The Democrats' Impeachment Attempt Against Trump Is A Huge Mistake
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi yesterday announced that she was opening an impeachment process against President Donald Trump:
Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced on Tuesday that the House would initiate a formal impeachment inquiry against President Trump, charging him with betraying his oath of office and the nation’s security by seeking to enlist a foreign power to tarnish a rival for his own political gain.
Instead of running on policy issues the Democrats will (again) try to find vague dirt with which they can tarnish Trump. This is a huge political mistake. It will help Trump to win his reelection.
After two years of falsely accusing Trump of having colluded with Russia they now allege that he colludes with Ukraine. That will make it much more difficult for the Democrats to hide the dirty hands they had in creating Russiagate. Their currently preferred candidate Joe Biden will get damaged:
For the past two years, talk of impeachment had centered around the findings of the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, who investigated Russia’s interference in the 2016 elections and Mr. Trump’s attempts to derail that inquiry. On Tuesday, Ms. Pelosi, Democrat of California, told her caucus and then the country that new revelations about Mr. Trump’s dealings with Ukraine, and his administration’s stonewalling of Congress about them, had finally left the House no choice but to proceed toward a rarely used remedy.
...
At issue are allegations that Mr. Trump pressured the president of Ukraine to open a corruption investigation of former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., a leading contender for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination, and his son. The conversation is said to be part of a whistle-blower complaint that the Trump administration has withheld from Congress. And it occurred just a few days after Mr. Trump had ordered his staff to freeze more than $391 million in aid to Ukraine.
Trump indeed withheld money from the Ukraine. But the Ukrainian president did not know that when Trump spoke with him:
Mr. Trump did not discuss the delay in the military assistance on the July 25 call with Mr. Zelensky, according to people familiar with the conversation. A Ukrainian official said Mr. Zelensky’s government did not learn of the delay until about one month after the call.
At that time Trump was withholding money from several countries. The money for the Ukraine was released in early September without any known conditions.
The immediate impulse to start an impeachment investigation came from some whistle blower in the intelligence community who claimed that Trump did something nefarious during a phone call with the newly elected President of Ukraine Zelensky.
The White House published a memorandum of the phone call. The call was made on July 25 2019, a day after the final Robert Mueller testimony in Congress. There are two passages which the Democrats will claim are damaging:
President Zelenskyy: [...] I would also like to thank you for your great support in the area of defense. We are ready to continue to cooperate for the next steps specifically we are almost ready to buy more Javelins from the United States for defense purposes.The President: I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike ... I guess you have one of your wealthy people... The server, they say Ukraine has it. There are a lot of things that went on, the whole situation.. I think you're surrounding yourself with some of the same people. I would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it. As you saw yesterday, that whole nonsense ended with a very poor performance by a man named Robert Mueller, an incompetent performance, but they say a lot of it started with Ukraine. Whatever you can do, it's very important that you do it if that's possible.
President Zelenskyy: Yes it is very important for me and everything that you just mentioned earlier. For me as a President, it is very important and we are open for any future cooperation. We are ready to open a new page of cooperation in relations between the United States and Ukraine. [...]
Trump wanted Zelensky to look into the Ukrainian influence on the whole Russiagate campaign. There certainly was a lot of it. The three Ukrainian-American Chalupa sisters, Alexandra, Irena and Andrea, worked with the DNC and Ukrainian officials in Washington and Kiev to sabotage the Trump campaign. They are, together with other Ukraine affiliated persons like the Dimitry Alperovich, the CEO of the hacks at Crowd Strike, at the core of Russiagate.
The Mueller investigation closed a day before the phone call. It found that Trump had not colluded with Russia or the alleged Russian influence on the 2016 election. That Trump wants the new Ukrainian leader to investigate what Ukrainian officials did in support of a debunked campaign against him may be a wrong thing to do but it is certainly not criminal.
In another passage Zelensky says that he will soon meet Trump's lawyer Rudi Giuliani who wanted to revive an investigation into the Ukrainian company that hired Joe Biden's son Hunter Biden while vice-president Biden himself was running U.S. foreign policy with regards to Ukraine. Trump then asks for support for Giuliani:
President Zelenskyy: [...] I will personally tell you that one of my assistants spoke with Mr.Giuliani just recently and we are hoping very much that Mr. Guliani will be able to travel to Ukraine and we will meet once he comes to Ukraine. [...] We are great friends and you Mr. President have friends in our country so we can continue our strategic partnership. I also plan to surround myself with great people and in addition to that investigation, I guarantee as the President of Ukraine that all the investigations will be done openly and candidly. That I can assure you.The President: Good because I heard you had a prosecutor who was very good and he was shut down and that's really unfair. A lot of people are talking about that, the way they shut your very good prosecutor down and you had some very bad people involved. Mr. Giuliani is a highly respected man. He was the mayor of New York City, a great mayor, and I would like him to call you. I will ask him to call you along with the Attorney General. Rudy very much knows what's happening and he is a very capable guy. If you could speak to him that would be great. The former ambassador from the United States, the woman, was bad news and the people she was dealing with in the Ukraine were bad news so I just want to let you know that The other thing, There's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it ... It sounds horrible to me.
Zelensky then again assures Trump that the incoming prosecutor general will look into the issue.
Trump asks for investigations and Zelensky assures him that those will happen. Trump applied no open pressure. There is of course always implicit pressure any time a U.S. president utters a wish to the president of a country that needs U.S. good will and money to survive.
As for the Biden case it was Joe's Biden big mouth that brought the issues back into light. In January 2018 he gave a talk at the Council of Foreign Relations and explained how he directly threatened (video) to withhold money to blackmail the Ukraine into firing a prosecutor general who was seen as corrupt:
And I went over, I guess, the 12th, 13th time to Kiev. And I was supposed to announce that there was another billion-dollar loan guarantee. And I had gotten a commitment from Poroshenko and from Yatsenyuk that they would take action against the state prosecutor. And they didn’t.So they said they had—they were walking out to a press conference. I said, nah, I’m not going to—or, we’re not going to give you the billion dollars. They said, you have no authority. You’re not the president. The president said—I said, call him. (Laughter.) I said, I’m telling you, you’re not getting the billion dollars. I said, you’re not getting the billion. I’m going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money. Well, son of a bitch. (Laughter.) He got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time.
Biden did that at a time when his son lobbied for the Ukrainian company Burisma who the prosecutor he wanted fired investigated (or maybe blackmailed):
U.S. banking records show Hunter Biden’s American-based firm, Rosemont Seneca Partners LLC, received regular transfers into one of its accounts — usually more than $166,000 a month — from Burisma from spring 2014 through fall 2015, during a period when Vice President Biden was the main U.S. official dealing with Ukraine and its tense relations with Russia.The general prosecutor’s official file for the Burisma probe — shared with me by senior Ukrainian officials — shows prosecutors identified Hunter Biden, business partner Devon Archer and their firm, Rosemont Seneca, as potential recipients of money.
There is no direct evidence that Joe Biden told the Ukrainians to stop the investigation into Burisma. But it was not difficult for the Ukrainians to figure out that ending the investigation into the company that Joe Biden's son worked for would help them with further requests to him.
