[QUOTE=retina;529100]Wow, you can't make this stuff up.[/QUOTE]
Speak for yourself.

:missingteeth:

Deja vu. We [URL="https://apnews.com/c25c610ef5e9ab19a25cd27efc5c69f8"]had one[/URL] "why are you shouting/booing, you animal?" guy, I am still waiting to read a RIP post about him, to open that champagne bottle which I am afraid it will get spoiled... This animal dragged back that country with at least 30 years...

[QUOTE=LaurV;529172]Deja vu. We [URL="https://apnews.com/c25c610ef5e9ab19a25cd27efc5c69f8"]had one[/URL] "why are you shouting/booing, you animal?" guy, I am still waiting to read a RIP post about him, to open that champagne bottle which I am afraid it will get spoiled... This animal dragged back that country with at least 30 years...[/QUOTE]
Glad you liked my little bit of parody.

Back in the real world, we US-ers can cherish [url=https://www.cnn.com/2017/05/25/politics/trump-pushes-prime-minister-nato-summit/index.html]this[/url] little lapse of etiquette by [i]Il Duce[/i] toward Montenegro's Prime Minister Dusko Markovic. Not long after, [i]Il Duce[/i] said, "Montenegro is a tiny country with very strong people. They're very agressive people. They may get aggressive, and congratulations you're in World War III."

Talk about "projecting!"

I swear to God I am not making this up...
 

Truth is stranger than fiction.

On Laura Ingraham's Monday program, in a discussion about [strike]Dear Leader[/strike] [i]Il Duce[/i] having been booed during his appearance at the World Series, Frank Luntz said,[quote]The fact is, they should hold those fans accountable. You don't boo the president.[/quote]

I'm not sure who "they" are. Or what "accountable" is supposed to mean.

I wonder if Mr. Luntz is familiar with [url=http://www.ushistory.org/us/7c.asp][i]Crown v. John Peter Zenger[/i][/url]. I'm thinking not.

Being booed at the World Series must have really stung the orange blob, a lot I hope.

I wonder if Frank Luntz is familiar with the concept of Constitutionally Guaranteed Freedom of Speech.

[QUOTE=kladner;529246]I wonder if Frank Luntz is familiar with the concept of Constitutionally Guaranteed Freedom of Speech.[/QUOTE]Constitutions can be amended. FoS? Haha! What's that? Things like that should not be for the little people. [/TrumpWetDream]

[QUOTE=retina;529249]Constitutions can be amended. FoS? Haha! What's that? Things like that should not be for the little people. [/TrumpWetDream][/QUOTE]
No need to amend. Constitutional provisions can simply be ignored. The Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments were ignored for a century in a good part of the good ol' USA, and the R's are intent on bringing back this fine old tradition.

During the 2016 campaign, poll results indicating that women were likely to vote against [i]Il Duce[/i] were greeted by his [strike]cult followers[/strike] supporters with the Twitter hashtag #RepealTheNineteenth -- the Nineteenth Amendment being the one that forbids the US or any State from denying or abridging womens' right to vote.

The Cult of Personality...
 

On the Monday, October 28, 2019 edition of [i]The Ingraham Angle[/i], viewers were treated to the following:
[indent]LAURA INGRAHAM (HOST): Fox News has confirmed that a White House national security official, his name is Lt. Col. Alexander S. Vindman, he's going to tell impeachment investigators tomorrow in a statement that's been distributed to some media outlets, that he twice reported objections over Trump's call with Ukraine.

But get this, this is buried in the New York Times piece tonight, but I found it very interesting.

He's a decorated colonel, by the way, in the Iraq War -- but because Col. Vindman emigrated from Ukraine along with his family when he was a child and is fluent in Ukrainian and Russian, Ukrainian officials sought advice from him, about how to deal with Mr. Giuliani, though they typically communicated in English.

Now, wait a second, John. Here we have a U.S. national security official who is advising Ukraine, while working inside the White House, apparently against the president's interest, and usually, they spoke in English. Isn't that kind of an interesting angle on this story?

JOHN YOO: I find that astounding, and in -- you know, some people might call that espionage, but it doesn't actually seem to add any new facts to what we know.[/indent]
I will point out a whopping [i]non sequitur[/i] here: The host set up the vilification of Colonel Vindman by saying, "... because Col. Vindman emigrated from Ukraine along with his family when he was a child and is fluent in Ukrainian and Russian, Ukrainian officials sought advice from him, about how to deal with Mr. Giuliani, though they typically communicated in English."

Of course, that's [i]not[/i] why the Ukrainians asked him. They asked him for advice on how to handle Giuliani because, as a higher-up among the president's national security advisors, and an expert on Ukraine, he was in a position to give it. I'm sure it is absolutely routine for foreign governments to seek advice from governments about their envoys if the portfolios, authority, and missions of those envoys are not clear.

How giving such advice could possibly constitute "espionage" is beyond me.

Note also that "apparently against the president's interest." The president's interest is irrelevant. Colonel Vindman swore the following oath:
[indent]I [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.[/indent]
He did [i]not[/i] swear allegiance [i][strike]dem Führer[/strike][/i] to [i]Il Duce[/i] personally or to whomever occupies the office of president.

Next day, John Yoo told the Washington [i]Examiner[/i],[quote]I want to clear up a misconception of my remarks on the Laura Ingraham show last night. I did not accuse Lt. Col. Vindman of committing the crime of espionage. I have tremendous respect for a decorated officer of the U.S. Army and a veteran of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. What I was addressing was a report that Ukrainian officials had sought to contact Vindaman for advice on how to handle Rudy Giuliani acting as a presidential envoy.[/quote]

In other words, "I didn't say what I said."

IMO there is only one reason [i]Il Duce[/i]'s cult followers would resort to such phantasmagorical [i]ad hominem[/i] attacks: They know that he is telling the truth, and they don't want to acknowledge that truth.

Trump Wants Deal With Exxon or Other Company to Take Syrian Oil
 

[URL]http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/52456.htm[/URL]
This is not really news. The Cheeto in Chief is just stating baldly what has been US policy at least since the Iran coup.
[QUOTE]Having sent growing numbers of troops into eastern Syria explicitly to control the oil, President Trump now says he is seeking a deal with Exxon Mobil or “one of our great companies” to go into occupied Syria and take the oil.

Trump has long suggested that in his view, the US should be able to just take oil from countries it is involved in militarily, as a way to recover some of the costs of his various wars. Trump said on Sunday that the oil is valuable and “we should be able to take some also.”

That Trump is sold on this idea is one thing, but convincing a US Oil and Gas Major to go along with the operation is another thing. The legal basis, particularly internationally, of taking Syrian oil without Syrian permission, and keeping US military forces there to keep Syria from stopping them, is going to be complicated, to say the least.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=kladner;529269][URL]http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/52456.htm[/URL]
This is not really news. The Cheeto in Chief is just stating baldly what has been US policy at least since the Iran coup.[/QUOTE]Ahh, but things were so much more refined back in the old days -- no need to send in troops. Simply have the spooks replace the recalcitrant government with one that was more, uh, [i]cooperative[/i].
[quote]<snip>
The legal basis, particularly internationally, of taking Syrian oil without Syrian permission, and keeping US military forces there to keep Syria from stopping them, is going to be complicated, to say the least.[/quote]You can say that again -- in Russian!

[QUOTE=Dr Sardonicus;529292]Ahh, but things were so much more refined back in the old days -- no need to send in troops. Simply have the spooks replace the recalcitrant government with one that was more, uh, [I]cooperative[/I].
You can say that again -- in Russian![/QUOTE]
Strong agreement on both points.

From the Cult Follower in Chief...
 

[quote]I worked with John Kelly, and he was totally unequipped to handle the genius of our great President.[/quote] -- WH press secretary Stephanie Grisham (October 27, 2019)

Oh, wait -- NOW I remember...
 

Gordon Sondland, who bought his job as Ambassador to the EU by donating a cool million to [i]Il Duce[/i]'s [strike]slush fund[/strike] inauguration committee, had his memory [url=https://apnews.com/f2398dd73d3a444eb2257ba245d83af1]"refreshed"[/url] by the prepared statements of two other witnesses. After his original sworn testimony that he "did not recall" taking part in any effort to push Ukraine to investigate the Bidens was impeached by the prepared statements of two other witnesses, he suddenly [strike]realized he had been caught committing perjury[/strike] remembered telling Ukraine's President Zelinsky that the $400 million in military aid was contingent on Ukraine officially announcing it would investigate the Bidens in re Burisma, and also investigate the known-to-be-false narrative that it was Ukraine, rather than Russia, that was meddling in the 2016 elections.

Of course, nobody -- at least nobody in the Admin or any of the Senate R's -- has a clue as to how Mr. Sondland could have come to think such a thing, let alone say it to Ukraine's president. Surely [i]Il Duce[/i] couldn't possibly have had anything to do with it...

I Don't Remember
 

Peter Gabriel - I Don't Remember

Artist: Peter Gabriel

Album: Games Without Words

I got no means to show identification
I got no papers show you what I am
You'll have to take me just the way that you find me
What's gone is gone and I do not give a damn
Empty stomach, empty head
I got empty heart and empty bed
I don't remember
I don't remember

I don't remember, I don't recall
I got no memory of anything at all
I don't remember, I don't recall
I got no memory of anything
-anything at all

Strange is your language and I have no decoder
Why don't you make your inentions clear
With eyes to the sun and your mouth to the soda

Saying, "Tell me the truth, you got nothing to fear
Stop staring at me like a bird of prey
I'm all mixed up, I got nothing to say
I don't remember
I don't remember

I don't remember, I don't recall
I got no memory of anything at all
I don't remember, I don't recall
I got no memory of anything
Anything at all

[QUOTE=kladner;529937]Peter Gabriel - I Don't Remember
<snip>[/QUOTE]
[b]Take Me Home[/b] by Phil Collins has the refrain

[i]Take, take me home
'Cause I don't remember...[/i]

I plead nolo contendere to the charge of posting OT. However, when the theme of memory loss led to "Take me home," the following popped into my head and seemed all too fitting for contemplating our current pResident.


[YOUTUBE]6jlLBs6YawM[/YOUTUBE]
Blind Faith Can't Find My Way Home

Some things remain timeless. And a fond farewell to Ginger Baker 10/6/19 ♥
Lyrics:[INDENT]Come down off your throne and leave your body alone
Somebody must change
You are the reason I've been waiting so long
Somebody holds the key
Well, I'm near the end and I just ain't got the time
And I'm wasted and I can't find my way home

Come down on your own and leave your body alone
Somebody must change
You are the reason I've been waiting all these years
Somebody holds the key
Well, I'm near the end and I just ain't got the time
And I'm wasted and I can't find my way home

And I ain't done nothing wrong,
But I can't find my way home.
[/INDENT]

[url=https://apnews.com/ad355d2c983e4a7c85bc17e86d8c563f]Roger Stone guilty of witness tampering, lying to Congress[/url]
[quote]<snip>
Stone was convicted Friday of all seven counts in a federal indictment that accused him of lying to Congress, tampering with a witness and obstructing the House investigation into whether the Trump campaign coordinated with Russia to tip the 2016 election.[/quote]
I make note of the following, which illustrates the fact that courts of law take a dim view of shows of disrespect to their proceedings.
[quote]<snip>
Another former Trump campaign aide, Michael Caputo, was removed from the courtroom by security officers after he turned his back on the jury after the verdict was read.[/quote]I guess the judge didn't think it was worth the effort to jail him for contempt.

