A Wildass Story about Mike Johnson's Attempt to Found a Bible-Thumping Law School

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Saturday November 04, 2023 · 3:10 PM PDT

2023/11/04 · 15:10

From WaPo, a gob-smacking tale, from the school’s gay pedophilic namesake--alleged--to Johnson’s epic lies and incompetence, to the $5,000,000 price tag. Would be hilarious if the protagonist weren’t two heartbeats away from the White House.

An Unremarked Bombshell in the Eastman Memo

sharman

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Friday June 17, 2022 · 5:28 PM PDT

2022/06/17 · 17:28

At least, I haven’t seen any remarking on it; I found it gob-smacking.

The memo leads off with this statement of truthy purported “fact”:

“7 states have transmitted dual slates of electors to the President of the Senate.”

That is the premise for the coup plan, that seven states submitted dual slates of electors. From that, the “president of the Senate”*** was to nullify all electoral votes from those states, leaving Trump with a majority or, if the Dems insisted that 270 votes were required, throwing it to the House for a 12^th Amendment resolution in which each state gets one vote and oh yeah, the undemocratic Constitution again awards the White House to the rural states’ minority party.

Eastman states as a fact that these seven states “transmitted dual slates of electors.” We know of course that those states’ only official acts were transmitting Biden slates. Bid-ass lie. We also know that the competing slates were signed by GOP operatives at, ultimately, Eastman’s direction.

Now, I would have conceded all day long that there is a credible rationale for those GOP operatives to have submitted the second slate. The law requires that electoral slates be submitted by a certain date; were Mike Lindell’s cavalry to arrive at the Supreme Court proving beyond doubt that Hugo Chavez fraudulently threw the election to Biden, well, these slates were provided just in case it turned out that Trump won after all, it wouldn’t be fair to deny that victory on the technicality of a missed date, would it?

Except now we see that these slates were not solicited just in case. It was Eastman’s intention all along to declare, as a fact, that there were two equally legitimate slates from seven states, giving him “dual slates” with which TrumpCo could invoke the 12^th Amendment authority and historical precedent.

The culpability of the GOP operatives who signed the second slates will hinge on whether they were told that the slates were solicited purely as a just in case, or were fully aware Eastman’s plan. Eastman’s guilt is beyond doubt. One of the two statutes that have been named as a basis for criminal prosecution of the coup operatives is “fraud on the United States.” The basis for finding such fraud has been broadly interpreted, but this here is textbook fraud, a bald-faced lie: “Seven states have transmitted dual slates of electors.”

Finally on this point, you’ll recall that some operatives hedged, or appeared to hedge, by expressly making their competing slates conditioned on Trump being declared the winner. Seems like those operatives acted in good faith, made it clear they were not participating in Eastman’s game, right? But one of those I particularly recall, Pennsylvania’s I believe, is not quite so innocent on closer look. That slate was qualified by “in case Trump is declared the winner in the courts”—so far so good—“or other official proceeding.” An “other official proceeding,” like, say, an act of Congress?

So, was this a sly maneuver by the Pennsylvania operatives, a cynical trick in which the very transmission of the competing electoral slate creates the means by which its condition is satisfied? “There are dual slates from Pennsylvania; Pennsylvania’s votes must therefore be thrown out; the House votes and Trump is declared the winner in an “’official proceeding’”; the condition is satisfied and the competing slate no longer has any qualifications as to its intended effectiveness.”

If those evil pricks don’t serve time for this, I fucking give up.

***The other gob-smacker, which has been remarked on but not nearly enough, is that Eastman’s plot openly envisioned that it wouldn’t be Pence acting as the “President of the Senate,” but Grassley. (“VP Pence, presiding over the joint session, or Senate Pro Tempore Grassley, if Pence recuses himself)…”) Eastman’s predicate there is that Pence just happens to “recuse himself.” (Hm, why would Pence do that?****) We know that on January 5, Grassley remarked that it would be he, not Pence, presiding.

If it can be shown that the mob’s violent intimidation of Pence was fully intended to be the reason Pence decided to “recuse” himself, then every knowing GOP operative can be swept into the seditious conspiracy.