How the Democrats want to construct an impeachment out of this is beyond me.
Trump is the president. Foreign policy is his constitutional prerogative. He used his power to ask the Ukraine to open investigations into two issues. He withheld money but not to achieve that. The Ukrainians did not even know at that time that the money was blocked.
Biden used his power as vice-president to ask the Ukraine to fire a prosecutor he didn't like and who (by chance?) was going after the company which enriched his son. He openly withheld money to achieve his aim.
How will the Democrats explain that what Trump did was wrong or even criminal while insisting that what Joe Biden did was normal business?
They can't.
Pelosi knows that there is no case to impeach Trump. That's why she does not have a plan how to do proceed with it:
Although Ms. Pelosi’s announcement was a crucial turning point, it left many unanswered questions about exactly when and how Democrats planned to push forward on impeachment.
...
And Ms. Pelosi said she had directed the chairmen of the six committees that have been investigating Mr. Trump to “proceed under that umbrella of impeachment inquiry.” In a closed-door meeting earlier in the day, she said the panels should put together their best cases on potentially impeachable offenses by the president and send them to the Judiciary Committee, according to two officials familiar with the conversation. That could potentially lay the groundwork for articles of impeachment based on the findings.
Pelosi has nothing. Six committees have investigated Trump issues but so far found nothing to charge him with. Neither did the Mueller investigation find anything damaging. How will combining all those nothing-burgers make an impeachment meal?
Trump should be impeached for his crimes against Syria, Venezuela and Yemen.
But the Democrats will surely not touch on those issues. They are committing themselves to political theater that will end without any result. Instead of attacking Trump's policies and proposing better legislation they will pollute the airwaves with noise about 'crimes' that do not exist.
There is no case for impeachment. Even if the House would voted for one the Senate would never act on it. No one wants to see a President Pence.
The Democrats are giving Trump the best campaign aid he could have wished for. Trump will again present himself as the victim of a witch hunt. He will again argue that he is the only one on the side of the people. That he alone stands with them against the bad politicians in Washington DC. Millions will believe him and support him on this. It will motivate them to vote for him.
Why is it so hard for Democrats to understand this?
Posted by b on September 25, 2019 at 18:03 UTC | Permalink
« previous pageAn alternative view from an american academic who believes the Democrats absolutely need to impeach Trump in order to have a chance to defeat him in 2020
Posted by: loneplateau | Sep 26 2019 6:14 utc | 102
The DNC has already agreedt to loose the next election.
Posted by: Johny Conspiranoid | Sep 26 2019 6:50 utc | 103
@93 c1ue.. what bevin @94 said.. i was being sarcastic about crowdstrike and neutrality.. the whole thing is a bad joke..
Posted by: james | Sep 26 2019 6:59 utc | 104
Once you accept that both parties work for the same bosses, the Pelosi investigation is no mistake. It's another distraction from the real DNC opposition candidates who could beat Trump and challenge Wall St and the MIC.
This game is even better than Russiagate, in that it involves Biden, the DNC's main candidate. If he can be tarnished, Trump "exonerated" and, most importantly, Warren, Sanders and Gabbard sidelined, then clean Trump wins against dirty Biden. Victory for the rulers.
Posted by: Jack Garbo | Sep 26 2019 7:11 utc | 105
re loneplateau | Sep 26 2019 6:14 utc | 105
Sorry but I do not believe a word of the alleged cademic's partisan tosh. Did you notice that is was all easy lift? That everything the academic claimed was back to front, in that his opinion was based around the rethug candidate's flaws rather than the dem party nominee's attributes?
In other words his 'strategy' is designed around the very reason the dems cannot currently win, the strategy is all about rethug negatives rather than dem candidate's positives.
Oblamblam won because not only did he turn out every african-american who could crawl to a polling both, he got all the whitefellas who understand that this is a largely cost free way of assuaging their well earned guilt for the tough time african amerkans cop just because they are african american - add that to the stupidly solid base that the dems (and the rethugs) enjoy & you got a winner.
Trouble is, it will take at least one, most likely 2 generations before the dems can pull that stunt again. So given the rapacious corporate capitalism model just about all amerikans are indoctrinated into from the moment they draw breath, the only way dems can win again before an african amerikan prez becomes tolerable once more, is if they put up a dem who offers credible alternatives to being stood over by the 1%. Dem leadership refuses that cos it goes against what their big donors have been promised, so the dems are stuck with living off the scraps of pseudo scandals which as I wrote upthread, is insufficient to win a bar raffle, let alone the prez 2020 beauty contest.
Posted by: A User | Sep 26 2019 7:40 utc | 107
It looks to me like this is the Democrat's "behind the back" way of ousting Biden.
Posted by: rcentros | Sep 26 2019 7:55 utc | 108
Reading the transcript, Trump has the goods on Biden and is about to lay the boot in. Biden's mates are blowing smoke and making noise trying to save him.
Phone call was July 25
Zelensky's Prosecutor was taking office start of September.
So called whistle blower comes forward only after Ukraine prosecutor starts looking into it...
Nah.. Trump has not only Biden, but perhaps also Russia gate by the balls.
Just another day in the drunk lynch mob.
Posted by: Peter AU 1 | Sep 26 2019 8:08 utc | 109
@Kadath 76:
The Real News Network has been in a total demise now for at least four month, shifting their particular attention from geopolitics to local politics (Baltimore) and even identity politics. This obviously shift coincides with the disappearance from the screen of editor-in-chief and founder Paul Jay who was by far the most astute commentator and analyst of the news outlet. I haven't found anything about what happened to him or whether he is now working backstage since his Twitter account has also been idle since June. Instead, people like Mark Steiner have been pushing Russiagate for quite a while, so it isn't surprising that they bring on these two clownish advocates for impeachment the day this story picks up speed.
Not a good sign...
Posted by: vato | Sep 26 2019 8:40 utc | 110
After a few hours and a few reads I am inclined to think that the Dems are going ballistic because they know that prosecutions are about to roll out against many of the people who took the DNC pieces of silver. More than likely the Russiagate gang are going to be sharing the hours in court. Its not totally about Biden (but he is a handy fool) but more likely the Crowdstrike inquisition and what I read is not a good look for the Dems even if partly true. The Dems will NOT tolerate any of their princes or servants being brought down as that might show disloyalty and weakness. Machiavelli discussed this dilemma and its fatal consequences.
The Venetian government in the Renaissance Venice established a Council of Ten to be their deep state guardian and I see the Dem and old guard Republican leadership as the modern day equivalent. Trump is not one of them.
Therefore much smoke and flack and gaslight over the coming months.
Thanks to A User too for your acetylene flame cutting through the bullshit.
Posted by: uncle tungsten | Sep 26 2019 9:04 utc | 111
So, Nansy Pelosi needs to be impeached for collusion with a Russian agent [Trump] to manipulate the 2020 elections! Russiagate Mark II. Anything is better than presenting pro-0.01% pro-war Dem policies.