I bet my neighbor a nickel that [i]Il Duce[/i] would pardon Stone.

[url=https://apnews.com/257e4b17a3c7476ea3007c0861fa97e8]Trump intervenes in military justice cases, grants pardons[/url][quote]WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump has pardoned a former U.S. Army commando set to stand trial next year in the killing of a suspected Afghan bomb-maker and a former Army lieutenant convicted of murder for ordering his men to fire upon three Afghans, killing two, the White House announced late Friday.

The commander in chief also ordered a promotion for a decorated Navy SEAL convicted of posing with a dead Islamic State captive in Iraq.
<snip>
Last month Adm. Mike Gilday, the U.S. chief of naval operations, denied a request for clemency for Gallagher and upheld a military jury’s sentence that reduced his rank by one step.
<snip>[/quote]

John Bel Edwards has been re-elected as Governor of Louisiana. [i]Il Duce[/i] made three trips to Louisiana to campaign for the R-candidate, who called himself "Louisiana's Donald Trump."

This presents the question of where [i]Il Duce[/i] will cast the blame for Edwards' re-election. Possibilities include

A) Massive voter fraud

B) The people of Louisiana are a bunch of traitors

C) It was a Fake Election

D) [i]Il Duce[/i] will not say anything because his f:censored:ing head exploded

Trump made a big deal about wanting to lock up Hillary.


Given the amount of convicted felons* that are associated with him, had he hired her she probably would be in jail by now!


[SIZE=1]* "I’m going to surround myself only with the best and most serious people."[/SIZE]

Let the speculation begin!
 

[url=https://apnews.com/e3e5cdafbbc540afb0ae59c40715e02d]White House: Trump undergoes exam at Walter Reed[/url][quote]BETHESDA, Md. (AP) — President Donald Trump spent more than two hours at Walter Reed National Medical Center on Saturday for what the White House said were medical tests as part of his annual physical.

The appointment wasn’t on Trump’s weekend public schedule, and his last physical was in February. Press secretary Stephanie Grisham said the 73-year-old president was "anticipating a very busy 2020" and wanted to take advantage of "a free weekend" in Washington to begin portions of his routine checkup.

She did not specify which tests he’d received or explain why the visit had not been disclosed in advance. Trump’s 2018 and 2019 physicals were both announced ahead of time and appeared on his public schedule.[/quote]

[QUOTE=Dr Sardonicus;530810]John Bel Edwards has been re-elected as Governor of Louisiana. [I]Il Duce[/I] made three trips to Louisiana to campaign for the R-candidate, who called himself "Louisiana's Donald Trump."

This presents the question of where [I]Il Duce[/I] will cast the blame for Edwards' re-election. Possibilities include

A) Massive voter fraud

B) The people of Louisiana are a bunch of traitors

C) It was a Fake Election

D) [I]Il Duce[/I] will not say anything because his f:censored:ing head exploded[/QUOTE]
Lots of people Know that it was the Lying Media and Fake News that brought down the honorable Republican. All The Best People.

[QUOTE=Xyzzy;530892]<snip>
Given the amount of convicted felons* that are associated with him, had he hired her she probably would be in jail by now!


[SIZE=1]* "I’m going to surround myself only with the best and most serious people."[/SIZE][/QUOTE]Not all of [i]Il Duce[/i]'s appointees have left in handcuffs. I commented on his propensity to fire those he appoints [url=https://www.mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=502079&postcount=932]here[/url].

It also brings to mind a scene from the old PBS series [i]I, Claudius[/i]. Thanks to the Information Age, the very quote is given in many places.

[regarding Caligula] [quote][b]Caesonia:[/b] Claudius, we must help him, the emperor.
[b]Claudius:[/b] He's your husband, you help him.
[b]Caesonia:[/b] Claudius, he's sick. He needs good people around him.
[b]Claudius:[/b] He's killed them all![/quote]

Maybe the Chinese will let him open a waffle house in Hong Kong.
 

I mentioned China's demand [url=https://www.mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=531163&postcount=41]here[/url] that [i]Il Duce[/i] veto a couple of bills in support of Hong Kong citizens who want to maintain the autonomy promised them in 1999.

As indicated in the AP story linked therein, the House and Senate passed these bills by "veto-proof" majorities. So barring a lot of legislators voting differently on a veto override than they did on the bills, they are going to become law whether [i]Il Duce[/i] vetoes them or not.

Meanwhile, [i]Il Duce[/i] has been giving textbook examples of someone talking out of both sides of their mouth. The framework "I stand... [i]but[/i]" is classic.[quote]Look we have to stand with Hong Kong, but I’m also standing with President Xi. He’s a friend of mine. He’s an incredible guy. We have to stand.

But I’d like to see them work it out. Okay? We have to see them work it out. But I stand with Hong Kong, I stand with freedom, I stand with all of the things that we want to do.

But we also are in the process of making the largest trade deal in history and if we could do that that would be great ...[/quote]

[QUOTE=Dr Sardonicus;531387]I mentioned China's demand [url=https://www.mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=531163&postcount=41]here[/url] that [i]Il Duce[/i] veto a couple of bills in support of Hong Kong citizens who want to maintain the autonomy promised them in 1999.

As indicated in the AP story linked therein, the House and Senate passed these bills by "veto-proof" majorities. So barring a lot of legislators voting differently on a veto override than they did on the bills, they are going to become law whether [i]Il Duce[/i] vetoes them or not.[/QUOTE]

If he vetoes, I'm sure the senate will bow down to him and say "sorry dear leader, we were wrong" while upholding his veto.

[QUOTE=rogue;531396]If he vetoes, I'm sure the senate will bow down to him and say "sorry dear leader, we were wrong" while upholding his veto.[/QUOTE]
I dunno. One of the bills passed the Senate by unanimous consent, and passed the House with only one dissenting vote.

When [i]Il Duce[/i] was faced with the lopsided passage of some sanctions against Russia he really didn't like, he signed the bill into law. Which he then refused to enforce, and the Senate was basically OK with that. Perhaps something similar will happen in this case.

Navy SEAL Eddie Gallagher was convicted at court-martial of posing with the corpse of an ISIS fighter, but acquitted of more serious charges, including murder. The court reduced his rank by one step. [i]Il Duce[/i] restored it. Acting Defense Secretary Mark Esper has now fired Navy Secretary Richard Spencer for bypassing him and going straight to the President with a proposal to let Gallagher retire with his Trident pin before disciplinary proceedings could begin. From some news accounts I have read, it appears that this is exactly what will happen.

In Spencer's letter to the President acknowledging his termination (text version [url=https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6558613/Navy-Secretary-Richard-Spencer-s-Resignation.txt]here[/url], pdf [url=https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6558613/Navy-Secretary-Richard-Spencer-s-Resignation.pdf]here[/url]), he wrote:[quote]The rule of law is what sets us apart from our adversaries. Good order and discipline is what has enabled our victory against foreign tyranny time and again, from Captain Lawrence's famous order "Don't Give up the Ship", to the discipline and determination that propelled our flag to the highest point on lwo Jima. The Constitution. and the Uniform Code of Military Justice, are the shields that set us apart. and the beacons that protect us all. Through my Title Ten Authority, I have strived to ensure our proceedings are fair, transparent and consistent, from the newest recruit to the Flag and General Officer level.

Unfortunately it has become apparent that in this respect I no longer share the same understanding with the Commander in Chief who appointed me in regards to the key principle of good order and discipline. I cannot in good conscience obey an order that I believe violates the sacred oath I took in the presence of my family, my flag and my faith to support and defend the Constitution of the United States.[/quote]

Now available from the president's re-election campaign: With each made-in-China MAGA hat, a made-in-China four by twelve foot banner proudly proclaiming, [b]WE SUPPORT OUR WAR CRIMINALS![/b]

Funny you should mention war criminals ... Nancy Pelosi, in a remarkable bit of truthiness, this week admitted that she and other members of the House Intelligence Committee knew that the Bush administration's claims of Iraqi WMDs were false but considered that the administration lying America into war was OK, because "they won the election" - see the NC link below for the fuller context:

[quote]I was Ranking Member on the Intelligence Committee even before I became part of the leadership of Gang of Four. So, I knew there were no nuclear weapons in Iraq. It just wasn’t there.

They had to show us now – to show the Gang of Four all the Intelligence they had. The Intelligence did not show that that – that was the case. So, I knew it was a – a misrepresentation to the public. But having said that, it was a, in my view, not a ground for impeachment. That was – they won the election. They made a representation. And to this day, people think – people think that that it was the right thing to do.[/quote]
Uh, Nancy, last time I checked, Trump et al "won the election". I believe the legal term of art applying to your statement is "WTF?"

o [url=https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2019/12/impeachment-the-house-as-prosecutor-and-justice.html]Impeachment, the House as Prosecutor, and Justice[/url] | naked capitalism

This being NC the reader comments include some good stuff. My favorite is this little Pelosi-worthy gem, in which Rep. Jerrold Nadler asserts the propriety of impeachent based on thoughtcrime:
[quote]Nadler’s committee will likely vote to impeach Trump. In a report defining what it considers impeachable offenses, the committee states that even if Trump did not actually break any laws in his supposed “quid pro quo” dealings with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, [b]he can still be impeached for his unstated motives[/b].

“The question is not whether the president’s conduct could have resulted from permissible motives. It is whether the president’s real reasons, the ones in his mind at the time, were legitimate,” it stated.[/quote]

And TAC more or less lays out the case for the defense:

o [url=https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/ladies-and-gentleman-of-the-jury-would-you-impeach/]Ladies And Gentleman Of The Jury, Would You Impeach?[/url] | The American Conservative
[quote]It is always easy to forget the basics. Quid pro quo is not Latin for bribery. The president conducts foreign policy with extraordinary latitude to say what the national interest is, not the State Department and its ambassadors, no matter how smart they think they are. Foreign aid is a policy tool and is offered in return for something. As an exasperated Mick Mulvaney told us, of course there is always a quid pro quo—vote our way at the UN, let us have a military base, help us negotiate with your neighbor. Presidents often delay aid to get what they want. An investigation is not meddling. Foreign governments work with us on criminal, financial, and other investigations all the time. The Democrats asked Ukraine to investigate Trump in 2018. Providing information is not interfering in our democracy.[/quote]
The one inaccuracy is in the title - by way of analogy to a more-usual criminal proceeding in court, impeachment is the indictment, and as the old "a good prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich" saying goes, the bar there is quite low. The jury comes in when it comes to the question of *conviction* on the charges, whence "the case for the defense". So far what we have in Congress is entirely from the prosecutorial side, and my take is that this particular "prosecutor", in form of the House democratic-party leadership, is so blinded by partisanship and Trump Derangement Syndrome that they have deluded themselves into believing that their theatrical "impeachment inquiry hearings" to date have some resemblance to an actual legal proceeding, which they do not. For example during the House hearings, Adam Schiff more or less blocked any real cross-examination of the various "prosecution witnesses" by the Republicans ... if this circus ever gets to an actual Senate trial, most of those witnesses are gonna get absoutely shredded, their unfounded assumptions and partisan allegiances laid bare. But if Team D is so committed to not beating Trump in the obvious way, that is by nominating an actual non-horrible presidential candidate who promotes policies that actually promise some betterment in the currently-dismal lot of "the 90%", as they could have done in 2016, well, I suppose they feel compelled to making this the Hill They Die On by way of a Plan B.

