!  Lies!"  (Repeat 5000 times).

There is no point in talking to them, unless you like shouting.  Rep. Slotkin of course has to talk to them, and talk nicely.  But she's not going to persuade them, because they have absolutely no interest in listening, whatsoever.  Or in facts.

So Slotkin is doing what needs to be done.  Focus on facts.  Organize.  Win.  The fact that she is now the elected leader of that district models exactly what the solution is.  Her being the US Rep. there took a hell of a lot of work, and organizing, and focusing on facts.  And now of course they are coming after her with "Fake news!" and "Lies!"

I find this video encouraging.  Because the true Trumpians are like rats on a sinking ship.  Of course they don't want to believe that it is a fact that the ship is sinking.  They will just call it fake news and lies.

I said you could call this Putin's civil war because my theory (which is not a fact) is that Putin and his Internet Research Agency worked very hard to create this tone in America in 2016.  If you are a Trumpian, you think Bob Mueller is a Democrat who spends his time licking Hillary Clinton's feet and concocting an elaborate "Russia hoax".  In fact, he is a lifelong Republican who documented in hundreds of pages of detail how Putin and his IRA interfered and created a huge disinformation campaign during the 2016 election.

It never struck me as likely that someone like Putin would leave smoking guns behind.  If it's Putin and it involves a gun, it normally means somebody is going to blow your brains out if you are a journalist or political opponent.  And no one will ever figure out who did it.  Putin does not leave smoking guns behind.  That said, there is no question that Mueller uncovered much of the details of what Putin's team did in 2016.

Why did Putin do it?  Was it to benefit Trump? I thought Pelosi was correct to avoid impeachment after the Mueller report came out, because Mueller was not able to factually answer those questions - at least beyond a reasonable doubt.  I find it completely plausible that Putin wanted to pay back Hillary Clinton for not being nice to Putin when she was Secretary of State.  I also find it plausible that Putin cared less about who won and cared more about making democracy look like a useless and even harmful food fight.  I also find it plausible that Trump, who has had a lifelong aversion to facts and the truth, was simply a coincidence of history.  Again, everything in this paragraph is a theory.  I know the difference between theories and facts.  But I do think it makes sense to keep in mind that Putin may not have started this civil war, but he did do his level best to throw lots of gasoline on to the fire.

Regardless, the approach to ending the civil war is the same.  It is going to be trench warfare, probably for years to come.  And Slotkin is modeling exactly how you fight and win.

 

Superb.

Nota bene: A theory in science (& everywhere else, really) is simply the best & most multiply verifiable interpretation of such facts as we have to hand at present.

i.e., the most likely version of the truth.

[stevenkesslar]

This is just a continuation of my rant above about why we need to get in the trenches and fight, as opposed to thinking that the hard core Trump base is amenable to reason, compromise, or fact.

Donald Trump thinks you're dumb

Quote

The oft-cited “Donald Trump tells it like it is” defense of the president is coming back to bite him and his ardent supporters.

 President Trump is now regularly saying the quiet part out loud. He has tried to use the office of the presidency to pressure foreign governments to investigate a political opponent, a clear abuse of power. 

On Thursday, a reporter asked the president, “What exactly did you hope the Ukrainian president would do about the Bidens?” Trump’s answer was stunning — and obvious at the same time. He replied, “I think if they were honest about it, they’d start a major investigation. … They should investigate the Bidens. … China likewise should start an investigation.”

A Monmouth University poll released this week found that only 40 percent of Republicans believe Trump mentioned Biden on the call with the Ukrainian president. What will they say now?

That is a truly remarkable poll finding.  It suggests that in the era of Trump, a majority of Republicans do believe that they are not only entitled to their own opinions.  They are also entitled to their own facts.

In this case, it's particularly weird.  Because Trump himself seems to be saying to any global leader, or any TV camera, or just about anybody, that really truly the worst corruption ever to exist is that Biden corruption.  It is just horrible.  And of course he asked Zelensky to investigate Biden.  As well as Xi.  And of course everybody should investigate Biden, according to Trump.

So really now.  Is there a reason that it is so hard for Republicans to swallow facts that even their fearless (if dishonest) leader wants them to swallow?

And then there is this screed from the right-wing Federalist:

Intel IG Admits It Secretly Erased ‘First-Hand Information’ Requirement In August

I've actually been spending more time reading right wing articles than Establishment media or left wing articles since this scandal hit.  I figure if Democrats have a weak case, or are just making shit up, the right wing people will figure it out and blow it open. So I keep reading things like this hoping to find the weaknesses in the Democrats' arguments.  And instead what I get are right wing articles that are at best weak, and at worst plain wrong.