I wonder whether there is something interesting happening in the Barr investigations of Russiagate, that needs to be diverted from before it makes the news? First we had Brennan out alleged CIA mole in Russia Smolenkov, in an attempt to derail investigations of him; what are they trying to derail this time? If they are trying to derail the Biden investigations they will most probably only make it worse, but maybe there is something closer to home that Barr is getting too warm on???
Ever since the last election I have suspected Trump would be aiming for politically fatal indictments of Russiagate conspiracists immediately before the 2020 elections.
(That of course is assuming that the Barr investigations are genuine, which they may or may not be).
Posted by: BM | Sep 26 2019 9:33 utc | 112
Dunno why, every time one of these 'court intrigue' pops up, I think of
Karl Rove....
“We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality — judiciously, as you will — we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”
Posted by: denk | Sep 26 2019 9:52 utc | 113
BM "I wonder whether there is something interesting happening in the Barr investigations of Russiagate, that needs to be diverted from before it makes the news?"
You need to read the link b has put up to the transcript of the phone call.
Both Barr and Giuliani were to contact the comedian to help out.
Barr is the reason I think Trump has Biden by the balls. The phone call was also about Russiagate and it having originated from Ukraine. This also was to be part of the Barr, Giuliani, Ukraine prosecutor investigation.
Posted by: Peter AU 1 | Sep 26 2019 9:54 utc | 114
Well argued, but foreign policy is not a privilege of the US president. He is a chief negotiator by default, but the US Constitution does not give him any policymaking powers. In fact it does not grant the federal government any power to conduct foreign wars beyond repelling invasions. That is not prohibited under treaty, but is clearly illegitimate when a defense treaty like NATO is abused to conduct aggressive wars around the world. And it is very deliberately abused to the point of treason, when the wars are secret from the people of the United States.
Posted by: Sam F | Sep 26 2019 10:09 utc | 115
@Sam F.. point out please where in the constitution its says the Article II POTUS does not have the power to make foreign policy and to use force to enforce that foreign policy..
Posted by: snake | Sep 26 2019 10:51 utc | 116
Trump just roasted Joe Biden’s presidential aspirations. Whatever feelings people have about Trump, his genius never ceases to amaze. The guy is a real master chess player. First, polls show that Biden is going to destroy him in next presidential elections. There is a corruption scandal involving Biden and CrousStrike that the American media isn’t willing to tell people abouthe and He can’t get the American media to talk about those 2 things. First corruption is Biden’s son Hunter sold access to his VP father’s office and influence to Ukrainians and profited greatly. Second is a syber security firm, CrowdStrike, funded by anti Russian Ukrainians initiated the whole Russian conspiracy theories that engulfed most of the American media for years and took them on wild goose chase. SO, genius Trump has a plan, he calls the Uki president and specifically talks about these two things, and then he has someone leaking this information to the media and democrats who take the bait because they can’t refuse it. And then Trump doesn’t lose a second and releases The transcripts which talk about CrowdStrike and Biden and his son Hunter’s deals, and the story is front page news all over America. Biden is finished. He can pack up his campaign and go home. And then the Russian collusion story is finished as people know that The only source of the original Russian Collusion story was a Uki oligarch. And as an added bonus, Trump has forced the Democrats to try and fail impeaching him and then he comes out victorious. Donald Trump may not be a kind or moral person but he is certainly a great and super intelligent person.
Posted by: TheArmenian | Sep 26 2019 10:59 utc | 117
Showing Congress is basically ‘Drama Bait’. Paid puppets to beef up a fight which doesn’t really exist.
Posted by: Jayne | Sep 26 2019 11:58 utc | 118
It's so silly to pretend Pence will replace Trump when Dems are going to drag their investigation to the edge of the election. Pence will be President 5 minutes or never so quit with that skyfalling excuse to make Trump look better. Trump is orange slime. Trump is the epitome of sleaze who never met a lie or a congame he didn't want to embrace. Trump made moves on Venezuela, Syria, surrendering Golan Heights to Bibiyahoo, he's arming the murderous Saudi regime's war crimes in Yemen, he's collapsing the Iranian economy trying to lead everyone to the brink of disaster by triggering war and he's using financial tyranny to bully other countries into bowing to U.S. domination and supremacy.
FUCK TRUMP. Your continuous, hypocritical defenses of Trump make me sick!
I wannna see Trump cry like a baby in the cell next to Manafort where he belongs!
Posted by: Circe | Sep 26 2019 12:36 utc | 119
Jesus “..."We ran right into a buzzsaw and we got bloodied," a senior Ukrainian official told me...”
Get the washing line out!
https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/435906-us-embassy-pressed-ukraine-to-drop-probe-of-george-soros-group-during-2016?amp#click=https://t.co/cBccdbbLWc">https://t.co/cBccdbbLWc">https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/435906-us-embassy-pressed-ukraine-to-drop-probe-of-george-soros-group-during-2016?amp#click=https://t.co/cBccdbbLWc
Posted by: Jayne | Sep 26 2019 12:37 utc | 120
The Whistleblower's Complaint:
https://intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/20190812_-_whistleblower_complaint_unclass.pdf
Posted by: arbetet | Sep 26 2019 12:53 utc | 121
My opinion that the Democrats are acting reactivelly comes from a pure game theory reading of the situation.
a) Assuming Pelosi knew for sure she had the votes on both houses to impeach Trump, you could at least understand her situation: there's a lot of pressure from the Democratic base to impeach Trump and the goal is open. It would still be a very dumb move, but an understandably dumb one;
b) However, we know she doesn't have the votes, and we know she knows it. That makes it an extremely dumb move, a move without any of the rewards with all the losses. This will only confirm Trump's narrative that he's the anti-system guy trying to drain the Swamp to his voter base and much of the neutral base.
That's why the only rational explanation I can find with this extremely dumb move is that the dirt on the Democrat elite on Ukraine is so heavy, but so heavy (one that could define the election before it even begun), that it put Pelosi in an extremely defensive, survival mode.
Yes, I agree with b. This can't possibly help a Biden vs Trump general election. It would be nice to imagine that they would take each other out politically and we would be rid of them both, but that is wishful thinking.
For top Democrats, Impeachment is still "useful" as a way to get the complete attention of media on a moment's notice, by "revealing" some minor detail in the proceedings.
But mostly I think it is a defensive move by Dem leadership, who need to buy some time because Biden polling at ~25% right now and thus his aura of "electability" is threatened. (he would never be the front-runner on substance).
In particular, the threat over electability would be, I think, with black voters. They are the pillar of his support according to mainstream political analysts. But in reality, their support is based entirely on "electability". I.e. what they think white voters think- i.e. the belief that older white voters are on average a bit racist and thus Biden's history with his legislative old partner Strom Thurmond, anti-school-busing, harsh crime laws, etc will be appealing to older white voters, thus making Biden the most "electable" in the minds of black voters. If his aura of "electability" fades, he will quickly lose the support of black leadership and the network of churches, whose leaders aren't dumb and are perfectly aware of his legislative history. Lose them and his candidacy is finished. On the other hand, they are probably pretty willing to believe for the impeachment narrative.