[QUOTE=ewmayer;532579]<snip>
But if Team D is so committed to not beating Trump in the obvious way, that is by nominating an actual non-horrible presidential candidate who promotes policies that actually promise some betterment in the currently-dismal lot of "the 90%", as they could have done in 2016, well, I suppose they feel compelled to making this the Hill They Die On by way of a Plan B.[/QUOTE]I like this! As I said when the July call and the official complaint about it first became known, it was taking the D's eye off the objective of getting him voted out of office.

It has occurred to me to wonder why -- why in the [i]world[/i] -- there isn't an article of impeachment about [i]Il Duce[/i]'s plan to have the G7 summit at his resort.

Not the proposal itself, mind you. It was what he said after his plan went south, complaining about the "phony emoluments clause." That's disparaging the Constitution he is bound by his oath of office to "preserve, protect, and defend." If that's not an impeachable offense, I don't know what is. I'd like to see his toadies try to explain it away.

I suppose he could mount a defense to the effect that the oath only requires him to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution "to the best of my ability," and, as a narcissist, his ability is nonexistent.

[url=https://theintercept.com/2019/12/12/the-inspector-generals-report-on-2016-fb-i-spying-reveals-a-scandal-of-historic-magnitude-not-only-for-the-fbi-but-also-the-u-s-media/]The Inspector General’s Report on 2016 FBI Spying Reveals a Scandal of Historic Magnitude: Not Only for the FBI but Also the U.S. Media[/url] | Glenn Greenwald, The Intercept
[quote]If it does not bother you to learn that the FBI repeatedly and deliberately deceived the FISA court into granting it permission to spy on a U.S. citizen in the middle of a presidential campaign, then it is virtually certain that you are either someone with no principles, someone who cares only about partisan advantage and nothing about basic civil liberties and the rule of law, or both. There is simply no way for anyone of good faith to read this IG Report and reach any conclusion other than that this is yet another instance of the FBI abusing its power in severe ways to subvert and undermine U.S. democracy. If you don’t care about that, what do you care about?

But the revelations of the IG Report are not merely a massive FBI scandal. They are also a massive media scandal, because they reveal that so much of what the U.S. media has authoritatively claimed about all of these matters for more than two years is completely false.[/quote]

[url=https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/political-commentary/horowitz-report-steele-dossier-collusion-news-media-924944/]Horowitz Report Reveals the Steele Dossier Was Always a Joke[/url] | Matt Taibbi Rolling Stone
[quote]The [i]Guardian[/i] headline reads: “DOJ Internal watchdog report clears FBI of illegal surveillance of Trump adviser.”

If the report released Monday by Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz constitutes a “clearing” of the FBI, never clear me of anything. Holy God, what a clown show the Trump-Russia investigation was ... Much of the press is concentrating on Horowitz’s conclusion that there was no evidence of “political bias or improper motivation” in the FBI’s probe of Donald Trump’s Russia contacts, an investigation Horowitz says the bureau had “authorized purpose” to conduct.

Horowitz uses phrases like “serious performance failures,” describing his 416-page catalogue of errors and manipulations as incompetence rather than corruption. This throws water on the notion that the Trump investigation was a vast frame-up.

However, Horowitz describes at great length an FBI whose “serious” procedural problems and omissions of “significant information” in pursuit of surveillance authority all fell in the direction of expanding the unprecedented investigation of a presidential candidate (later, a president).

Officials on the “Crossfire Hurricane” Trump-Russia investigators went to extraordinary, almost comical lengths to seek surveillance authority of figures like Trump aide Carter Page. In one episode, an FBI attorney inserted the words “not a source” in an email he’d received from another government agency. This disguised the fact that Page had been an informant for that agency, and had dutifully told the government in real time about being approached by Russian intelligence. The attorney then passed on the email to an FBI supervisory special agent, who signed a FISA warrant application on Page that held those Russian contacts against Page, without disclosing his informant role.

Likewise, the use of reports by ex-spy/campaign researcher Christopher Steele in pursuit of Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) authority had far-reaching ramifications.

Not only did obtaining a FISA warrant allow authorities a window into other Trump figures with whom Page communicated, they led to a slew of leaked “bombshell” news stories that advanced many public misconceptions, including that a court had ruled there was “probable cause” that a Trump figure was an “agent of a foreign power.”

There are too many to list in one column, but the Horowitz report show years of breathless headlines were wrong...[/quote]
As to the last sentence in the above excerpt, "were wrong" - as the saying goes, it's funny how the "mistakes" all went in the same direction.

House of Representatives voted along party lines to impeach President Trump - for non-U.S. readers, to impeach is the Capitol Hill equivalent of a prosecutor convincing a grand jury that a crime has been committed and getting it to issue an indictment. I.e. it's a formal accusation. [Some might describe it in the context of the timing as "one more thing to help ruin your family's holiday dinner party".] So, let's get to some links and commentary:

o [url=https://www.blackagendareport.com/impending-ruling-class-mental-breakdown-and-riot]The Impending Ruling Class Mental Breakdown and Riot[/url] | Glen Ford, Black Agenda Report
[quote]...it is absolutely clear – both here in the belly of the global superpower beast, and in the old empire on the Thames – that every bourgeois liberty is “on the table” for elimination when the oligarchs feel existentially threatened. If you think they went crazy over the election of Trump, an impulsive and undependable member of their own class, imagine what they will countenance when an austerity buster threatens to take leadership of the other half of the electoral duopoly, and then contest for the presidency.[/quote]
Reader comment: "I think this is right. Impeachment is just the latest manifestation of a ruling class nervous breakdown. Trump may be a phony working class champion but even the notion of such a champion is verboten. Now they want to delay impeachment and hold their breath and turn blue until we are all equally crazy with [Trump Derangement Syndrome]. May we all survive it."

o [url=https://jonathanturley.org/2019/12/19/let-them-impeach-and-be-damned-history-repeats-itself-with-a-vengeance-as-the-house-impeaches-donald-trump/]‘Let Them Impeach And Be Damned’: History Repeats Itself With A Vengeance As The House Impeaches Donald Trump”[/url] | Jonathan Turley
[quote]The Trump impeachment is even weaker than the Johnson impeachment, which had an accepted criminal act as its foundation. This will be the first presidential impeachment to go forward without such a recognized crime… The Trump impeachment also marks the fastest impeachment of all time, depending on how you count the days in the Johnson case.

Take the obstruction of Congress article. I have strongly encouraged the House to abandon the arbitrary deadline of impeaching Trump before Christmas and to take a couple more months to build a more complete record and to allow judicial review of the underlying objections of the Trump administration. But Democrats have set a virtual rocket docket schedule and will impeach Trump for not turning over witnesses and documents in that short period even though he is in court challenging congressional demands. Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton both were able to go to court to challenge demands for testimony and documents. The resulting judicial opinions proved critical to the outcome of the cases….

The same is true with the abuse of power article. I testified that the House had a legitimate reason to investigate this allegation and, if there was a showing of a quid pro quo, could impeach Trump for it. Democrats called highly compelling witnesses who said they believed such a quid pro quo existed, but the record is conflicted. There is no statement of a quid pro quo in the conversations between Trump and the Ukrainians, and White House aides have denied being given such a demand. Trump declared during two direct conversations, with Republican Senator Ron Johnson and Ambassador Gordon Sondland, that there was no quid pro quo.

One can question the veracity of his statement, as he likely knew of the whistleblower at the time of the calls. But there is no direct statement in the record by Trump to the contrary. Democrats and their witnesses have instead insisted that the impeachment can be proven by inferences or presumptions. The problem is that there still are a significant number of witnesses who likely have direct evidence, but the House has refused to go to court to compel their appearance. The House will therefore move forward with an impeachment that seems designed to fail in the Senate, as if that is a better option than taking the time to build a complete case.[/quote]
Re. "recognized crime", a reader clarifies: "Johnson was impeached in 1868 for violating the Tenure of Office Act which was passed in 1867. It was an act specifically passed over Johnson’s veto to deny Johnson the right to remove Secretary of War Stanton without the Senate’s approval – which they were not about to give. It was generally accepted that a President had the right to dismiss his cabinet members without the Senate’s approval in the past and if this law had gone to the Supreme Court, it most likely would have been declared unconstitutional. It was just a partisan trap that they knew Johnson would fall into."

And w.r.to "fastest", note that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi issued a statement that she had not set a time for sending the articles of impeachment to the Senate. From the Naked Capitalism [url=https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2019/12/impeachment-semi-open-thread.html]Impeachment Semi-Open Thread[/url]:
[quote]The Democrats appear to be trying to put a completely different face on the delay, that they are tussling with the openly partisan Mitch McConnell over the rules for the hearing. Note that with the Clinton impeachment, this process took place behind closed doors and was approved with a 100-0 vote. This outcome appears implausible now.

The Democrats want a full-blown trial, including calling witnesses like John Bolton, whom the White House directed to turn down House invitations to testify. The Republicans want a fast trial to declare victory and move on.

The Democrats to be hanging their hopes on a longer process to keep Trump under the hot lights and secure Republican defections in a Senate vote from the likes of Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, and Mitt Romney. However, there are also Democrats who may cross the aisle like Doug Jones of Alabama, Joe Manchin of West Virginia, and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona. However, even the Financial Times points out that a long trial could result in the Republicans producing evidence that bolsters Trump. And let us not forget that having Warren and Sanders hostage to the Senate trial means they can’t campaign.

As Politico describes it, the Democrats are trying to pin the partisan tail on the Senate Republicans, and are threatening to keep investigating Trump in the House in the meantime. Again, this has the potential to come off as “Fire, aim, ready,” confirming the point the Republican constitutional expert Jonathan Turley made in his testimony, that the Democrats might well have a case for impeachment, but the evidence in hand didn’t add up to one.

Final thoughts. [url=https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1190058620798558208?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw]Noam Chomsky made a critically important point[/url] I managed to miss as to why the Democrats focused on the Ukraine hairball of all things. Apparently illegal wars that cost the US trillions in treasure and ruin what was left of our good name are fine, but crossing certain lines in party blood sport are not. [/quote]

[URL="https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1190058620798558208?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw"][QUOTE]Noam Chomsky made a critically important point[/QUOTE][/URL]
Sheesh, that's some depressing reading! I generally consider myself pretty inured to the grim realities and possibilities of this moment, but Chomsky hits on one of my sore spots. None of the glaring HC&Ms are addressed. No Emoluments inquiries, for example.

I doubt Trump will be convicted. The voters will simply follow their party affiliations, regardless of any actual facts or what they personally believe.

It's all just a big waste of time, and probably done to distract the little people from some other controversial thing(s) they want to do.

[QUOTE=retina;533260]I doubt Trump will be convicted. The voters will simply follow their party affiliations, regardless of any actual facts or what they personally believe.

It's all just a big waste of time, and probably done to distract the little people from some other controversial thing(s) they want to do.[/QUOTE]
It seems to be counter productive in terms of defeating Trump in the election.