****The definition of “recuse” denotes that the person removes himself from a decision-making role due to bias or conflict of interest. Eastman plays as fast-and-loose with the language as he does with facts.

sharman

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Friday March 04, 2022 · 3:23 PM PST

2022/03/04 · 15:23

Putin suggests he could be persuaded to call off his dogs if he gets the Donbas provinces recognized as independent states, and Crimea agreed to belong to Russia.

Russia has downgraded its demands. Sliver of daylight here. https://t.co/GHQXy2CMch
— Tim O'Brien (@TimOBrien) March 4, 2022

With some amendments, I’d take that deal. Crimea has long been written off. And if there is a significant contingent of separatists agitating in the Donbas, maybe Ukraine is well rid of them.

1) Ukraine’s Security Must be Assured

Of course, the first concession Putin must give is assurance of Ukraine’s security. If you believe that Putin’s word on paper is sufficient, I have an agreement signed in Budapest to sell you.

IMO, the one thing that could guaranty security from another Russian attack, to the extent anything can so guaranty, is Russia agreeing that Ukraine can join NATO. NATO has demonstrated it is too afraid of war with Russia to defend a non-NATO country (and rightly so). Putin won that game of chicken. But I don’t think he’d risk it against a NATO member. That’s the one line he hasn’t yet crossed. Plus, Russia’s military has now been exposed as a relative paper tiger. It’s a reasonable hope that Putin would take the win and not risk that humiliation again, let alone, risk a powerful attack on his own land.

I think it would be in NATO members’ best interests to admit Ukraine. We’ve seen the horrible costs of Russia’s aggression to the NATO countries in the measures we have been willing to take to pressure Putin; plus the cost (financial and political) of the refugee crisis; plus the risk of nuclear meltdown at Ukraine power plants--to say nothing of the crushing psychic costs of watching the horror play out. Short of regime change (and how effective could that be, in a country that, let’s be honest, has a healthy MAGA counterpart that supports him?), NATO membership is the only security guaranty I can see working.

In fact, I think the deal should be that Russia agrees that any European or East European country that wants membership gets it, and I’d encourage Finland, Sweden et al, to sign up quickly.

2) Ukrainians in the conceded territories must be given the option to relocate to Ukraine

3) Costs of reconstruction and repatriation must be addressed

Russia should put up at least some substantial portion of the cost of rebuilding Ukraine and repatriating Ukrainians relocating from the Donbas and Crimea. It would be in the interests of the good guy nations to pony up some too, if need be. And I imagine many private parties would be willing to contribute; I know I’d far happier seeing my money go to that cause than refugee organizations.

4) Russia must be prohibited from carrying out reprisals

Finally, there must be some guaranty that Russia does not carry out reprisals against its perceived enemies (Zelensky and similar individuals; Russian anti-war protesters; journalists and opposition figures). I’d want Navalny sprung from prison. For Russian residents, that might have to mean relocation to another country; such vulnerable persons must be allowed that option.

How we assure Putin does not carry out reprisals, or his assassin squad not pursue his enemies abroad, is of course a difficult problem. Perhaps it can be made clear that we’ve seen how effective our economic sanctions are and won’t hesitate to use them again if the agreement is breached.

Your thoughts?

Trump's "It was so stolen" defense: Isn't that barred as res judicata?

sharman

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Tuesday February 02, 2021 · 8:43 PM PST

2021/02/02 · 20:43

“Res Judicata”—Latin for “the thing has already been decided (adjudicated)”—is a principle of litigation holding that, when an issue between litigants has already been decided in one lawsuit, that determination stands for any subsequent lawsuits involving the same issue and parties. It cannot be relitigated.

The classic, true story, case illustrating this principle is: Dude burns his house down and is convicted of arson. He subsequently sues his insurance company. Res judicata: It’s already been determined that he was the perp, which invalidates his claim on the insurance policy.

In their answer to the Article of Impeachment, Trump’s team asserts that any reasonable person would have doubts about Biden’s election. Sorry, the courts have already answered that question.