Posted by: ptb | Sep 26 2019 13:05 utc | 123
@circe: "Your continuous, hypocritical defenses of Trump make me sick!" Clearly this blog is getting unhealthy for you. With empathy, I would suggest you take a looong break from visiting this bar before you end up having to consult if your med insurance covers this disease in the making..
Posted by: Lozion | Sep 26 2019 13:07 utc | 124
Oh and add to the list that Trump messes with kids heads by separating them from their mothers to put them in cages and undermines the intelligence of a young girl exposing him for the slick liar and environmental criminal he is! His narcisism is so needy, he won't even shut up when a child makes him look bad with her commanding presence. There's nothing lower than picking a fight with kids to show you're a big man. Oh puh-lease! Stop defending this asshole already! Let the inevitable well-deserved karma he deserves happen. Stop trying to spin to make him the victim for your own narrow agenda! The spin here is glaringly transparent and, yes, beyond hypocritical--depraved. Have some integrity for godsakes!
Posted by: Circe | Sep 26 2019 13:11 utc | 125
Allan Lichtman predicted that Trump would win the 2016 election. He lost the election. It was a fluke that the Electoral College set up put him in office anyway. Every pretense Trump won is deceit aimed at supporting him. Pretending he played the game better is just brown-nosing.
Posted by: steven t johnson | Sep 26 2019 13:26 utc | 126
Looking again at the two excerpts b has quoted from the transcript of the phone call, I was
starting to remember back to two episodes in the generationally recent US historical past
that I'm sure many oldies here will still remember. One was of course Watergate, the other
the Church hearings. I would just like to say that the American people in general had not
a high opinion of Congress before each of those episodes. Suddenly, in my recollection,
the public had its opinion of Congress reversed in those public hearings.
Sam Irving was considered by many as a rather questionable Southern politician before
Watergate. He astonished many by his attention to duty - founded perhaps as a desire
to correct his reputation, but nonetheless he was motivated to do his duty before the
public gaze. And, the Church hearings also became an historic occasion for the US
public to regain faith in its institutions.
I would like to propose that Trump has something like this in mind in initiating the
phone call as he did right after the pseudo investigation into his Russian
connections. He alludes to the problems as having reached right back into Ukraine's
own coup and government takeover. Naming no names there but I found that extremely interesting.
And the emphasis is on having the right prosecution and how that prosecution was stymied
in the Biden case, so in effect he is seeing how the new Ukrainian president will be,
as he, Trump, is concerned to do, having a credible prosecutory position in such cases -
in other words, going on the attack. He's focussing on the legal protection for the
presidency, whether in the US or in Ukraine, and sounding out the new president there
on that issue.
As someone has said, this isn't about the election. It's about setting history straight.
And I think 'making America great again.' That's what Watergate and the Church hearings
did.
Posted by: juliania | Sep 26 2019 13:27 utc | 127
Once again, we see the powerful draw of Party and Personality in yet another thread.
As much as some of us make the case that the duopoly and Deep State call the shots, Party and Personality still hold sway over some commenters.
Posted by: Jackrabbit | Sep 26 2019 13:36 utc | 128
Posted by: Peter AU 1 | Sep 25 2019 18:18 utc | 2
Yep, it is likely that Dems are acting out of desperation.
Democrats have chosen the worst possible issue for Biden
And that is I’m desperately concerned about the backsliding on the part of Kiev in terms of corruption. They made—I mean, I’ll give you one concrete example. I was—not I, but it just happened to be that was the assignment I got. I got all the good ones. And so I got Ukraine. And I remember going over, convincing our team, our leaders to—convincing that we should be providing for loan guarantees. And I went over, I guess, the 12th, 13th time to Kiev. And I was supposed to announce that there was another billion-dollar loan guarantee. And I had gotten a commitment from Poroshenko and from Yatsenyuk that they would take action against the state prosecutor. And they didn’t.So they said they had—they were walking out to a press conference. I said, nah, I’m not going to—or, we’re not going to give you the billion dollars. They said, you have no authority. You’re not the president. The president said—I said, call him. (Laughter.) I said, I’m telling you, you’re not getting the billion dollars. I said, you’re not getting the billion. I’m going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money. Well, son of a bitch. (Laughter.) He got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time.
Well, there’s still—so they made some genuine substantial changes institutionally and with people. But one of the three institutions, there’s now some backsliding.
Shokin worked for the Prosecutor General Office as investigator until 2001. In the interview to Ukrayinska Pravda he stated that he was forced to retire in 2001 after refusing to take on the case against Yulia Tymoshenko.Shokin was appointed General Prosecutor of Ukraine on 10 February 2015.[4] He became deeply unpopular and was accused of blocking major cases against allies and influential figures and hindering the fight against corruption in Ukraine.[5] Various street protests demanding Shokin's resignation were held[6] and his Deputy Prosecutor, Vitaly Kasko, resigned on 15 February 2016 denouncing the corruption and lawlessness of the Prosecutor's office. US Vice-President Joe Biden lobbied for Shokin resignation and the Obama Administration withheld a billion dollars in loan guarantees for the time Shokin held office.[7][8]
He was appointed by Poroshenko.
Hunter Biden's son was used by Burisma as insurance against international law suits. This here is in German - use Google Translate. Parallel to Hunter Biden's employment there was a London investigation into Burisma's corruption that were stopped some time later.
So what was Biden father doing asking for more "anti-corruption" measures against Burisma? Blackmailing the Ukrainian oligarchy?
Biden son was responsible for Burisma legal proceedings and representation at international organizations whilst his father was pressing for these proceedings.
Democrats are knee-deep into Ukrainian corruption as they gladly took Ukrainian money. This is going to backfire spectacularly.
Posted by: somebody | Sep 26 2019 13:37 utc | 129
The transcript of this call was not the only transcript White House tried to bury! So what else has Trump hidden??? What else don't we know???
I call this conciousness of guilt, obstruction, corruption and an abuse of power. Over and done!!!
Posted by: Circe | Sep 26 2019 13:38 utc | 130
Well, maybe it's a mistake or maybe not, but Trump took aim at the Deep State's main candidate for president, and they couldn't tolerate that. As far as it is going to result in a backlash for the Democratic Party, I think Bernhard underestimates the power of the Deep State, the core directors of the capitalist ruling class.
Formerly this directorate harried Trump through their media corporations in order to use Trump to promulgate aggressive foreign policy actions that they favored. But Trump has now committed the unpardonable sin by directly exposing and attacking their main candidate: Trump's major crime was to expose Joe Biden's influence to have his son appointed as CEO of one of Ukraine's main industrial companies after the US engineered the coup in Ukraine in 2014.
Jackrabbit @39: Sturm und Drangk the Kool-Aid
Jackrabbit @47: Biden is in no trouble.... This is whole thing is truly a nothing-burger distraction from the fact that we are on the cusp of war.
Jackrabbit @55: The Countdown to War with Iran has begun?
Posted by: Jackrabbit | Sep 26 2019 13:41 utc | 132
Ron Horn @143: Trump took aim at the Deep State's main candidate for president
If you think that a populist "outsider" can really win the Presidency then I have bridge to sell you.