[QUOTE=ewmayer;533246]<snip>
Re. "recognized crime", a reader clarifies: "Johnson was impeached in 1868 for violating the Tenure of Office Act which was passed in 1867. It was an act specifically passed over Johnson’s veto to deny Johnson the right to remove Secretary of War Stanton without the Senate’s approval – which they were not about to give. It was generally accepted that a President had the right to dismiss his cabinet members without the Senate’s approval in the past and if this law had gone to the Supreme Court, it most likely would have been declared unconstitutional. It was just a partisan trap that they knew Johnson would fall into."[/QUOTE]
The Tenure of Office Act was repealed in 1887 when President Grover Cleveland challenged Congress over it. In his 1926 opinion in [url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/272/52]Myers v. United States[/url], Chief Justice Taft wrote (my emphasis):[quote]We are now asked to set aside this construction, thus buttressed, and adopt an adverse view because the Congress of the United States did so during a heated political difference of opinion between the then President and the majority leaders of Congress over the reconstruction measures adopted as a means of restoring to their proper status the States which attempted to withdraw from the Union at the time of the Civil War. The extremes to which the majority in both Houses carried legislative measures in that matter are now recognized by all who calmly review the history of that episode in our Government, leading to articles of impeachment against President Johnson, and his acquittal. Without animadverting [p176] on the character of the measures taken, we are certainly justified in saying that they should not be given the weight affecting proper constitutional construction to be accorded to that reached by the First Congress of the United States during a political calm and acquiesced in by the whole Government for three-quarters of a century, especially when the new construction contended for has never been acquiesced in by either the executive or the judicial departments. While this Court has studiously avoided deciding the issue until it was presented in such a way that it could not be avoided, in the references it has made to the history of the question, and in the presumptions it has indulged in favor of a statutory construction not inconsistent with the legislative decision of 1789, it has indicated a trend of view that we should not and cannot ignore. When, on the merits, we find our conclusion strongly favoring the view which prevailed in the First Congress, we have no hesitation in holding that conclusion to be correct, and [b]it therefore follows that the Tenure of Office Act of 1867, insofar as it attempted to prevent the President from removing executive officer who had been appointed by him by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, was invalid[/b], and that subsequent legislation of the same effect was equally so.

For the reasons given, we must therefore hold that the provision of the law of 1876, by which the unrestricted power of removal of first class postmasters is denied to the President, is in violation of the Constitution, and invalid. This leads to an affirmance of the judgment of the Court of Claims.[/quote]

A curious thing about the phrase [quote]it attempted to prevent the President from removing executive officer who had been appointed by him by and with the advice and consent of the Senate[/quote]
Namely, Congress attempted to prevent Andrew Johnson from removing Edwin Stanton as Secretary of War. But Stanton had been appointed not "by him" (Johnson), but by his predecessor Abraham Lincoln.

[QUOTE=retina;533260]I doubt Trump will be convicted. The voters will simply follow their party affiliations, regardless of any actual facts or what they personally believe.

It's all just a big waste of time, and probably done to distract the little people from some other controversial thing(s) they want to do.[/QUOTE]Of course the Senate won't remove [i]Il Duce[/i] from office. They wouldn't remove him even if he went out on Fifth Avenue and shot somebody -- unless the person he shot was a Republican, but probably not even then.

Without the impeachment proceedings, the provisions of the huge spending bill that just got passed might have received a bit more public scrutiny.

[QUOTE=kladner;533261]It seems to be counter productive in terms of defeating Trump in the election.[/QUOTE]
Yup. :picard:

[QUOTE=Dr Sardonicus;533271]The Tenure of Office Act was repealed in 1887 when President Grover Cleveland challenged Congress over it. In his 1926 opinion in [url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/272/52]Myers v. United States[/url], Chief Justice Taft wrote (my emphasis):
[snip]
A curious thing about the phrase
[quote]it attempted to prevent the President from removing executive officer who had been appointed by him by and with the advice and consent of the Senate[/quote]
Namely, Congress attempted to prevent Andrew Johnson from removing Edwin Stanton as Secretary of War. But Stanton had been appointed not "by him" (Johnson), but by his predecessor Abraham Lincoln.[/QUOTE]

Taft had a very interesting career - post-presidency served as Chief Justice of SCOTUS from 1921 until his death in 1930 - and it's sad that the only way he is remembered by most non-historians is as the butt of fat jokes.

Re. the 'curious' quote, I read 'him' as standing for 'him or his predecessor' - i.e. it makes sense in the "X serves at the pleasure of the president" sense. Just as an incoming president may replace the FBI head, to give another example.

[QUOTE=Dr Sardonicus;533272]Without the impeachment proceedings, the provisions of the huge spending bill that just got passed might have received a bit more public scrutiny.[/QUOTE]

Yep. I've also seen speculation to the effect that a drawn-out Senate trial would have the salutary (for the Dem establishment) effect of pulling Sanders and Warren - the 2 top-polling D candidates with any sort of progressive credentials - off the campaign trail. Feature, not bug.

[QUOTE]Yep. I've also seen speculation to the effect that a drawn-out Senate trial would have the salutary (for the Dem establishment) effect of [U]pulling Sanders and Warren[/U] - the 2 top-polling D candidates with any sort of progressive credentials - [U]off the campaign trail.[/U] Feature, not bug. [/QUOTE]
Funny dat. :ermm:

[QUOTE=ewmayer;533292]Taft had a very interesting career - post-presidency served as Chief Justice of SCOTUS from 1921 until his death in 1930 - and it's sad that the only way he is remembered by most non-historians is as the butt of fat jokes.[/quote]Before the 1912 presidential campaign, Theodore Roosevelt and William Howard Taft had been friends. But during Taft's term as President after being elected in 1908, TR reneged on his promise not to run again after being elected in 1904 (after having become president by succession when William McKinley was shot (September 1, 1901), and serving most of McKinley's second term). [Curious historical connection: It is written on the back of an old family photograph that it was taken on the day McKinley was shot.]

TR campaigned viciously against Taft both for the nomination and in the 1912 campaign. His campaigning against Taft destroyed their friendship and Taft's presidency, and split the Republican vote in the 1912 election, enabling Wilson to win.

Taft was appointed as Chief Justice by President Warren G. Harding in 1921. It was a job he had always wanted much more than being president. He is still the only person to have held both positions.

[quote]Re. the 'curious' quote, I read 'him' as standing for 'him or his predecessor' - i.e. it makes sense in the "X serves at the pleasure of the president" sense. Just as an incoming president may replace the FBI head, to give another example.[/quote]I agree on the quote -- "by him" almost certainly means "by the president." I still think it's curious that the Tenure of Office Act was being applied to the firing of an official who had been appointed before the law was enacted.

[quote]Yep. I've also seen speculation to the effect that a drawn-out Senate trial would have the salutary (for the Dem establishment) effect of pulling Sanders and Warren - the 2 top-polling D candidates with any sort of progressive credentials - off the campaign trail. Feature, not bug.[/QUOTE]
In addition to sidelining D Senators running for president, impeachment proceedings are likely to solidify support for R candidates running in 2020 for Senate seats currently held by R Senators, and possibly also for R candidates running against D candidates for Senate seats currently held by D Senators. Thus, the D's are not only likely to lose the presidential election, they are also unlikely to regain control of the Senate. And I wouldn't want to bet money on their retaining control of the House, either.

The D's seem to have forgotten that the whole [i]raison d'être[/i] for political parties is [i][b]to win elections[/b][/i].

I am not a fan of Mitch McConnell, but when the man's right, he's right: When he says that impeachment of a president is a political process, he is correct. It was certainly the case with Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton. The impeachment of Richard Nixon was aborted when he resigned. The reason he resigned was the prospect of being removed from office, when a recording of him committing obstruction of justice was made public. Nixon was advised that he could only count on about 15 votes against conviction in a Senate impeachment trial. Back then, R Senators (and their constituents) actually [i]cared[/i] about things like that. Now, not so much.

Re. impeachment as a political process, Hamilton, Jay and Madison warned about the obvious downside, that it would be used for partisan reasons, in the Federalist Paper #65 ([url=https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2019/12/200pm-water-cooler-12-19-2019.html#comment-3260599]h/t[/url] NC reader "The Historian"):
[i]
In many cases it will connect itself with the pre-existing factions, and will enlist all their animosities, partialities, influence, and interest on one side or on the other; and in such cases there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.
[/i]
=====================

o [url=https://www.thenation.com/article/impeachment-democrat-pelosi-doomed/]The Democratic Leadership’s Strategy on Impeachment Is Doomed and Dangerous[/url] | Aaron Maté, The Nation
[quote]House Democrats’ vote to impeach President Donald Trump may offer immediate feelings of satisfaction, but it should not be mistaken for a path forward. Behind their lofty rhetoric, Democrats have presented the public with a weak impeachment case and doubled down on a Cold Warrior–inflected, failure-ridden political playbook.[/quote]

o [url=https://yasha.substack.com/p/trumps-impeachment-ukraine-and-war]Trump's Impeachment, Ukraine, and War With Russia[/url] | Yasha Levine: [i]Let me get all official and DC-like and call it the “Ukraine Doctrine.”[/i]
[quote]I’ve been trying to stay away from this spy-fed impeachment show as much as possible, but it has been useful. It has helped bring to light the existence of something that’s now taken as gospel by much of America’s political, military, and foreign policy establishment, but which had never been spelled out so clearly and so publicly and so consistently before. Let me get all official and DC-like and call it the “Ukraine Doctrine.”

It’s the idea that Ukraine is a forward operating base in America’s war with Russia — a strategic military barrier that’s keeping the Russian horde pinned down and preventing it from overrunning the western world. That’s why you constantly hear all this talk about Ukraine being such a “vital” and “strategic” partner and why it requires a constant infusion of weapons. If America doesn’t fight Russia and kill Russians in Ukraine, Russian tanks are going to roll through the Donbass, past Kiev, into Poland, then Germany and France…and then get on a boat and sail all the way to America. And before you know it, Putin is going to be personally at your doorstep, terrorizing you and your family and stealing your Amazon packages.
...
The argument that “we must fight the Russians there so we don’t have to fight them here” was made time and time again in different ways all throughout the impeachment hearings and the non-stop coverage and commentary that surround them. Diplomats and foreign policy experts called up to testify stated it as a matter of fact. Members of congress talked about it as of it was settled policy. It wasn’t debated or called into question by the Democratic Party, and it wasn’t attacked by the Republican opposition either. As far as I could tell, no one disagreed with the premise that America is at war with Russia — and that Ukraine is the battleground. I also don’t remember it being declared by Congress and signed by any president. But then wars aren’t really declared anymore.[/quote]

o And via Twitter:
[i]
We're told that Trump "disregarded US foreign policy towards Ukraine" and "chose not to follow talking points" despite being "briefed on official policy." This impeachment is the ratification of the idea that security state bureaucrats are the keepers of "official policy." Insane
[/i]
— Michael Tracey (@mtracey) [url=https://twitter.com/mtracey/status/1209309649922674688]December 24, 2019[/url]

Note that [url=https://yasha.substack.com/p/twitter-rejects-my-censorship-appeal]Twitter censored Yasha Levine[/url] after he made a clearly sarcastic tweet paraphrasing the essence of the above-described Ukraine Doctrine as expressed by pro-impeachment Democrat and Stanford law professor Pamela Karlan.

[QUOTE=ewmayer;533503]Re. impeachment as a political process, Hamilton, Jay and Madison warned about the obvious downside, that it would be used for partisan reasons, in the Federalist Paper #65 ([url=https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2019/12/200pm-water-cooler-12-19-2019.html#comment-3260599]h/t[/url] NC reader "The Historian"):
[i]
In many cases it will connect itself with the pre-existing factions, and will enlist all their animosities, partialities, influence, and interest on one side or on the other; and in such cases there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.
[/i]
=====================[/QUOTE]
This is very interesting, in view of the frequency with which history books and web sites state that the Founding Fathers failed to anticipate the formation of political parties.