Trump’s stolen election claim was addressed by dozens of courts, both state and federal. The evidence (and lack of evidence) was reviewed and found to be so insufficient, tenuous, debunked and/or lacking credibility that judge after judge determined, as a matter of law, that the claim is bunk. “As a matter of law” means, the evidence is so clear that the judge could rule on the merits, no need for a trial.

You had two and a half months and many dozen opportunities to present your case, Ex-President Donald. You lost. You cannot relitigate this claim in your impeachment trial. You cannot raise it in your defense.

Now to be sure, I do not know if there are special rules or precedents that would make this principle, res judicata, inapplicable in a Senate impeachment trial. But it is a principle founded on universally accepted standards of fairness; I don’t see why it wouldn’t apply.

There's no reason for the Senate and the country to waste more time and energy on the Big Lie. It’s been decided.

Oximeters: Possible Game Changer for Reopening the Economy?

sharman

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Sunday April 26, 2020 · 12:47 PM PDT

2020/04/26 · 12:47

A very smart New York doctor, Richard Levitan, discovered something about coronavirus that has me thinking, there may be a simple and effective way to fight our way out of not just the health but also the economic misery COVID-19 is wreaking on the world. Kossak xaxnar wrote at length about the doctor’s discovery, as a potential breakthrough for treatment, here.

In a nutshell, in the early stages of the disease, the virus attacks the lungs, preventing the patient from taking in oxygen. However, unlike other respiratory illness like the flu, the patient is still able to breathe out carbon dioxide. Because it is the buildup of carbon dioxide in the body, not loss of oxygen, that triggers the feeling of breathlessness, the patient is unaware s/he is infected. Doctor Levitan calls this phenomenon “silent hypoxia.”

There is a simple and inexpensive device that measures oxygen levels in the blood, an oximeter. You stick your finger in it, and it quickly gives you a reading. It’s cheap and requires no prescription. You can buy it online for around fifty bucks, more or less.

Now, couldn’t that be a game changer for reopening the economy?

The most devastating aspect of the virus is its ability to spread rapidly, and that occurs largely because patients are infectious for days before they know they are sick. Put a person with an oximeter at the entrance of every store and restaurant, every subway and bus, every airport, every office—doesn’t that make it possible to identify and turn away the likely infected?

Give an oximeter to every household in America; responsible citizens will self-quarantine when they see the warning signs of hypoxia. As well, having an oximeter at home can relieve much of the anxiety that would otherwise prevent workers and customers from reentering commerce when restrictions are lifted. We’ll have the comfort of knowing we can detect the disease early if we catch it, so as not to risk infecting family and friends, and so as to get medical treatment early enough to be effective.

I’d be very interested to hear your thoughts, including any cold water that needs throwing on this idea. I’m certainly no health expert. But if I’m right, let’s push our governments to ramp up production, purchase and distribution of this potential life-and-economy saving device, asap.

Fellow moderate Dems, let's strategerize

sharman

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Sunday February 23, 2020 · 4:56 PM PST

2020/02/23 · 16:56

This post is for fellow Dems who fear Bernie can’t win, and wish to use their primary votes to nominate an electable moderate. It is not to argue about Bernie’s electability.

I’m a Super Tuesday voter, I have barely a week left to figure this out. All thoughts, and corrections to my math or assumptions, are welcome.

The 15% Rule

Under the rules of most (maybe all, I haven’t researched) primaries, a candidate needs to get at least 15% in either a sub-set of voters (usually, a congressional district) or statewide in order to win delegates.

So right off, that means a vote for a candidate who can’t surmount that threshold is wasted.

For a while, I’ve been cautiously optimistic that, with polls for the moderate candidates collectively outnumbering Bernie (and Bernie plus Warren), the nomination will come down to a brokered convention, with a frontrunning moderate winning on the second ballot. (Also, that the ballot that produces the winner will garner a majority of the pledged delegates, so we don’t have a fight over super-delegate-rigging.)

Now I realize that the 15% rule also gives Bernie a shot at winning a majority of the delegates outright, even if he does not win a majority of the votes. Say there are 100 delegates at stake, Bernie gets 40% of the votes, one moderate gets 20%, another gets 15%, and the rest of the moderates collectively get 16% but don’t individually surmount the 15% threshold. Even though moderate votes outnumber Bernie’s, and add up to 51%, in actual delegates, Bernie gets 40 divided by 75 (the viable denominator)--a majority.

