C’mon, Paul. We’re talking Democrats here.
1 Like
I don’t think Vance and McQuade’s testimony was quite as devastating as we may like to think. And I have great respect for both.
But they are EX-prosecutors, not involved in the actual investigations, that read the Mueller Report. Vance in particular can easily be discounted because of her numerous appearances on MSNBC criticizing Trump and pushing the cases against this administration…well before the report was ever released.
Now, replace them with a couple of prosecutors that actually worked for Mueller for the SCO…and then we have truly devastating testimony.
So yeah, they looked good as part of a dress rehearsal. But the fact that we are doing essentially cosplay at this point doesn’t fill me with a lot of confidence.
2 Likes
Media are complicit in failing to use the word “lie” when describing Trump’s communications. Below is a Daily Beast write-up of a WaPo Fact-Checker column. Look how many ways Beast phrases what are Trump’s lies to soften directly accusing him of telling lies:
The Washington Post’s fact-check team reported Wednesday that almost every sentence in Trump’s opinion article for USA Today contains a misleading statement or a falsehood. The op-ed, which states “Democrats ‘Medicare for All’ plan will demolish promises to seniors,” contains previously debunked claims, the publication states. “Presumably the president is aware of our fact checks—he even links to one—but chose to ignore the facts in service of a campaign-style op-ed,” the article states. The Post article dissects the president’s piece line-by-line, correcting his claims along the way. Trump did get one thing right. According to the newspaper, Trump correctly stated that Medicare “studies have estimated that the program—under the version promoted by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.)—would add $36 trillion in costs to the federal government over 10 years.”
Every bolded word or phrase could legitimately have the word "lie" replacing it and the story still stands, accurately. This type of discussion about Trump's lies is endemic all across media. Even the very headline of the Beast's story explicity avoids using "lie", preferring the softer, less accusatory "falsehood" instead:
"WaPo Fact-Checker: Trump Op-Ed Has a **Falsehood** in Nearly Every Sentence"
A falsehood is a lie. That is a deliberate editorial decision to use “falshood” instead of “lie”. Democrats have a message to get out, but the media are integral to doing that. I’m not saying the media are supposed to help that messaging, but it is that much more difficult when deliberate editorial decisions are made to lessen Trump’s faults and lies through the use of alternate, euphemistic phrasing.
If Trump strangled a baby the NYTimes would say he interrupted the respiration of a small homo sapien and inadvertently damaged the larynx.
5 Likes
Mueller Report is “complete and total exoneration.”
Dean testimony is a “complete and colossal embarrassment.”
For someone who ran casinos (admittedly, into the ground), Trump’s WHPS has a surprisingly obvious tell. “Complete and …” means “I’m about to serve up a lie so obvious that I don’t even believe it myself.”
2 Likes
Well, with Democrats you always need to remember that Will Rogers was right.
2 Likes
I agree with you about a select committee. But the basic rules will not be re-written so, for instance, we are going to have Republicans grandstanding, wasting time and obstructing. But as the facts come out, they will be more and more disrespected for doing so.
I guess the White House must be moving towards the position that the American people deserve to hear directly, in public hearings, from the campaign and administration officials, as well as Mueller and his team, who are fact witnesses and investigators who can testify to the substance of the Mueller report and the crimes and impeachable actions of Trump and others.
A subpoena, a refusal to respond to the subpoena, a Presidential edict to ignore the subpoena, a court filing, an appeal, a ruling, another appeal, another ruling, and another appeal, a third ruling, a third appeal, then SCOTUS agreeing to consider, then wait on them, then it rolls over to their next session. So yeah, demand some answers from people on Mueller’s team. Then slog through a year of bullshit getting those answers.
1 Like
I’m not sure what the rules are for select committee appointed within standing committees. that being said, Barr refused to appear before the House Judiciary committee when Nadler said that Barr would be questioned by committee counsel – in other words, its well within the power of the chair to delegate the questioning to the committee’s lawyers.
I do know that a select committee authorized by the entire house is appointed by the speaker (and there don’t have to be any minority party members), and as a new committee, gets to make its own rules. Those rules could include a demand that all questions be related to Trump’s actions, efforts to discredit witnesses will not be permitted, and no speeches will be allowed during question period.