However, Federalist #65 is actually an argument in favor of having the House of Representatives bring Articles of Impeachment, and the Senate hold the trial.

[quote]In Great Britain it is the province of the House of Commons to prefer the impeachment, and of the House of Lords to decide upon it. Several of the State constitutions have followed the example. As well the latter, as the former, seem to have regarded the practice of impeachments as a bridle in the hands of the legislative body upon the executive servants of the government. Is not this the true light in which it ought to be regarded?

Where else than in the Senate could have been found a tribunal sufficiently dignified, or sufficiently independent? What other body would be likely to feel CONFIDENCE ENOUGH IN ITS OWN SITUATION, to preserve, unawed and uninfluenced, the necessary impartiality between an INDIVIDUAL accused, and the REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PEOPLE, HIS ACCUSERS?[/quote]

I am sure that Hamilton would be disappointed in the servility of the Senate R's toward the abominable character who is currently President.

Sometimes one should just do the right thing. And the right thing in this case is to impeach Trump.

If [i]Il Duce[/i] ordered this one, he's really put his (and our) foot in it.

[url=https://apnews.com/5597ff0f046a67805cc233d5933a53ed]Iran says powerful general killed in US airstrike in Iraq[/url][quote]January 3, 2020 GMT

BAGHDAD (AP) — An airstrike killed Gen. Qassem Soleimani, head of Iran's elite Quds Force and architect of its regional security apparatus, at Baghdad's international airport Friday, Iranian state television and three Iraqi officials said, an attack that's expected to draw severe Iranian retaliation against Israel and American interests.

The strike also killed Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, deputy commander of Iran-backed militias in Iraq known as the Popular Mobilization Forces, or PMF, the officials said. The PMF media arm said the two were killed in an American airstrike that targeted their vehicle on the road to the airport.

Citing a Revolutionary Guard statement, Iranian state television said Soleimani was "martyred" in an attack by U.S. helicopters near the airport, without elaborating.[/quote]Apparently a couple of US officials told Reuters that we'd struck targets in Baghdad related to Iran.

[i]Il Duce[/i] tweeted a picture of a US flag, without any comment. ([i]What?[/i] He sent a tweet with [i]no comments?[/i] That's gotta be a first...)

The weather forecast for the Middle East is for heavy weather ahead, with the possibility of rapidly rising oil prices.

This [url=https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6658428/GAO-Decision.pdf]GAO decision[/url] indicates a violation of US law missing from the articles of impeachment. I had kind of [i]wondered[/i] about this. The law in question was passed when Nixon was president, after he tried to "impound" appropriations he didn't like.
[quote][b]Decision[/b]


[b]Matter of:[/b] Office of Management and Budget—Withholding of Ukraine Security Assistance

[b]File:[/b] B-331564

[b]Date:[/b] January 16, 2020

[b]DIGEST[/b]

In the summer of 2019, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) withheld from
obligation funds appropriated to the Department of Defense (DOD) for security
assistance to Ukraine. In order to withhold the funds, OMB issued a series of nine
apportionment schedules with footnotes that made all unobligated balances
unavailable for obligation.

Faithful execution of the law does not permit the President to substitute his own
policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law. OMB withheld funds
for a policy reason, which is not permitted under the Impoundment Control Act (ICA).
The withholding was not a programmatic delay. Therefore, we conclude that OMB
violated the ICA.[/quote]

Outstanding context-providing article for the upcoming Senate trial - note dated 17 December, so some material may be dated:

[url=www.thepolemicist.net/2019/12/impeachment-what-lies-beneath.html]The Polemicist: Impeachment: What Lies Beneath?[/url]

Includes a fascinating history of executive privilege:
[quote] This “executive privilege” argument between the legislature and the executive has been going on for a long time, and has always been settled by which side in the substantive debate the Congress was on. Indeed, those who (like myself) tend to favor the prerogatives of congressional oversight should be aware that the claim of “executive privilege” has a more complicated political history than we might like to think.

Dwight Eisenhower was the [url=https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/when-presidents-use-executive-privilege]first President[/url] to coin the term, and he used “executive privilege” in a way that liberals and leftists have always applauded—against Joe McCarthy. He defied the McCarthy committee subpoenas, forbidding the "provision of any data about internal conversations, meetings, or written communication among staffers, [b]with no exception[/b] to topics or people"—effectively shutting down the Army-McCarthy hearings and throwing Tail-gunner Joe’s career into a tailspin.

In Emile de Antonio’s documentary [i]Point of Order[/i], you’ll see McCarthy—in his inimitably hysterical way, with his lawyer, Bobby Kennedy, sitting behind him—warning his colleagues, including Missouri Democratic Senator Stuart Symington, that President Eisenhower’s “executive privilege” claim has repercussions way beyond this particular hearing or any partisan loyalty, and would come back to bite the Congress and the country if it was accepted.

And so it came to pass, twenty years later, when the Democrats in Congress—including the same Stuart Symington—flipped their position on “executive privilege” when Nixon used it to defend himself. The liberals had come to McCarthy’s position, because it now suited their political objective.

So, no, there is no definitive legal ruling on executive privilege, nothing about it is “self-evident,” nobody has a privileged moral or legal position from which to unequivocally declare that either the use of executive privilege or the appeal to the courts about it is “obstruction,” and Republican senators and their constituents are not going to accept Nancy Pelosi’s or Jerry Nadler’s attempt to do so. Again, there is too much reasonable political doubt. The Obstruction of Congress Article will fail in the Senate and among the people.[/quote]
And ends with a bit of "it would be irresponsible not to" speculation re. why the House Dems are pursuing their incredibly weak, guaranteed-to-fail impeachment charges to a full Senate trial. My own speculation here is to the effect that the Senate trial will have the salutary-for-the-establishment-Dems effect of taking certain key presidential candidates - well, now just one, since the other [url=https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2020/01/200pm-water-cooler-special-warren-goes-rovian-signal-boosting-fundraising-poorly-sourced-politico-hit-piece.html]revealed her true stripes last week[/url] - who have been making discomfitingly progressive-sounding noises off the campaign trail; the alternate ME-policy-driven scenario laid out in the above had not occurred to me.

The death of Harry Dunn, continued...
 

Following up on [url=https://www.mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=528181&postcount=1054]this post[/url] earlier in the thread...

On December 20, 2019, the Crown Prosecution Service formally charged Anne Secoolas with causing death by dangerous driving. The maximum penalty is 14 years in prison, though she would be unlikely to face that severe a punishment.

On January 10, 2020, the UK formally requested the US Department of Justice that she be extradited to the UK to face those charges. The US rejected the request as "highly inappropriate," calling it an "egregious abuse."

IMO the hypocritical duplicity of this statement is topped by that of Sacoolas's lawyer, who said her client "co-operated fully with the investigation [b]and accepted responsibility.[/b]" (my emphasis)

Harry Dunn's parents had, through their spokesman Radd Seiger, previously announced plans to sue both Anne Sacoolas for wrongful death, and the Administration for enabling her to avoid responsibility for her actions.

Back in October, [i]Il Duce[/i] tried to arrange a surprise meeting between the grieving parents and the woman who killed their son, to be capped off with Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin buying them off with a check, and hugs all 'round. He reckoned not with Harry Dunn's parents' humanity, decency, and desire for justice.

A woman in Salida, CO has [url=https://www.csindy.com/coloradosprings/harry-dunns-death-connects-salida-woman-with-british-family/Content?oid=21083848]started a Twitter group[/url], "Americans for Justice 4 Harry." It has attracted a small following.

I facetiously suggest that the UK bring charges against [i]Il Duce[/i] and the US State Department as accessories after the fact (harboring a fugitive and conspiracy to harbor a fugitive).

In lieu of such charges actually being filed, perhaps mock "wanted posters" to that effect could be made up and distributed.

[QUOTE=Dr Sardonicus;535640]On January 10, 2020, the UK formally requested the US Department of Justice that she be extradited to the UK to face those charges. The US rejected the request as "highly inappropriate," calling it an "egregious abuse."[/QUOTE]Then perhaps the UK can reciprocate with the Assange extradition and call it highly inappropriate and egregious abuse.

[QUOTE=retina;535642]Then perhaps the UK can reciprocate with the Assange extradition and call it highly inappropriate and egregious abuse.[/QUOTE]Unlikely as to the characterization -- The US State Department is sticking to its claim that the accused was protected by diplomatic immunity at the time of the offense charged. No such claim can be made for Assange.

As the [i]outcome[/i] of Assange's extradition hearing, I am not enough of a UK expert to be able to dismiss out of hand the possibility that it might be colored by the politics of the Harry Dunn case.

[QUOTE=Dr Sardonicus;535643]As the [i]outcome[/i] of Assange's extradition hearing, I am not enough of a UK expert to be able to dismiss out of hand the possibility that it might be colored by the politics of the Harry Dunn case.[/QUOTE]You may very well say that but I couldn't possibly comment.

[QUOTE=Dr Sardonicus;535640]Following up on [url=https://www.mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=528181&postcount=1054]this post[/url] earlier in the thread...[/QUOTE]

See also [url]https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-northamptonshire-51168822[/url]

Another interesting allegation.


[url]https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7982191/Fugitive-American-wife-Anne-Sacoolas-wanted-death-Harry-Dunn-CIA-spy.html[/url]

Under the heading [url=https://apnews.com/ec85aa4a4fdc5a36b7b85c7a34f1b8f9]How did they drag this out so long?[/url] -- a federal judge told DOJ four and a half months ago either to charge him or drop the investigation -- [quote]WASHINGTON (AP) — Federal prosecutors have declined to charge former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, closing an investigation into whether the longtime target of President Donald Trump's ire had lied to federal officials about his involvement in a news media disclosure, McCabe's legal team said Friday.
<snip>
McCabe's lawyers, Michael Bromwich and David Schertler, said they were gratified by the decision.

"At long last, justice has been done in this matter," the lawyers said in a statement. "We said at the outset of the criminal investigation, almost two years ago, that if the facts and the law determined the result, no charges would be brought."

McCabe, a frequent target of Trump's attacks, has denied that he intentionally misled anyone. He has said his 2018 firing — for what the Justice Department called "lack of candor" — was politically motivated. He sued the Justice Department in August, saying officials had used the inspector general's conclusions as a pretext to rid the FBI of leaders Trump perceived as biased against him.[/quote] The weather forecast is for more twitter tantrums.

[QUOTE=Dr Sardonicus;537592]Under the heading [URL="https://apnews.com/ec85aa4a4fdc5a36b7b85c7a34f1b8f9"]How did they drag this out so long?[/URL] -- a federal judge told DOJ four and a half months ago either to charge him or drop the investigation -- The weather forecast is for more [B]twitter tantrums[/B].[/QUOTE] An absolute blizzard, no doubt. :crazy: Crazy times we live in.

Well, Team D and their FBI pals dragged out the RussiaRussiaRussia and ImpeachImpeachImpeach circuses for over 3 full years before finally bringing some laughably weak-tea 'charges' ... a mere 4 months seems rather modest by comparison. Gives McCabe plenty of time to parlay his 'victimhood' into lucrative MSM gigs and probably a forthcoming book deal.

World's smallest violin playing a tiny sad lament here...

McCabe is as much a creep as most of the other players in this soap opera-slash-'Reality' TV charade. Meanwhile, an unanimous appeals trio rules that members of the House have no standing to sue over Trump's Emoluments violations. :rant: :picard:

Bloomberg Apologized for Stop-and-Frisk. Why Won’t He Say Sorry to Muslims for Spying on Them?
 