This headline definitely caught my attention.  It certainly makes it sound like there was some deep state conspiracy to doctor forms.  Presumably because the deep state has nothing better to do then - yet again -   attack Donald Trump, precisely because he is the only guy who will actually tell you the straight up truth.

First, it is worth pointing out that the "Intel IG" in question is a Trump appointee.  Just like Bob Mueller is a lifelong Republican and former FBI Director who was appointed by Trump's own DOJ.  But none of this really is an obstacle to dismissing any facts that get in the way.  So for Trumpians, Mueller has been transformed into a Hillary Clinton/Deep State ass kisser.  He also apparently has a Gestapo fetish, since he is reputed to like busting down the doors of good solid loyal Republicans like Roger Stone and Paul Manafort.  And his fact-filled report has been dismissed with two words:  "Russia hoax." 

So I am of course not surprised that the right wing is doubling down and dismissing a Trump appointed IG who has the nerve to follow where the facts lead.

Second, The Federalist article trashing Trump's own IG provides a hyperlink to the IG's press release about the whistleblower complaint form.  The Federalist actually quotes extensively from that press release.  So, on the one hand, The Federalist correctly reports that the law that governs whistle blowers DOES NOT require first hand information.  It also quotes the IG's office in stating that their initial complaint form was developed in a way that "could be read – incorrectly – as suggesting that whistleblowers must possess first-hand information in order to file an urgent concern complaint with the congressional intelligence committees."  So what the IG's office is essentially saying is that in evaluating the complaint, we actually followed what the federal law says, not what the confusing complaint form we put together last year could have implied.

Third, The Federalist implies in their headline and in the content of the article that changing the form was a nefarious plot hatched "secretly" and "in August" specifically in response to this particular whistle blower's "hit job" on Trump.  In fact, the press release spells out that the IG's office started to review the forms in July 2019, before the whistle blower's complaint was filed, after a Director for the new Center for Protected Disclosures was hired.  The Federalist actually quotes this part of the press release.  It then essentially says, "Never mind."  We'll just pretend that instead of having a form that actually complies with the law Congress passed, this was all just some secret deep state plot hatched in August.

Fourth, the Federalist ignores this part of the press release, which spells out the IG's interest in complying with the law even more clearly:  "The ICIG cannot add conditions to the filing of an urgent concern that do not exist in law. Since [Trump-appointed] Inspector General Atkinson entered on duty as the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community [in May 2018], the ICIG has not rejected the filing of an alleged urgent concern due to a whistle blower’s lack of first-hand knowledge of the allegations."  In other words, the whistle blower could have filed the report in May 2018, June 2018, July 2018 .... or any month up to August 2019, and the Trump-appointed IG would not have rejected it based on a lack of first hand knowledge.  Because that is what the law actually requires him to do.

When you strip away the layers of total bullshit, I would argue this is worse than going to a town hall with a US Rep to bellow "Lies!" and "Fake news!"  This is The Federalist essentially arguing that Trump's own IG should have broken the law, and not allowed a whistle blower to file a complaint that was NOT based on first hand knowledge.

For those of us that live in the real world, as opposed to The Donald J. Trump Fake News Playhouse, the consequence of Trump's IG breaking the law would have been clear.  It would have made the scandal and cover up just a tad bit worse.  And it would have given the whistle blower one more reason to go to Schiff's Congressional Committee.  That is, in fact, what the law Congress passed actually allows whistle blowers to do. They seem to have actually anticipated the idea that you could have a POTUS like Trump and an AG like Barr who basically believe the only correct way to file a complaint against Trump is to file it in the waste basket.

My larger point is that whether it is Trumpians at town halls or The Federalist arguing that Trump's IG was wrong to actually follow the law, this has nothing to do with facts. 

So on the one hand,  it is critically important for people like Rep. Slotkin or Rep. Schiff to follow the facts.  On the other hand, there is absolutely no way to win an argument that is factual, truthful, and civil with Trumpians who have no interest in facts, the truth, or civility.

Trump himself knows this, of course.  Which is why he has always displayed animus toward facts, the truth, and civility.

What follows from this is some really good news and some really bad news.