Trump is the MAGA Nationalist that Kissinger called for in his 2014 WSJ Op-Ed to meet the challenge from Russia and China. Trump was the only populist and the only MAGA candidate to run for the Republican nomination.
Trump was close the Clintons for years and was vetted and approved by them. Pence was McCain's buddy. Trump appointed anti-Trump Brennan acolyte Gina Haspel as CIA Director. Trump appointed John Bolton despite the fact that the neocons were the biggest supporters of the 'NEVER TRUMP' opposition.
Russiagate was a farce to initiate a new McCartyism. And this whistle-blower complaint is another farce to distract from the fact that we are on the cusp of war with Iran.
What's down is up, and what's up is down.
Welcome to the rabbit hole.
Posted by: Jackrabbit | Sep 26 2019 13:56 utc | 133
somebody 141
There may turn out to be some entertainment value in this. A commentator up the page a bit has linked the anonymous whistle blower report. I take it is genuine as it is located at https://intelligence.house.gov .
I'm starting to wonder if the anonymous whistle blower was team Trump.
Posted by: Peter AU 1 | Sep 26 2019 14:00 utc | 134
Ukraine scandal shows that foreign influence is a bipartisan affair
As the media show renewed interest in the involvement of both President Trump and former Vice President Biden — and Biden’s son Hunter — in the former Soviet republic of Ukraine, it’s worth asking: Was the U.S. 2016 election a surrogate battle between Russia and Ukraine?The question isn’t new, just overlooked. Much emphasis has been given to Russia’s involvement – one cannot accurately say it has been underreported – but we have largely ignored the Ukrainian question. That’s despite hard facts linking Ukraine to multiple attempts to interfere in or influence the campaign for the benefit of Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton.
The suggestion was explicitly put into the public forum as early as January 2017 by David Merkel, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council. Merkel told Politico that Russia and Ukraine, now mortal enemies, took opposite sides in the U.S. presidential race — each presumably banking on the idea that they would be better off with their chosen candidate, in terms of influence and U.S. aid.
Posted by: somebody | Sep 26 2019 14:00 utc | 135
I think that b. and others are wrong about the political dynamics that are driving the impeachment movement, and it is, indeed, a movement. The Democratic Party’s rank and file membership have wanted to impeach Trump since the very first day that the Dems took control of the House of Representatives. The grounds for impeachment were many and egregious, and did not include Ukraine until just recently. The failure of the party’s leadership to move in that direction left the base members disheartened and discouraged. Without their active and enthusiastic involvement in the upcoming election campaign, the result could yet again be another electoral defeat across the board and another four years of Trump and Trumpism. Hence, impeachment is a political imperative.
It may be too soon to know if the Ukraine business will meet the standard of impeachment, but I’m not sure that it will matter. The base want this fight. Leadership had to be dragged kicking and screaming to engage. They are weak and not very bright. I hope that the process will be well managed, but I question their competence to do so.
Posted by: Rob | Sep 26 2019 14:16 utc | 136
@ stj 138
It was a fluke that the Electoral College set up put [Trump] in office anyway
It was not a "fluke." Five times a candidate has won the popular vote and lost the election. The electoral college is in the Constitution for a reason, to prevent one or two states (like CA, NY) from determining who the president will be. So in 2016 Clinton got two percent more votes (mostly in CA) and still lost, which is okay.
Posted by: Don Bacon | Sep 26 2019 14:21 utc | 137
I would further suggest that an attempt be made to read carefully the transcript
of Trump's recent speech at the United Nations. I cannot propose a link as I
found it very difficult to access, and at the site where I found a transcript
repeated efforts were being made by it to distract and prevent my reading.
What I had to do was keep in mind the information revealed in the phone call
excerpts b posted as to Trump's assessment of what happened in Ukraine at the
time of the coup. His statements on international affairs in his UN speech
are abysmal; there is no doubt about that. They are the least cogent of his
remarks; they toe the 'company' line.
Better by far are other segments which are for the most part conciliatory. He
has a sentence that actually praises Xi as a great leader. He wishes to have
the US be partners in a world of free nations. He admits to having US interests
as a priority, but makes no threats. There's no demand for a 'coalition of the
willing'. The speech is a mixture of what he can say and what he must say, but
what he can say comes both at the beginning and the end of the speech.
Well, I will just note that the difficulty I had reading the speech thanks to
internet unhappiness with the very fact I was trying to do so is in small part
symbolic of the pressures arrayed against freedom of speech itself in this
country today. It's no wonder those same pressures are magnified when it
comes to trying to lead same country. Just saying.
Posted by: juliania | Sep 26 2019 14:24 utc | 138
@ Sam F 118
foreign policy is not a privilege of the US president. He is a chief negotiator by default, but the US Constitution does not give him any policymaking powers
Correct. The president is the chief "Executive," Article 2 of the Constitution, Legislative being Article 1. "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America." . .The executive executes and enforces law. The Constitution explicitly assigns the president the power to sign or veto legislation, command the armed forces, ask for the written opinion of their Cabinet, convene or adjourn Congress, grant reprieves and pardons, and receive ambassadors.
Posted by: Don Bacon | Sep 26 2019 14:32 utc | 140
Pop corn for all!
https://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-us-canada-49841920
US Intelligence chief Joseph Maguire tells Congress: "I think the whistleblower did the right thing.”
Posted by: Mina | Sep 26 2019 14:34 utc | 141
Meddling in US elections: Russia, Ukraine. . .could Israel be next?. . .I guess not.
from The Hill
Earlier this month, during a bipartisan meeting in Kiev, Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) delivered a pointed message to Ukraine’s new president, Volodymyr Zelensky. . ."I told Zelensky that he should not insert himself or his government into American politics. I cautioned him that complying with the demands of the President's campaign representatives to investigate a political rival of the President would gravely damage the U.S.-Ukraine relationship. There are few things that Republicans and Democrats agree on in Washington these days, and support for Ukraine is one of them," Murphy told me today, confirming what he told Ukraine's leader. . .here
Posted by: Don Bacon | Sep 26 2019 14:37 utc | 142
All "whistleblowers" form a column of two over there to the right. We'll get to you, don't worry.
Posted by: Don Bacon | Sep 26 2019 14:39 utc | 143
Don Bacon@150 lies about why the Electoral College was set up. The assumption that it's just dandy if the winner of the election doesn't get the office because, California, is Bacon the scumbag, not a valid principle. The EC was, like so many things in the constitution, poorly conceived, ill thought out and more or less randomly inserted. The EC was thought to possibly be a way of ensuring non-partisan elections (as I said, not an act of genius,) interposing a band of superior statesmen to elect the best candidate on his merits not the mere vote, a scheme to insure residual state sovereignty (again, foolishness,) a covert support for slavery (probably what makes Don Bacon so horny for it) and possibly a way to help increase the sway of smaller states. The ever contemptible Bacon seems not to know that the most populous states were Virginia, Pennsylvania and North Carolina. This worthless sack of shit says California for hippie punching (and New York for racebaiting.)