NOTE: In the kindest of terms, Bloomberg's apologies for Stop and Frisk (and Terrorize People of Color) have been half-assed. Note, also, that he is a Turncoat. He was a Republican mayor.

"I'm not a Democrat, but I play one in my blizzard of political advertisements." In other words, he is a rank opportunist who can buy his way in as the Great White Savior[SUP]®[/SUP] for the DNC, the DLC, the DCCC.......and their billionaire donors.

Meanwhile, it is duplicitous to say that Bernie Sanders isn't really a Democrat, when the Two Party System is the only path. For that matter, his proposals do not adhere to classic Socialist agendas. He is closer to European Social Democrats. It just seems radical in this benighted country. When someone says, "He's too far Left," remind them just how far to the Right we've been dragged, especially starting with Ronnie Raygun, and carried on since by administrations including Bill Clinton's, with "Welfare Reform," and tough on crime (if committed while Black or Brown) policies.
Also remember what Mr Biden, the Drug Warrior and Harsh Sentencing Guy, was up to during our slide to the Right. :censored:

[URL]https://theintercept.com/2020/02/17/mike-bloomberg-new-york-muslim-surveillance/[/URL]
[QUOTE]The 2016 Republican presidential primaries were a living nightmare for Muslim Americans. From start to finish, GOP candidates fell over one another to fan the flames of anti-Muslim bigotry, anti-Arab racism, and Islamophobic hysteria. We all recall, of course, Donald J. Trump calling for “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what the hell is going on.” But do you also remember Trump saying that he would “strongly consider” closing mosques and setting up a database for all Muslims in the United States? How about Sen. Ted Cruz’s pledge to “patrol and secure Muslim neighborhoods,” or Sen. Marco Rubio’s plan to shut down Muslim cafes and diners? “If I have to monitor a mosque, I’ll monitor a mosque,” proclaimed Sen. Lindsey Graham.

In 2016, Republican presidential candidates were openly fantasizing about surveilling and spying on Muslims. Yet just a few years earlier, in the nation’s biggest city, a Republican mayor had succeeded in going beyond mere rhetoric: Michael Bloomberg oversaw the mass warrantless, suspicionless surveillance of Muslim New Yorkers, as the New York Police Department “mapped” where they prayed, ate, studied, and worked.

Today, the billionaire media mogul is polling third in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination and has secured endorsements from dozens of high-profile Democratic mayors and members of Congress.

I cannot help but ask: Have these elected Democrats lost their minds? Have Democratic voters in, say, Florida, where Bloomberg is now leading in the polls, taken leave of their senses?[/QUOTE]

[i]Il Duce[/i] went to the Daytona 500 yesterday, and was warmly received by all. He did a victory lap around the track in the presidential limousine.

However, God Almighty decided the race should be postponed until Monday. Rain showers made racing impossible.

God is now under criminal investigation for disloyalty.

[QUOTE=Dr Sardonicus;537801][I]Il Duce[/I] went to the Daytona 500 yesterday, and was warmly received by all. He did a victory lap around the track in the presidential limousine.

However, God Almighty decided the race should be postponed until Monday. Rain showers made racing impossible.

God is now under criminal investigation for disloyalty.[/QUOTE]
LOL. Well put. :davieddy:

The law stops here
 

[i]Il Duce[/i]'s border wall has stopped at least one enemy dead in its tracks:

[url=https://apnews.com/1689fa48a2e177d1f397b95ff0cb97db]Homeland Security waives contracting laws for border wall[/url]
[quote]SAN DIEGO (AP) — The Trump administration said Tuesday that it will waive federal contracting laws to speed construction of a wall at the U.S. - Mexico border.

The Department of Homeland Security said waiving procurement regulations will allow 177 miles (283 kilometers) of wall to be built more quickly in California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas. The 10 waived laws include requirements for having open competition, justifying selections and receiving all bonding from a contractor before any work can begin.

The acting Homeland Security secretary, Chad Wolf, is exercising authority under a 2005 law that gives him sweeping powers to waive laws for building border barriers.[/quote]

Followup on Daytona 500
 

At the Daytona 500, [i]Il Duce[/i] said [quote]For 500 heart-pounding miles, these fierce competitors will chase the checkered flag, fight for the Harley J. Earl Trophy and make their play for pure American glory. And that’s what it is, pure American glory.[/quote]

Denny Hamlin won the 2020 Daytona 500, driving a Toyota.

Ryan Newman finished ninth after his car hit the wall, went airborne, and was then hit by another racer on the last lap, the flaming wreckage of his car skidding across the finish line upside-down.

It took workers several long minutes to extract Newman, who is hospitalized in serious condition with injuries described as "non-life-threatening."

It seems DJT is on a bit of a pardoning spree this day - [url=https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2020/02/200pm-water-cooler-2-18-2020.html#comment-3295270]discussion on NC[/url]. Lambert Strether points out the bipartisanship displayed by the Blagojevich pardon, but maybe that one had more to do with Blago having the kind of great hair that Trump clearly but vainly tries to emulate. Urblintz points up the weird aspect of the Roger Stone pardon, namely that Stone was convicted for making false statements of a nature which arguably hurt Trump at the time, because they supported the now-debunked Russia-Wikileaks collusion narrative:
[i]
Aaron Maté tweeted at the time: “Roger Stone was found guilty on charges stemming from his [b]false[/b] claim of a Wikileaks backchannel. In reality, he had none. Let that sink in: the top proponents of Trump-Russia-Wikileaks “collusion” are now pretending that this verdict doesn’t undermine their conspiracy theory.”[/i]

Another reader notes that were Trump to pardon some high-profile African-Americans, that could get him some votes there. It certainly wouldn't be any crasser a way to curry favor in the black community than Mike "Mr. stop and frisk" Bloomberg's outright vote-buying there. Bloomberg's record on race and vis-a-vis women are, if anything, worse than Trump's, which makes it hilarious that the establishment Dems are flocking to support him now that their original manufactured-consent candidate, Biden, he of the rigged polls ("gosh, who could've guessed that landline-polling was demographically unrepresentative?") has flamed out spectacularly in the first few D-primary states.

[QUOTE=ewmayer;537882]It seems DJT is on a bit of a pardoning spree this day - [url=https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2020/02/200pm-water-cooler-2-18-2020.html#comment-3295270]discussion on NC[/url]. Lambert Strether points out the bipartisanship displayed by the Blagojevich pardon, but maybe that one had more to do with Blago having the kind of great hair that Trump clearly but vainly tries to emulate.
<snip>[/quote]
Funny thing about that. In a line that's now disappeared from the AP news story I read it in, [quote]Blagojevich's hair turned white behind bars because hair dyes are banned in prison.[/quote]Oh, the humanity!
[quote]Another reader notes that were Trump to pardon some high-profile African-Americans, that could get him some votes there.[/QUOTE]
[i]Il Duce[/i] already [i]has[/i] pardoned a high-profile African-American -- Jack Johnson.

The president tweeted today that he would pardon whoever killed any "Democrat" candidate running for federal office.

The president also tweeted that he would pardon whoever was involved in killing any US Senator or Representative who voted against his wishes, or any Federal judge who ruled against him.

Senator Lindsey Graham said, "It's about time we had a president who truly stood up against this country's enemies."

Rep. Devin Nunes said, "The Democrat majority in the House is about to come to an end."

[QUOTE=Dr Sardonicus;537913]The president tweeted today that he would pardon whoever killed any "Democrat" candidate running for federal office.

The president also tweeted that he would pardon whoever was involved in killing any US Senator or Representative who voted against his wishes, or any Federal judge who ruled against him.
[/QUOTE]

Links, please?

[QUOTE=masser;537924][QUOTE=Dr Sardonicus;537913]The president tweeted today that he would pardon whoever killed any "Democrat" candidate running for federal office.

The president also tweeted that he would pardon whoever was involved in killing any US Senator or Representative who voted against his wishes, or any Federal judge who ruled against him.[/QUOTE]
Links, please?[/QUOTE]Well gee whiz, it appears I may have jumped the gun on this one. Sorry!

[url=https://apnews.com/3934adc00f38667b267345b8628e4f12]Lawyer: Assange was offered US pardon if he cleared Russia[/url]
[quote]LONDON (AP) — A lawyer for Julian Assange said Wednesday that the WikiLeaks founder plans to claim during his extradition hearing that he was offered a pardon by the Trump administration if he agreed to say Russia was not involved in leaking Democratic National Committee emails during the 2016 U.S. election campaign.

Assange is fighting extradition to the United States on spying charges, and his full court hearing is due to begin next week.

At a preliminary hearing, lawyer Edward Fitzgerald said that in August 2017, then-Republican Congressman Dana Rohrabacher visited Assange at the Ecuadorian embassy in London.

Fitzgerald said a statement from another Assange lawyer, Jennifer Robinson, recounted "Mr. Rohrabacher going to see Mr. Assange and saying, on instructions from the president, he was offering a pardon or some other way out, if Mr. Assange ... said Russia had nothing to do with the DNC leaks."[/quote]

Oh, he was treated so unfairly...
 

Today is sentencing day for Roger Stone. Since speculation is rife that [i]Il Duce[/i] will pardon him, I will exhibit just one of the crimes Stone was convicted of.

Roger Stone was convicted of "witness tampering" for his activities WRT Randy Credico, whom he told to "take the fifth," lie, say he couldn't remember and stonewall in official inquiries. Stone also threatened to take away Credico's therapy dog.

He threatened to take away a man's [i]dog[/i]. How low can you go?

Stone's threats were successful -- Credico took the fifth.

This is obviously the kind of behavior [i]Il Duce[/i] approves of.

Witness tampering strikes at the foundation of our legal system. The penalties are correspondingly severe. On this one count alone, Stone could (in theory) be fined and sentenced to 20 years in prison. I have highlighted relevant provisions.

[quote]18 U.S. Code § 1512. Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant

(a)
<snip>
(b) [b]Whoever knowingly uses intimidation, threatens, or corruptly persuades another person, or attempts to do so,[/b] or engages in misleading conduct toward another person, [b]with intent to -[/b]
[indent](1) [b]influence, delay, or prevent the testimony of any person in an official proceeding;[/b]

(2) cause or induce any person to -
[indent](A) [b]withhold testimony, or withhold a record, document, or other object, from an official proceeding;[/b]

(B) alter, destroy, mutilate, or conceal an object with intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding;

(C) evade legal process summoning that person to appear as a witness, or to produce a record, document, or other object, in an official proceeding; or

(D) be absent from an official proceeding to which such person has been summoned by legal process; or[/indent]
(3) hinder, delay, or prevent the communication to a law enforcement officer or judge of the United States of information relating to the commission or possible commission of a Federal offense or a violation of conditions of probation, supervised release, parole, or release pending judicial proceedings;
[indent][b]shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.[/b][/indent][/indent][/quote]

Sanders wins Nevada Democratic caucuses with wave of young and Latino voters
 

Sanders is reported at 46.6% to 46.8% of delegates for some time now in the Nevada returns.