Here's the good news:

Quote

In the same poll, 52 percent say they believe Trump asking Ukraine to investigate Biden is an abuse of power, compared to just 21 percent who don’t. The gap among independents is noteworthy: 45 percent see it as an abuse of power, versus 16 percent who don’t. It’s even close among Republicans, with 30 percent reporting that it’s an abuse of power and 40 percent saying that it isn’t. And 44 percent believe the whistleblower is a patriot, versus 21 percent who think he’s a traitor.

Even among the Republican Party, there is hopefully NOT a fact-free majority.  So a substantial minority of Republicans don't believe facts, like that Trump asked Zelensky to investigate Biden.  (FACT:  He did.)  And a substantial minority of Republicans also feel that even if Trump did ask a foreign leader to investigate the candidate who is currently his biggest political opponent in a national election, this is NOT an "abuse of power".  If about half of Republicans are willing to follow the facts, along with most Democrats and Independents, the era of Trump is toast.

Now here's the bad news.

Even if Trump is toast, either through impeachment or losing the 2020 election or a combination of both, he has now reinforced the fact-free inclinations of millions of his most fervent followers.  I'll keep arguing Trump is the symptom, not the cause.  The Tea Party popped up in reaction to Obama, long before anybody thought Trump would ever be President.  Trump in fact jumped on their bandwagon with his fact-free and racist birther lies, as opposed to the other way around.

Since these people were doing their thing before Trump, count on the fact that they'll be doing it after he is gone.  And whether he is convicted and removed from office, or he just loses an election (which is actually sort of what he did in 2016, if you go by actual human voters), the Trumpians will resent it. 

So, for example, you may think that Elizabeth Warren is a capitalist, because she says she is.  Or because her policies are clearly based on capitalist free market principles.  But don't let yourself get confused with facts, the truth, or civility.  If Warren does win in 2020, we will definitely have a Socialist nightmare of a President.  Perhaps even a Satanist.  Or maybe they'll argue she isn't qualified to be President, because she's Native American, which is not American.  Who knows what shit they'll come up with.

Thanks, Rep. Slotkin, for modeling what we need to do.  Facts, truth, civility, and women who are just going to persist no matter what the asshole men in the room say or do.

 

Edited October 7, 2019 by stevenkesslar

[RA1]

17 hours ago, AdamSmith said:

Superb.

Nota bene: A theory in science (& everywhere else, really) is simply the best & most multiply verifiable interpretation of such facts as we have to hand at present.

i.e., the most likely version of the truth.

I sent an email to your last known by me private email.  This site refused to send one from here.  I am hoping you will receive and respond.

Best regards,

RA1

[tassojunior]

On 9/30/2019 at 7:27 PM, Lucky said:

I remember now that this is not the first time it has come up:

Remember many of the Charottesville crowd was off-duty police and military, as were the thugs in Sacramento. Police and military are pretty solidly Trumpists. And gun owners are also. It won't be a close fight.It won't even be a "fight". 

 

[AdamSmith]

8 hours ago, RA1 said:

I sent an email to your last known by me private email.  This site refused to send one from here.  I am hoping you will receive and respond.

Best regards,

RA1

It is not there. No idea why. Phone me on that phone # you have from our emails. If I do not pick up, leave vm & I will reply aprompt.

Even though neither of us has any hearing any more. 

[AdamSmith]

10 hours ago, RA1 said:

I sent an email to your last known by me private email.  This site refused to send one from here.  I am hoping you will receive and respond.

Best regards,

RA1

I will get on there later today & reply.

I have arranged my business life so that I have to log in to email just once a week — if even that. It is an open sewer of spam, and worse.

Anybody I work with or wants me, I tell, TEXT me.

After all, my public biz phone # is my personal cell. How much more transparent?

[stevenkesslar]

 

As Russia collusion fades, Ukrainian plot to help Clinton emerges

BY JOHN SOLOMON — 03/20/19 07:30 PM EDT

Quote

Last year, when he served as House Rules Committee chairman, Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Texas) wrote a private letter asking Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to recall the current U.S. ambassador, alleging that she made disparaging statements about President Trump.

The ambassador “has spoken privately and repeatedly about her disdain for the current administration in a way that might call for the expulsion” of America’s top diplomat in Ukraine, Sessions wrote.

Such dysfunction does not benefit either country, especially when Russia is lurking around the corner, hoping to regain its influence in the former Soviet republic.  

Investigating what's going on in the U.S. Embassy in Kiev, and whether elements in Ukraine tried to influence the 2016 U.S. election to help Clinton, are essential steps to rebooting a key relationship.