The insistence that Trump won and the Electoral College is right are always proof the speaker is a reactionary fraud, especially the trash who rant about Trump the populist.
Posted by: steven t johnson | Sep 26 2019 14:42 utc | 144
US citizens will be entertained to death if this fiasco of absurdist theater goes on much longer. This donnybrook of hallucination, senility, and folly just never ends. Listening to these corporate pols, it's hard to know if we have even one foot in the real world anymore.
I do so enjoy watching the Dem libprog sheep self immolate.
They have yet to figure out how much Nancy and the rest of the Dem elites truly hate their guts.
Somewhere in Chicago, Valerie Jarrett and Hillary are dismembering a live kitten with their teeth.
Priceless.
Posted by: joegardener | Sep 26 2019 15:01 utc | 146
“The public has a right to see the [whistleblower] complaint and what it reveals," Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) said on releasing the document.
The public also has a right to know about Biden's (and his son's) activities in and regarding Ukraine, especially involving financial matters, Ukraine being a key country where the US set up a government to counter Russia. And the Ukraine president is a great source for information on the Bidens' Ukraine activities. . .Call Zelinsky a whistleblower, that'll work.
Definition: A whistleblower (also written as whistle-blower or whistle blower) is a person who exposes any kind of information or activity that is deemed illegal, unethical, or not correct within an organization that is either private or public.
Posted by: Don Bacon | Sep 26 2019 15:04 utc | 147
Not only will this move encourage or in some measure galvanize Trump’s base,
it will lead to loss of Democrat adherence and voters.
Some ordinary Dems - amongst the more engaged and following
the news - will not be happy with having the same type of approach or ‘trick’ used again,
after Russia, Russia, Russia, which even Mueller (who can hardly be taxed with being
a Dem stooge, leftist, or in any way desirous of proving Trump’s non-involvement)
could not uphold or substantiate.
No matter, as the Elite party figures and hacks have no interest in winning, they only want
to remain in the pol. arena to keep their positions, privileges, funding, etc.
We are in a post-political age (in the sense of ‘political’ as being a tad ‘democratic’ or being,
in some other way, at least partly concerned with bodies/groups larger than whatever ruling
elite holds the sticks, the prisons, the bombs), particularly in the US, where the presented
opposition (Dem-Rep) is increasingly evidently an ersatz duopoly.
The Dems do not engage politically at all by now - except for continuing to support ‘immigrants,
diversity, LGBT, etc.’ a quite toxic identity politics (cynically divide to rule while making sure we profit
from the division), while spouting heartfelt speeches about health care, student debt etc.
- which will never lead anywhere.
Gabbard is only tolerated, afforded a ‘voice’ because plurality of opinion must be displayed.
Her voting record shows she is part of the Establishment, imho.
How could it be otherwise?
Drama Bait! (Jane 129), heh, :) right on.
What happens after this US political system breaks down?
In the UK, one can see the beginnings of splintering w. the Brexit shambolics,
but in the US, what will be a trigger?
Posted by: Noirette | Sep 26 2019 15:06 utc | 148
from Roll Call
The Justice Department has decided that President Donald Trump did not cross a legal line in his phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy. The department said its review of the call — in which Trump asked Ukraine to “do us a favor” and talk to his personal attorney Rudy Giuliani and Attorney General William Barr about opening a potential corruption investigation connected to Trump’s main political rival — did not find a “thing of value” that could be quantified as campaign finance law requires. Opposition research can be a “thing of value” and therefore a potential crime, election law experts said, but the term is not well defined and has not been fully tested in court. Some experts backed the Justice Department view on legal grounds; some didn’t. . .here
Posted by: Don Bacon | Sep 26 2019 15:39 utc | 149
. . .from the "I wish I'd thought of that" department...
The Saker -- quote
Look at that sequence:
Hillary does something dumb and insiders at the DNC leak documents. What do the Dems do? Invent the entire Russiagate charade.
This time around:
The Bidens do something dumb and somebody finds out. What do the Dems do? Invent a brand new “Ukrainegate“! . .here
Posted by: Don Bacon | Sep 26 2019 15:47 utc | 150
i'm flabbergasted. of all the reasons to impeach trump why would dems do it now, blatantly exposing their own malfeasance. it's mindblowing. do they truly expect the kind of party loyalty it would require to be blind enough not to notice? they are throwing away the election.
Posted by: annie | Sep 26 2019 16:17 utc | 151
In my view, Pelosi's announcement of a impeachment inquiry indicates the democratic national committee now recognizes its almost certain defeat in 2020 against Trump. Democrats now believe they have nothing to lose in 2020 except perhaps the house majority, a tolerable risk. Democrats also have broad support for impeachment from those in congress (both Ds and Rs), the intelligence agencies, and the military, who view Trump as an obstacle to war on Iran. In short, removing Trump just shifted to high priority for the war advocates.
Posted by: mrr52 | Sep 26 2019 16:23 utc | 152
annie @157
It seems likely that ultimately neither Biden nor Trump will be found to have committed any offense.
Trump's remarks were prompted by Biden's bragging of his role in the prosecutor's removal. But Biden didn't unilaterally remove the Ukrainian prosecutor. Biden was acting on behalf of President Obama and Obama was reacting to concerns of many that the prosecutor wasn't acting properly.
It's all a nothing-burger. Why did Pelosi choose to pursue this nothing-burger when she had previously been against pursing impeachment? IMO the best answer to that question is that it's a distraction as USA is on cusp of war with Iran.
Posted by: Jackrabbit | Sep 26 2019 16:38 utc | 153
Obviously Trump did nothing wrong even if all claims against him are true, which is obviously not the case.
However, Trump has done absolutely nothing to drain the swamp as promised. In fact he filled his administration with the worst swampmonsters around and then put one on the SC for good measure.
Trump's attack on Biden is political opportunism, something he learned from his political mentor Roy Cohn-also Epstein's political godfather.
Although Biden is much worse filthy scum than Trump, there are no good guys here....e.g. Trump is a war criminal at least as much as Obama was.
Posted by: skeptic23 | Sep 26 2019 16:44 utc | 154
I believe vk @134 is right, though with one minor correction: "...the dirt on the Democrat elite old guard/big finance imperial elite on Ukraine is so heavy..."
Aside: The real hysteria in Washington concerning the Benghazi issue (America's James Bond equivalent getting snuffed by the CIA's own death squads) was not really over Clinton's role in the debacle. The real concern was that the public would look closely at what happened and start to clue in on how America's "regime change" operations work in the real world. There was outright panic that the true ugliness of America's foreign policy would get exposed to the ignorant masses, rendering them somewhat less ignorant and thus more dangerous to the imperial power structure.
But how to draw the public's attention away from what really happened in Benghazi?
Unfortunately for the imperial elites, their cast members maintaining the fiction of democracy are incompetent and dysfunctional, which is a condition that normally suits the imperial elites just fine. That makes those cast members dependent and easily controlled. In crises, though, and without a prepared script delivered to the cast by the New York Langley Times and associated Mockingbird mass media, the actors improvise, and do so badly. Thus, like school children with Tourette's syndrome, they started shouting whatever they can think of to distract the audience from Benghazi, but with every shout including the word "Benghazi".