[URL]https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-primary-elections/nevada-results[/URL]

[URL]https://townhall.com/tipsheet/townhallcomstaff/2020/02/22/nevada-caucus-results-n2561655[/URL]

[URL]https://www.cnn.com/election/2020/state/nevada[/URL]

[URL]https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/nevada-caucuses-set-kick-amid-fears-plans-avoid-repeat-iowa-n1140896?icid=election_results[/URL]

MSNBC Matthews to Establishment Democrats: Vote for Trump
[URL]https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2020/02/22/msnbcs-chris-matthews-democratic-party-better-off-with-four-more-years-of-trump-than-a-sanders-presidency-n2561741[/URL]
[QUOTE]Oh, and it gets worse. Matthews appears to be suffering something of a meltdown, as he compared Sanders winning Nevada to the Nazi conquest of France. [/QUOTE]

With all due respect to Chris Matthews, I think a more apt comparison to Bernie Sanders' thumping win in Nevada is the 1948 election victory of Harry Truman.

And, speaking of the 1948 election, allegations of "landline only polling" in this day and age are reminiscent of what is probably the best-known case of sampling bias in polling history.

[url=https://medium.com/@ODSC/dewey-defeats-truman-how-sampling-bias-can-ruin-your-model-f4f67989709e]Dewey Defeats Truman: How Sampling Bias can Ruin Your Model[/url]:
[quote]In the 1948 election season, Thomas Dewey faced off against incumbent Harry Truman for the presidency, running on the Republican and Democratic ticket, respectively. The Chicago Daily Tribune, a Republican-leaning paper at the time, ran a poll forecasting the outcome of the election, with a decisive win for Dewey on November 6th. The night before the election was called, the Tribune went to press with the now-infamous headline: DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN.

Of course, that isn't what happened. President Truman was elected with a comfortable margin of 49.6 percent of the popular vote to Dewey's 45.1 percent. In the Electoral College, Truman won 303–189.

At the end of the day, the Tribune's polling predictions were off dramatically.

When the Tribune revisited their poll to see what went wrong, they quickly discovered that they had oversampled Republicans in their data for a pretty simple reason: the poll was conducted entirely over the phone. Since wealthy people were more likely to have a phone and were also more likely to identify as Republican, the poll was skewed significantly towards Dewey.[/quote]

[QUOTE=Dr Sardonicus;535643]Unlikely as to the characterization -- The US State Department is sticking to its claim that the accused was protected by diplomatic immunity at the time of the offense charged. No such claim can be made for Assange.

As the [i]outcome[/i] of Assange's extradition hearing, I am not enough of a UK expert to be able to dismiss out of hand the possibility that it might be colored by the politics of the Harry Dunn case.[/QUOTE]You may be interested to read [URL="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51602975"]this from the Beeb[/URL].

Note the additional comment by Pompeo aboiut the Randy Andy case. Nothing is ever exclusively rules-based.

[QUOTE=xilman;538181]You may be interested to read [URL="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51602975"]this from the Beeb[/URL].

Note the additional comment by Pompeo aboiut the Randy Andy case. Nothing is ever exclusively rules-based.[/QUOTE]

In the words of multi-term Victorian-era PM Oliver Gladstone: "She who rules the waves, can waive the rules".

Re. the Assange and Stone cases, based on the nullity of credible evidence provided to date of any Russian Collusion with Wikileaks or anyone else w.r.to the 2016 elections, Trump's offer to Assange can be interepreted as "tell the truth, and all will be well". After all, last July none other that a federal judge ordered Robert Mueller et al to desist from public claims of Russian collusion:

[url=https://thefederalist.com/2019/07/31/robert-mueller-defy-court-order-stop-lying-russian-companies/]Did Robert Mueller Defy A Court Order To Stop Lying About Russian Companies?[/url] | The Federalist: [i]Nobody apparently reminded Robert Mueller that Judge Friedrich ordered his team to stop saying Concord and the Internet Research Agency work for the Russian government.[/i]
[quote]In case you haven’t been keeping up with every detail of the winding Donald Trump-Russia collusion investigation (don’t feel badly, Robert Mueller hasn’t either), a little review will help explain the importance of a bombshell that is about to go off.

You may remember a triumphant Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein holding a dramatic press conference in February 2018, in which he announced the indictment of 13 Russian nationals and three Russian companies. These companies included Concord Management and the Internet Research Agency (IRA).

The indictment accused Concord and IRA of creating fake social media accounts to post “derogatory information” about a number of candidates, including “disparaging” Hillary Clinton. There are two of these “Russian interference cases.” The one involving Concord and IRA does not involve hacking or trafficking in stolen emails. The Concord/IRA case is sometimes referred to as the “Russian Troll Farm” case.

The indictment of Russian individuals and companies appeared, at first, to be a mere publicity stunt, as nobody believed the Russians would voluntarily appear in court to challenge the charges. But then one of them did. Concord hired an attorney to fight the indictment.

Both Mueller’s report and Attorney General William Barr’s April press conference releasing the report included statements strongly suggesting that Concord and IRA worked at the direction of the Russian government. Nobody bothered to notice that the original indictment did not charge Concord with being a tool of the Russian government until Concord filed a motion for a contempt citation against the government for making that allegation.

On July 1, 2019, Judge Dabney L. Friedrich issued an order (to which the government agreed) prohibiting further public statements by the government about the Concord and IRA case, particularly statements alleging that Concord and IRA worked on behalf of the Russian government. A more detailed discussion of this train wreck can be read [url=https://thefederalist.com/2019/07/11/doj-attorney-says-russian-government-nothing-troll-farms/]here[/url].

[b]But Mueller Just Did It Again[/b]

This takes us to the Mueller testimony before the House Judiciary and Intelligence Committees last week. On live television in front of an audience of millions, former special counsel Robert Mueller carefully skirted speculating on the guilt or innocence of Roger Stone due to his ongoing criminal prosecution. But nobody apparently reminded Mueller that Judge Friedrich had ordered Mueller’s team to stop saying Concord and IRA worked for the Russian government.

The government hasn’t alleged that, can’t prove it, and abandoned those allegations in open court. The government had only just barely escaped a criminal contempt citation because Mueller’s report and Barr’s press conference seemed to allege that the Russians (the Russians, as in the Russian government) were behind the troll farms. And that’s not true, according to the government’s own admissions.[/quote]
Given Mueller's flagrant subsequent disregard for her court order, the judge in question was way too kind in giving him a pass with regard to intent.

Now to the Stone conviction -- as I noted last week, a Trump pardon of Stone would be quite curious because Stone was convicted of making the same kind of false claims of Russian intereference as Mueller himself (you see, lying *to* the FBI is a serious crime, but lying *by* the FBI is a routine matter and almost never prosecuted), and further intimidating a witness into echoing the same false claims. [url=https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2019/11/world-exclusive-post-testimony-interview-with-randy-credico/]Here is Craig Murray on the case[/url]:
[quote]Following his appearance as the main witness for the prosecution against former Trump aide Roger Stone, my good friend Randy Credico has had the entire American mainstream media chasing him for an interview. He has however decided to give only this single interview to me, which is put out here and which is free for everybody to use, with acknowledgement.

Five of the seven charges against Stone relate directly to Randy, who is the witness that Stone is accused of tampering with and attempting to intimidate. There is a tremendous irony here. The Mueller investigation was set up to reveal links between the Trump campaign, Russia and Wikileaks. There are no such links, as has already been proven in another US court. Roger Stone ends up being charged with lying to the Senate Intelligence Committee, by pretending he had links to Wikileaks when he did not. He is also charged with trying to intimidate Randy into saying there was such a link and Randy was the back channel; which I myself can attest is nonsense.

The Mueller investigation has thus ultimately ended up prosecuting people for telling the same pack of lies that Mueller himself was pushing. The Clinton media, including CNN, the Washington Post and New York Times, are baffled by this. They follow the Stone trial assiduously from delight in seeing a long term Trump hanger-on brought down, and in the hope something will come out about Wikileaks or Russia. Their reporting, as that of the BBC, has been deliberately vague on why Stone is being charged, contriving to leave their audience with the impression that Stone’s trial proves Trump connections to Wikileaks and Russia, when in fact it proves the precise opposite.[/quote]

[url=https://apnews.com/f20e530ae6dfe4926f81a11905425e2b]Brazilian who met Trump has virus; no plans to test Trump[/url]
[quote]Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro's communications director, Fábio Wajngarten, tested positive just days after traveling with Bolsonaro to a meeting with Trump and senior aides in Florida. White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham said in a statement Thursday that "exposures from the case are being assessed, which will dictate next steps."

"Both the President and Vice President had almost no interactions with the individual who tested positive and do not require being tested at this time," Grisham said.

Wajngarten joined Bolsonaro on a three-day trip to the U.S. and on Saturday was at Trump's Mar-a-Lago club, where he posted a photo of himself posing beside Trump. A video from the event also showed him standing directly behind both presidents as they addressed a crowd. Bolsonaro and Wajngarten later attended a birthday party for Kimberly Guilfoyle, who is dating the president's son Donald Trump Jr.[/quote]

[QUOTE=Dr Sardonicus;539580][URL="https://apnews.com/f20e530ae6dfe4926f81a11905425e2b"]Brazilian who met Trump has virus; no plans to test Trump[/URL][/QUOTE]
What?? Nooo!
If COWH dies from it, he will became a martyr and be forever remembered as the first POTUS killed by a virus...
Better test him, and in case he tests positive, treat him and cure him, and don't let him die, so the history can peacefully forget him when he finishes his mandate...

(Edit: in this respect, it just occurred to me that this is the first president the people MUST take care of, not to let him doing anything worth to remember, including dying, during his mandate... :w00t:)

[QUOTE=LaurV;539591]What?? Nooo!

If COWH dies from it, he will became a martyr and be forever remembered as the first POTUS killed by a virus... [/QUOTE]At least the second, so it wouldn't be a big deal.

[url]https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/59/7/990/2895539[/url]

[QUOTE=retina;539592]At least the second, so it wouldn't be a big deal.[/QUOTE]
Whoops, no idea! Mea culpa.

(You had a so large number of presidents..., difficult to find a property which none of them had :razz: - as we already had a talk today about the strong law of small numbers, hehe).

"They" say the virus has an incubation period of up to two weeks. So I guess we'll know by next weekend whether the prez -- or the "geriatric Ken doll" -- are infected.

I can only imagine what an epidemiologist or public health official would make of the statement [quote]Both the President and Vice President had almost no interactions with the individual who tested positive and do not require being tested at this time[/quote]
"Almost no interactions?" Wow. I suppose any public health official working for the federal government would be fired for saying anything about this lackadaisical attitude.

Meanwhile, I wonder how many people are going to bail on meetings with [i]Il Duce[/i] and Geriatric Ken.

So what are the chances of:
[LIST][*]Trump not contracting the virus and the evangelicals claiming it to be proof of his godhood.[*]Trump contracting the virus and blaming the liberals, MSM, Chinese, Mexicans, etc.[*]Trump contracting the virus but surviving and the evangelicals claiming it is because they prayed for him.[*]Trump dying from the virus and the evangelicals painting him as a martyr.[/LIST]

[QUOTE=LaurV;539593](You had a so large number of presidents..., difficult to find a property which none of them had :razz: - as we already had a talk today about the strong law of small numbers, hehe).[/QUOTE]

Not really - off the top of my head:

o No women;
o No asian or latino;
o No professed atheists, muslims, jews, or Mormons;

"No professed atheists" needs [url=https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/01/20/almost-all-presidents-have-been-christians/]a bit of nuancing[/url]:
[quote]Two of the most famous presidents in American history had no formal religious affiliation. The first, Thomas Jefferson, lost his faith in orthodox Christianity at an early age, but continued to believe in an impersonal God as the creator of the universe. Jefferson famously edited the New Testament by removing references to the miracles and leaving in Jesus’ teachings.