1 Like
According to Speaker Pelosi, we need to get the public on board before we proceed, so that impeachment is not just viewed as a divisive exercise in partisan politics. How in the hell does anyone think that John Dean, a figure from a 46 year-old scandal, is going to draw public or media interest? The media and hence the public are drawn to drama. How do you spell IMPEACHMENT?
1 Like
Correct. But I will go one further.
At this point, it should be abundantly clear, that Trump is a pathological liar…and the reason he is should also be abundantly clear. Because he has such an extreme case of NPD. That drives two behaviors…1) that he believes himself to be the expert on literally everything…nobody can ever know more, or be better than him…his ego will simply not allow such a belief to exist in his brain. 2) His NPD demands that he dominate reality, which quite often is at complete odds with what #1 has made him assert. So, he lies because he thinks he is an expert when he is completely ignorant, and he lies more because he MUST change reality. In short, he lies so much because of his personality disorder; because he is incurably sick.
What really troubles me, is how our press is completely unable and/or unwilling to deal with this basic fact. Hell, I am old enough to remember when Josh actually caught on the Trump’s need to dominate early on. But now…he seems to have completely forgotten that fact, and engages like so many others do, in treating Trump’s behavior as “one offs” or if they are somehow being mitigated by strategic considerations.
Their aren’t. Trump lies instinctively because he has such an extreme case of NPD. People around him may try to introduce strategic considerations…but when they meet some limited level of success with that…THOSE are the true one offs.
2 Likes
if the witness is willing to testify, with or without a subpoena, Trump would have to go to court to prevent that testimony.
It would be an interesting case in an oversight setting, especially if the witness was one of Mueller’s team, and the House claimed it was seeking information on how the Special Counsel’s office operated under the new statutory provisions.
IMO, an “executive privilege” claim would be hard to sustain, given that the OSC is, by design, supposed to be insulated from White House influence, which arguably moots the whole basis of executive privilege in this instance.
Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Thomas, Alito, Roberts.
1 Like
except, of course, that the very effort to gain public support is an “exercise in partisan politics” itself – and Pelosi knows it. And she knows that Trump is framing all of the investigations into him as “presidential harrassment” and “election annulment”, and each time a Democrat talks about gaining public support before beginning impeachment proceedings, they are reinforcing Trump’s framing that this is political.
Don’t get me wrong, they’re not substitutes for the actual fact witnesses, but a big part of impeachment hearings will be this type of education and expert weigh in. On that basis, they did a great job.
2 Likes
I’m not so sure about Roberts – he seems to understand what Trump is about, and doesn’t like it.
IMHO, this would be one of those cases that the Courts would simply avoid ruling on, based on not wanting to become involved in disputes between branches unless it was necessary (assuming the witness was willing to testify, and was not personally resisting the subpoena).
…and you would ‘know’ complete embarrassments now wouldn’t you Sarah? Why don’t you worry about your OWN ‘elephant in the room’ and Congress can worry about their hearings themselves.
What is the law on responding to a Congressional subpoena if you are willing to comply but the President issues some sort of order or decree you are not to comply? Regardless that party’s position in the hiearchy of the government, regardless the branch he/she formerly worked for or their capacity, the President asserts it is his right to bar compliance with the subpoena. You don’t want to defy the President until some official ruling clears up your legal obligations. Are they to Congress, or the President? You may have an attorney telling you one thing, but feel you’re only safe in making a decision when a court rules, regardless all the people telling you the President has asserted an authority he does not possess.
It seems to me if Trump decided to be intransigent in the extreme, all the way to the point he was asserting authorites he did not have, the courts would be forced into becoming a referee, irregardless of any previous stated intentions to remain neutral, no? But what if the technical nature of the dispute has some precedent where the courts are actually barred from interceding in the inter-branch dispute of a Legislative vs Executive issue? There are areas where courts are proscribed from having a say in such issues, right? Impeachment being one that comes to mind. Are there others?
I think “Complete and Colossal Embarrassment” is the middle name of just about everyone who works in the White Supremacy House. So they should know, I guess.
Echoes of, “Let me be clear…”