Flash-forward to the present to where the plans of the old guard "deep state" have gone so far awry that the clown who volunteered to play foil for the establishment's top choice to help her win won the election instead of the establishment's top choice. Since the clown was carefully selected specifically for his unelectability, little effort was put in ahead of time by the "deep state" to assure they had full control over the clown. The clown was a total sleeze, after all, so how could he not have whole warehouses full of skeletons he'd want to keep hidden? This on top of the fact that the estimates by the "deep state" of his chances of winning were about 0%. The clown was supposed to just fade back to his reality TV hobby after his fun on the campaign trail and largely disappear from the politics show.
But the clown did win, and the hysteria that this threw the establishment into made their panic over the Benghazi disaster seem like a mild case of the vapors in comparison.
It is not that Trump is an enemy of the oligarchy. He is an oligarch himself, after all. To keep that sweet deal for himself he has to first and foremost keep the oligarchy alive and well. But Trump is a big uncertainty in the plans of the "deep state". He's a loose cannon. As an oligarch himself, he is not naturally subservient to the oligarchy like the professional political actors are. Furthermore, despite their best efforts, the "deep state" has been unable to find closeted skeletons to control Trump with that they had assumed he must have in vast abundance.
Again, this does not mean that Trump has any intention of harming the imperial oligarchy, but rather that the lack of firm control over him by the "deep state" leaves the oligarchy feeling paranoid and insecure. These are not people who got where they are by trusting others, and they are certainly not feeling like trusting Trump, even though he shares their class interests. They wanted some tool that they knew they could micro-manage like a Clinton. As a consequence the empire's oligarchs instruct their underlings to keep the pressure on Trump.
This, however, sets up an adversarial relationship between the oligarchy with its "deep state" and Trump. This relationship has not been one that Trump chose, but it is one that leaves him in the dark about what the "deep state" is up to and has been up to until now. This means that Trump is likely unaware that the whole Ukraine affair is a long-running imperial regime change operation that goes back decades, and that the Bidens' actions in Ukraine were just small parts of that operation.
On the other hand, many of the establishment's political actors are very much aware of what really happened in Ukraine. This despite their stunning incompetence. Trump drawing attention to Ukraine in the way that he did is, like the whole Benghazi episode, poking the establishment in a spot that is far more sensitive than the Great Orange One could ever imagine. It is not a surprise to those who can see the actual dynamics at play here that the poor cast of the "Democracy Show™" have lost their minds over this. Trump's clueless meddling in issues he doesn't understand the full scope of threatens to take down not only the Democrats, but the entire empire, thus the panicked and inappropriate reactions from the establishment.
Posted by: William Gruff | Sep 26 2019 17:39 utc | 155
I'm all for impeachment; just hope the Democrats don't screw it up (they're just SO bad at political theater!). I also hope this ends Biden's run for the WH. A pox on both their houses (GOP & Dems)!
I'm really curious about Trump's babble about "the server" & Crowdstrike in Ukraine. Other commenters have pointed to George Eliason's writing on this; thanks, I'll check that out when I can.
Also, Hat Tip to JohnH @69 for the theory that Hunter Biden's appointment to Burisma board wasn't just nepotism/corruption but rather the CIA inserting an "asset" in another important Petro-Energy Corp/Org. That makes a lot of sense; there's even a bit humor in using cronyism as cover!
US politics makes more sense in light of Chuck Schumer's line to Rachel Maddow a while ago: "Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you". On the surface, it explains the "deep state" resistance to (or undermining of) loose-cannon Trump. But it also explains the Democrats' long-term rightward tilt in Foreign Policy as a way to score points with the IC, which has generally sided with the GOP & the Right (JE Hoover, Bush, etc).
Posted by: elkern | Sep 26 2019 17:46 utc | 156
@160 It depends what you mean by 'draining the swamp'. Trump obviously doesn't consider Bolton, Pompeo et al as swamp creatures. For him it means getting rid of the last vestiges of Obama.
Posted by: dh | Sep 26 2019 18:11 utc | 157
Many people seem to be missing the point here.
This is not news - it is marketing - continueing/building on a well established brand ("russiagate")
Remember that most people get their 'news' these days from skimming the headlines of the top 3 to 5 stories that pop up on their social media feed,
or from what floats at the top of the pages of yahoo, msn, or reuters,
or from having the tv on in the background (often it will just be the ads for the news or the news breaks rather than the full news).
So from this story they will get Russia (Ukraine will equal Russia in most western minds) in bed with Trump,
along with corruption so bad it can lead to impeachment.
Good to have Bernard & others going into detail on what the reality is underneath it - but we need to be aware that for most it will just be a confirmation of what they already believe.
The process of the creation, delivery & consumption of news for a mainstream audience is so corrupt that you really can package a well documented real event as its complete opposite and have people buy it.
Posted by: KenM | Sep 26 2019 18:27 utc | 158
@Noirette (162). Impeachment’s only effect on Trump’s base will be to drive them from wildly fired up to insanely fired up. So in reality, the Dems need not be concerned about Trumpian fanatics. Rather, the Dems need to be very concerned about their own base. If the base shuts down, there could be a rerun of Hillary’s dispirited campaign. No one liked her, which drove down Democratic turnout in key swing states. This time around, if the base perceive that the party is not fighting to defend what is left of the democratic system by holding Trump accountable for his numerous serious offenses, then what purpose do they serve? “Screw them!” is what many will think.
Posted by: Rob | Sep 26 2019 18:35 utc | 159
Rob @165
Many that I know who formerly voted Democrat are more interested in seeing the Democrat party itself held "accountable for [its] numerous serious offenses."
After all, why worry oneself about the accountability of those you don't vote for if the ones you do vote for are not accountable?
Posted by: William Gruff | Sep 26 2019 20:05 utc | 160
William Gruff @166--
Gotta echo that to the heavens and beyond! No person should ever be beyond accountability ever! That's the very principle underlying the concept that No One Is Above The Law--a principle and concept in dire need of resurrection within the Outlaw US Empire.
Posted by: karlof1 | Sep 26 2019 20:15 utc | 161
"How the Democrats want to construct an impeachment out of this is beyond me." My thought exactly!! This gruel is even thinner than the slop they tried to pass off in defense of their Russiagate hoax. And yet the DNC is so thoroughly Stalinist these days that all Pelosi had to do was say "jump," and virtually all of the rest of the party said, "how high," and that even though they had no idea at the time just how ludicrous the would-be "impeachment case" against Trump, based on the hearsay leak of a CIA asset, really was. And now we can all sit back and watch the Dems disintegrate in real time as they bring forth still more tenuous third hand "evidence" to support their claims that Trump is guilty of something ... anything! What a shame, too, as this country could, in my opinion, definitely use a more sober president like Bernie Sanders, who now, even if he isn't already fatally sabotaged by the DNC MSM, and depp state before getting the nomination, would have to fight for his life against all the backlash against his party that the present shenanigans are bound to engender.