The second, Abraham Lincoln, was raised in a religious household and spoke frequently about God (particularly as president), but never joined a church. Scholars have long debated Lincoln’s beliefs, including the question of whether or not he was a Christian, and some aspects of his faith remain a mystery.

Lincoln is not the only president for whom there is some uncertainty surrounding his affiliation and beliefs. Some presidents were more private than others about their religious leanings and some may have evolved in their beliefs during their life.[/quote]
I'm sure fellow readers can come up with quite a few more "none have been/done..." categories. There are alos lots of interesting "very few" ones, e.g. "who was the last US president who had no war during his term?, and "who was the only U.S. president who never married?

[QUOTE=ewmayer;539649]Not really - off the top of my head:
<snip>
"No professed atheists" needs [url=https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/01/20/almost-all-presidents-have-been-christians/]a bit of nuancing[/url]:

I'm sure fellow readers can come up with quite a few more "none have been/done..." categories. There are alos lots of interesting "very few" ones, e.g. "who was the last US president who had no war during his term?, and "who was the only U.S. president who never married?[/QUOTE]

Only never-married US President -- James Buchanan. Curiously, in modern times we had a man named Patrick Buchanan running for president (I don't know if he's related, but certainly not a direct descendant), and it was said at the time that [i]he[/i] had never been married (though he married in 1971 and the marriage has lasted to this day).

Jefferson isn't the only of our Founding Fathers who was a Deist. So was Benjamin Franklin.

[QUOTE=ewmayer;539649]Not really - off the top of my head:

o No women;
o No asian or latino;
o No professed atheists, muslims, jews, or Mormons;

"No professed atheists" needs [url=https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/01/20/almost-all-presidents-have-been-christians/]a bit of nuancing[/url]:

I'm sure fellow readers can come up with quite a few more "none have been/done..." categories. There are alos lots of interesting "very few" ones, e.g. "who was the last US president who had no war during his term?, and "who was the only U.S. president who never married?[/QUOTE]No Hindus, Buddhists, ...

Ok, that was an easy extrapolation of your third example.

How about those born outside the US?

Ex-member of any number of professions, examples being astronauts and taxidermists.

We've had one (at least)in a wheel-chair but how many with prosthetic limbs?

[QUOTE=xilman;539653]No Hindus, Buddhists, ...
<snip>
How about those born outside the US?
<snip>[/QUOTE]
Apart from those born before the founding of the republic, none.

Among [i]candidates[/i] who come to mind, George Romney was born in Mexico, and John McCain was born in the Canal Zone.

The Constitution requires a President not born before the US existed be a "natural born citizen." Besides those born in the US and under US jurisdiction (so not the children of foreign diplomats) [Fourtenth Amendment] this generally allows those born of at least one citizen parent to be considered eligible.

Barack Obama was born in the US (Hawaii,1961), and his mother was a US-born citizen, but the [i]false rumor[/i] that he was born outside the US (Kenya or Canada, depending on which issue of which tabloid you read) and not a citizen, was the beginning of the political career of the COWH.

[QUOTE=rogue;539647]So what are the chances of:
[LIST][*]Trump not contracting the virus and the evangelicals claiming it to be proof of his godhood.[*]Trump contracting the virus and blaming the liberals, MSM, Chinese, Mexicans, etc.[*]Trump contracting the virus but surviving and the evangelicals claiming it is because they prayed for him.[*]Trump dying from the virus and the evangelicals painting him as a martyr.[/LIST][/QUOTE]
I don't know, but the Mayor of Miami, who also met with Bolsonaro [i]et al[/i] the same weekend as COWH, has tested positive for coronavirus.

What are the chances that, if the situation gets really bad in this country, [i]Il Duce[/i] blames Obama? Or says the general election will have to be cancelled?

[QUOTE=Dr Sardonicus;539659]What are the chances that, if the situation gets really bad in this country, [i]Il Duce[/i] blames Obama? Or says the general election will have to be cancelled?[/QUOTE]

I think that he already blamed Obama for why we aren't prepared for the crisis. I wonder if he has the power to cancel the election. I would not put it past the Senate or Trump to do that.

[QUOTE=rogue;539662]I think that he already blamed Obama for why we aren't prepared for the crisis.[/QUOTE]Maybe so.

I'm sure it's Obama's fault that in May of 2018, the Admin [url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2018/05/10/top-white-house-official-in-charge-of-pandemic-response-exits-abruptly/]destroyed the NSC office that had been set up to deal with pandemics[/url].
:rolleyes:

[QUOTE=ewmayer;539649]Not really - off the top of my head:
o No women;
o No asian or latino;
o No professed atheists, muslims, jews, or Mormons;
[/QUOTE]
Nothing like a joke killer... (reality is that I didn't expect it from [U]you[/U], but from other participants on this thread :smile:)
However, in the light of the discussion, Trump can't become woman, Latino, or Asian. He may want to become Mormon, due to the number of wives allowed, but well...

Edit:
(:davar55: !! By a heavenly coincidence, I mistyped "Asin" instead of Asian - but he can't became one either, because he already is one - in [URL="https://translate.google.com/#view=home&op=translate&sl=ro&tl=en&text=asin"]google translate[/URL] you have to click the English word to see alternatives, because the default translation is wrong, or you can use the [URL="https://translate.google.com/#view=home&op=translate&sl=ro&tl=en&text=asini"]plural form[/URL], which is a bit better translated, or try translating it from Latin).

[QUOTE]So I guess we'll know by next weekend whether the prez -- or the "[U]geriatric Ken doll[/U]" -- are infected.[/QUOTE]

Great amusement ensued when I told my partner about Mike "Geriatric Ken Doll" Pence.

[QUOTE=kladner;539682]Great amusement ensued when I told my partner about Mike "Geriatric Ken Doll" Pence.[/QUOTE]
Thanks are due my aunt and uncle living in Indiana, where, before Geriatric Ken was tapped to be VP, he was the widely-detested Governor, facing defeat in his 2016 re-election bid.

[url=https://apnews.com/715fb5cd41518ac46e3a73c85b55c438]Trump says he's likely to be tested after repeat exposure[/url][quote]WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump said Friday he will “most likely” be tested for the novel coronavirus, as questions swirled about why he, his top aides and his family weren’t doing more to protect themselves and others after repeated exposure to COVID-19.

Trump has now had multiple direct and indirect contacts with people who have tested positive for the pandemic virus, which on Friday prompted him to declare a state of emergency as schools and workplaces across the country shuttered, flights were canceled and Americans braced for war against the threat.

Several top administration officials, including Attorney General William Barr and Trump's daughter and senior adviser Ivanka Trump, also met last week with an Australian Cabinet minister who on Friday was confirmed positive.
<snip>
The president, according to two people close to the White House, has been reluctant to take the test for fear it would project weakness or worry. Trump has wanted to appear in full control during the crisis, especially as he tries to calm stock markets amid historic drops, and has expressed concerns that taking personal steps could undermine that appearance.

Asked whether he was being selfish by refusing to isolate himself to avoid potentially infecting others and what advice he had for people who may be receiving contradictory messages, Trump said, "I think they have to listen to their doctors."

White House officials insist Trump had only minimal contact with Fábio Wajngarten, Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro's communications director, who has tested positive for the virus. Wajngarten posed for a photo with Trump, shook his hand and attended a birthday party held for Kimberly Guilfoyle, who is dating the president's eldest son. Trump had more extensive contact with Forster, but the White House physician said in a Friday night letter that because "all interactions occurred before any symptoms were onset," the White House considers them "low risk" so "there is no indication for home quarantine at this time."[/quote]What a perfect example of narcissism. [i]They[/i] have to listen to [i]their[/i] doctors. But not me!

[QUOTE=Dr Sardonicus;539696][url=https://apnews.com/715fb5cd41518ac46e3a73c85b55c438]Trump says he's likely to be tested after repeat exposure[/url]What a perfect example of narcissism.[/QUOTE]It's all about [i]looking[/i] good, rather than actually being good.

It's all just a big show folks, nothing real to see there. If you want reality turn off your phone, TV and router and go outside to see the real world.

[QUOTE=retina;539697]If you want reality turn off your phone, TV and router and go outside to see the real world.[/QUOTE]

The weather really, [i]really[/i] sucks. Got any more bright ideas?

[QUOTE=Dr Sardonicus;539699]The weather really, [i]really[/i] sucks. Got any more bright ideas?[/QUOTE]Turn off your car engine also. Then the global warming will cease and the weather will return to normal soon. Be patient.

[url=https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/0f49dbcf-1d42-4c90-bf24-64a0722a3fa6]Get on your bikes and ride![/url]

[QUOTE=retina;539705]Turn off your car engine also. Then the global warming will cease and the weather will return to normal soon. Be patient.
<snip>
[/QUOTE]Hmm, that's a thought. Imagine [i]Il Duce[/i] trying to get on a bicycle. Heck, I might be willing to [i]pay[/i] to see that!

I have wondered from time to time, whether he has, or has ever had, a driver's license.

[QUOTE=rogue;539647]So what are the chances of:
[LIST][*]Trump not contracting the virus and the evangelicals claiming it to be proof of his godhood.[*]Trump contracting the virus and blaming the liberals, MSM, Chinese, Mexicans, etc.[*]Trump contracting the virus but surviving and the evangelicals claiming it is because they prayed for him.[*]Trump dying from the virus and the evangelicals painting him as a martyr.[/LIST][/QUOTE]


And what are the chances that the pandemic fizzles and Trump proclaims that he personally saved America from the worst disease in history?

Does this mean that I'm put in the uncomfortable position of rooting for several thousand Americans dying so that does not happen?

[QUOTE=Prime95;539721]And what are the chances that the pandemic fizzles and Trump proclaims that he personally saved America from the worst disease in history?

Does this mean that I'm put in the uncomfortable position of rooting for several thousand Americans dying so that does not happen?[/QUOTE]I'm not sure he won't make that claim even if the pandemic [i]doesn't[/i] fizzle.

The Admin has, after all, [i]already[/i] tried to prevent people from being [i]tested[/i] for the virus. If someone isn't tested for the virus, you can't say they died of it, right?

Yes, I know, they're talking about having people tested [i]en masse[/i], perhaps at shopping malls or whatever. So, they just issue dummy test kits. Everybody tests negative. Problem solved!

Oh, local officials are reporting unusual numbers of severe illnesses and deaths from acute respiratory infections? Suppress the reports in the name of "National Security." Or publicly vilify the officials in question. Say they're Democrats or "Never Trumpers." Then, simply deny the reports. It's a proven approach. Problem solved!

And then he can say, without fear if contradiction, that the pandemic did, after all, miraculously go away in April, just as he said it would.

[QUOTE=Prime95;539721]And what are the chances that the pandemic fizzles and Trump proclaims that he personally saved America from the worst disease in history?

Does this mean that I'm put in the uncomfortable position of rooting for several thousand Americans dying so that does not happen?[/QUOTE]
There are no good answers just now. The virus will run its course, one way or another, regardless of anybody's wishes. We are so far behind the curve in the States; where we're not testing enough to even know what's really going on. This is also [I]another[/I] place where the regime muzzles scientists for political reasons, thus delaying and hampering the response to the pandemic.

That does not inspire confidence.

[url=https://apnews.com/3d0cd1ab7a39e9635ab9f5866b9a6684]Doctor says Trump tests negative for coronavirus[/url][quote]WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump has tested negative for the new coronavirus, according to the president's personal physician.[/quote]