So I have another way to think about President Toxic's statement about needing to have a civil war.

I think he is right.   I think we need a civil war.  Kind of like we needed to have a civil war over slavery way back when.

The difference is that this time, the civil war needs to be fought and won over the truth.  And the good news is that we don't have to use guns to fight this war.  We can instead use facts. The civil war can, in fact, be civil.

That article above now reads completely differently than it did when John Solomon wrote it in March of this year.  Solomon at the time worked for The Hill.  He was widely unpopular among his professional journalist colleagues, who thought he was pushing propaganda in the guise of "facts" and "news".

Solomon, no surprise, has now left The Hill and just got a job at - wait for it - Fox News.  He is now spreading his fake news there.

This article was part of the Trump/Ghouliani hit campaign to go after Marie Yovanovitch, the fired US Ambassador to Ukraine who just gave testimony to Congress that will go down in history as another "Have you no decency?" moment.  She uncovered the fact that she was taken out by Trump and Ghouliani because she was a professional working in the interests of the United States and fighting corruption.  Trump wanted her to work on his interests, instead.

Solomon was the one who reported the lies made up by former Ukraine Prosecutor General Lutsenko, who alleged that Yovanovitch gave him a list of people not to prosecute.  She has now been vindicated.  Lutsenko has now lost his job, and admitted that was a lie.

If you scroll down, you will see the letter from former Republican U.S. Rep Pete Sessions to Pompeo dated May 9, 2018 stating Yovanovitch should be fired. We now know that President Toxic himself called Yovanovitch "bad news" in his call to President Zelensky, and implied vaguely that something bad was going to happen to her.

We also know that Rep. Sessions got campaign contributions from the town clowns associated with Ghouliani who were just indicted and arrested when they were trying to leave the country with one way tickets.  We know that the afternoon before they were arrested they were sitting with Ghouliani in the lobby of the Trump International Hotel in Washington. 

Recall that Rep. Sessions was the Republican Chairman of the House Rules Committee.  Really?  What rules?  Anybody wonder why America fired the House Republicans?

We also know that part of the problem with Yovanovitch is she was getting in the way of the Ukraine business dealing of Ghouliani's Soviet Republic-born clowns.  Now that they've been arrested, I'm sure more details will be forthcoming, just like they were with Cohen.  So much for Ghouliani being a corruption-fighting hero.

And it goes without saying.  Ghouliani and his clowns will be thrown under the bus by President Toxic.  Just like Michael "Who?  Why would I believe my long-time lawyer?" Cohen.

So we definitely know Trump and Ghouliani did not drain the swamp. We know they dredged it and deepened it.  We don't know all the details of how they did it yet.  But the stench and taint is now everywhere.

Meanwhile, the official "fake news" of the Republican Party is that there is no there.  Trump is innocent. He is perfect.  He is as wise as all the prophets of The Bible combined.  If you buy his most recent tweets, he is perhaps as wise and all knowing as God.  You want scandal?  Go after Joe Biden and Ukraine.

I agree with President Toxic that we need a civil war.  We need to fight for the truth. And we need to fight in a civil and factual manner.

We knew how this was going to end even before President Toxic was elected.  We knew he was going to find a way to pull the trigger, if given the power to do so. And we knew the result would be his own political suicide.

 

 

 

 

Edited October 12, 2019 by stevenkesslar

[stevenkesslar]

CNN Wisconsin Focus Group: Not A Single Person Said They Will Vote For Trump

I'm adding this as an addendum to the post directly above.  I actually think it is a perfect example of the civil war that is happening in America right now.

It is a civil war that is civil.  And it is a war being waged with facts, not guns.

There's a 5 minute video of Independent voters from Wisconsin embedded in that article that is worth watching.

And I get that one could argue this means nothing. It's nine Independent voters.  And of these nine, only one voted for Trump in 2016, anyway.

The telling thing to me is that of the 9, none will even consider Trump in 2020.  All 9 support the impeachment inquiry.  3 already feel they know enough to say that Trump should be removed from office, before he can do more harm.  The other 6 want to hear more facts as they are uncovered.

Bottom line:  whether it's through an election or impeachment, a majority of the American people now want President Toxic to be removed from power.  This video of Independents explains why, I think.

He is losing the civil war.  I am not surprised.  It is increasingly becoming a question of how, and when, President Toxic's war against truth will end.

 

Edited October 12, 2019 by stevenkesslar