Posted by: William Fusfield | Sep 26 2019 21:18 utc | 162
@William Gruff (166). I fully understand and sympathize with “a pox on both their houses” sentiment, but it is a basic fact of life that in the U.S., the political system is binary. Only two parties have a realistic chance of winning and exercising power. Dreams of a people’s third party are just that—dreams. That being the case, voting for the lesser of two evils makes more sense than voting for a pleasant fantasy. That is the logic behind working to transform the Democratic Party into something worthy of enthusiastic support, which, I freely admit, may also be a fantasy.
Posted by: Rob | Sep 26 2019 21:34 utc | 163
You it the nail on the head with comment that Trump is trying to find out how Ukraine was used in Russiagate. This is a CIA complaint/whisteblower. The CIA is trying to cover it's ass. This investigation by T rump needs to be stopped at all costs. Big media BEING instructed I'm speculating to proceed building case for impeachment to stop investigation. Pelosi doesn't care about Trump's high crimes and misdeamnors. She is acting at the behest of the CIA IMO.
Posted by: Westcoast | Sep 27 2019 8:02 utc | 164
I wannna see Trump cry like a baby in the cell next to Manafort where he belongs!
Posted by: Circe | Sep 26 2019 12:36 utc | 124
It was reported that (1) Trump loves to play goal (2) When he plays he cheats. Some punishment of the following kind would be just and amusing
The billiard sharp who any one catches,
His doom's extremely hard -
He's made to dwell -
In a dungeon cell
On a spot that's always barred.
And there he plays extravagant matches
In fitless finger-stalls
On a cloth untrue
With a twisted cue
And elliptical billiard balls!
Posted by: Piotr Berman | Sep 27 2019 12:55 utc | 165
That is the logic behind working to transform the Democratic Party into something worthy of enthusiastic support, which, I freely admit, may also be a fantasy.
Posted by: Rob | Sep 26 2019 21:34 utc | 169
If your opinion is shared by a small minority, in a proportional representation system you get a tiny party present in the Parliament. But over time, having a platform, he party may gain influence like Greens in Germany. In a two party system a gradual takeover of one of the parties is possible. For example, "single payer" was a "radical proposal" 4 years ago, and now it is a close to the dominant Democratic position. On foreign policy, God willing, we will see progress in a cycle or two.
Posted by: Piotr Berman | Sep 27 2019 13:24 utc | 166
Rob @165 no doubt you are right..something like what you say anyway. Thing is, I don't think there will
be an impeachment. A poster above (sorry forgotten whom) used the expression "nothing-burger."
I read two articles on this matter and one refered to an impeachment investigation - what is that?
It seems to me that either the impeachment process / procedure is implemented, or not.
Which requires some kind of charge, right? An investigation is neither here nor there,
anyone can investigate anything. But maybe I am missing something in US
legal procedure.
Posted by: Noirette | Sep 27 2019 14:11 utc | 167
@Don Bacon #138
It really is a waste of time talking to that commenter. I rarely read what that one posts because they don't have even entertainment value.
The Electoral College, as you correct stated, was specifically created so that the low population states would not be overwhelmed by New York.
It is the same reason we have both a Senate and House of Representatives, but the Senate approves while the House can only propose.
Pretty much all the Founding Fathers had a enormous amount of distrust for true democracy.
Posted by: c1ue | Sep 27 2019 22:50 utc | 168
If the Biden bidness in (the) Ukraine is looked into...
...the 'color revolution'/neocon/neonazi coup against their elected...
...who knows what else...?... ...'crowdstrike'?
...just a desperation 'Hail [Mary?]' play by the 'anti-US-nationalist' faction in the US national government... ...about to be...?
Posted by: StarryOrange | Sep 28 2019 16:44 utc | 169
Pretty much all the Founding Fathers had a enormous amount of distrust for true democracy.
Posted by: c1ue | Sep 27 2019 22:50 utc | 169
This is ahistorical. At that time, the concept of democracy with close-to-universal voting rights (say, all free men of sufficient age) was still theoretical. Also, in practice states were ruled by local elites. The goal was to create a unifying government for all former colonies, hence with the agreement of all of them. Electoral college is a typical compromise formula. Electing the electors of the college and senators by a popular vote came much later, and so did universal suffrage. Contemporary understanding of democracy gradually evolved in 19th century, with additional development in 20th (from broad rights to rights of the broads etc.). In other words, Founding Fathers did not know the creature that they could "enormously distrust".
Posted by: Piotr Berman | Sep 28 2019 18:25 utc | 170
The comments to this entry are closed.
I cannot work out why anyone anywhere cares about any of this.
The US political system has been warped into a structure where there is zero chance of any human who places the needs of people ahead of the needs of fortune 500 corps and their major shareholders winning - so what is the point?
If someone like Gabbard is fair dinkum - something which I highly doubt given her support of Pelosi as speaker, they have no chance of actually winning the nomination let alone the prezdency.
Gabbard & co do fulfil a purpose for the dem half of the war party, they are ornaments designed to attract the interest of the war hating naif.
Gabbard loses the nomination pretense/total fit-up, but the dem party picks up a big chunk of silly voters who imagine that since someone as outspoken as Gabbard was in the party, that the dem party "must be OK". Of course it isn't OK, since, in many ways that matter, it is more unjustifiably belligerent than the rethugs - see Libya.
Gabbard isn't a complete idjit she must know the trick that is being played yet she goes along with it - what does that say about her? It tells anyone with half a brain that she is just another fork-tongued tosh talking professional deceiver who cannot be trusted to do anything for decent humans in the US, Iran, or Afghanistan, cos she is waiting and hoping that one day she will get her chance to run for prez, the day when the dems need a candidate with peacenik credentials, but who is 'realistic' enough to play the game as her 'betters' tell her to.
As long as people keep voting for these scumbags, aka the least worst, they will continue to get pretenders served up to them.
Going outside the war party duopoly ensures a candidate cannot win as even if they could get on the ballot paper of every district in every state and get past the thugs both wings mobilize on election day, they would never be able to affect the dodgy as f++k electoral college.
IMO short of a violent and bloody revolution jack-sh1t can change. Still if enuff millions of Joe/Jo Blows are determined to try it without tumbrels in the streets, one ploy could be attempted.
The only way the dems would even consider changing is if millions of citizens stop voting for any of the pretenders and publicly state they won't exercise their vote until a truly credible candidate is on offer. After 2 maybe 3 electoral cycles of that by which time many of the penny-pinching corporate dicks will have shut off the money supply, tipping mobs of worthless snouts out of the dem think tank trough, the dem hacks might allow a credible candidate, figuring by that time they have nothing to lose.
The real question is whether enough voters have the patience and self discipline to stick it out for 12+ years. This means ignoring nonsense soaps such as this Biden nonsense, as it these allegedly real-life dramas the lower than a rock-spider political consultants dream up and implement to suck y'all in.
I reckon US society being what it is, arming up, then shooting the all the worthless sh1ts plus the bodyguards, y'all pay for to protect 'em from the consequences of their corruption is gonna be a lot easier, not to forget a helluva lot faster.
Posted by: A User | Sep 26 2019 5:20 utc | 101