If I’m wrong on this, someone please correct me asap. I wake up nights screaming, thinking of what Trump will do to the world with four years and zero restraints.

Biden

Spoiler alert, my choice is Biden. I base that on him polling best against Trump in the three states that matter, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin. I only recently realized that Trump need only hold on to Wisconsin and the rest of the states he won, and he wins again—and Trump so far beats all of our candidates in Wisconsin, outside the margin of error. Have I mentioned the waking up screaming part?

Biden is far from my top choice to be president, no need to explain the ins and outs of that. I am at the point of voting purely out of abject fear.

Of course, it is best all around for a single moderate to emerge quickly, both for the momentum and the competition for funding.

Having said, a vote for a moderate who can get over that magic 15% threshold is still a reasonable choice, on the assumption the moderates’ delegates coalesce around a viable not-Bernie in a brokered convention. So:

Buttigieg

We’ll see how he does in South Carolina. Of course, you also want to know how well he’s polling in your particular state, and make a best guess how well he’ll do in your congressional district.

But, I don’t think Buttigieg can beat Trump (doesn’t excite either our left flank or our minority base, but would excite the hell out of the Christo-Fascists on the other side), and I wouldn’t want to see him doing so well that he becomes the moderate frontrunner-apparent.

Bloomberg

I was hopeful Bloomberg would be an exciting Door No 3, someone who could beat Trump at his own game, but after he showed himself not to have the necessary presence and showmanship for the job, I am just hoping he bows out as soon as possible, leaving his money and his magnificent ad team in the fight.

Klobuchar and Steyer

I was hopeful for Amy to get some traction, but she’s only polling at 5% in my state. Go for it, if she’s doing better in your state.

Steyer is actually my favorite of the remaining candidates, in the fantasy “which of these would you most want to be president” contest. But he is polling nowhere near viability.

Warren

For all my focus on nominating a moderate, I really like Warren. Were the positions reversed between her and Bernie, I’d be sorely tempted to support her. And she does takes some momentum and money away from Bernie, so her continued viability is a plus in that respect.

Having said, in the likely scenario of a brokered convention, at the end of the day, I think her pledged delegates, once unleashed, go to Bernie. So, sadly, I can’t give her my vote.

Please let me hear your thoughts, and especially any corrections to my understanding of the rules, the polls or basic math. Thanks all.

ITMFA: Impeach The Mother F-er Again

sharman

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Saturday February 08, 2020 · 2:35 PM PST

2020/02/08 · 14:35

For most of the Trump mal-administration, I have proudly displayed ITMFA stickers on my car: Impeach The Mother Fucker Already. Now ITMFA stands for Impeach The Mother Fucker Again.

In truth, it is probably politically unwise to do another impeachment, at least, on the information already known or strongly suspected. But, I can’t help thinking about it. Do join me, to ponder possible Articles for a second well-deserved impeachment.

The Other Ukraine Bribery Schemes (multiple makes it RICO)

The extortion of President Zelensky wasn’t the first time Trump attempted to bribe and/or extort Ukraine’s president to help himself politically. The first time was with Zelensky’s predecessor, President Poroshenko, and it succeeded.

Rachel had a show on this many months ago, based on intriguing reporting/speculation in this Washington Post opinion piece by David Ignatius. LINK

Reportedly, within days of Rudy Giuliani taking a meeting with Poroshenko and his corrupt prosecutor, Lutsenko, Ukraine’s prosecution of Manafort was deep-sixed and its cooperation with the Mueller investigation ended. The House sent a letter inquiring the reason for ending the cooperation—please tell us it wasn’t to curry favor with the president, was it?—but there was no response.

In return, Poroshenko got an increase in military aid, including javelins.

Trump went back to that well again in early 2019, offering more javelins and the prestige of an Oval Office meeting. This time apparently, Trump sought sham investigations of the Bidens and the CrowdStrike conspiracy theory. But Poroshenko lost his election, anti-corruption crusader Zelensky took office and resisted Trump long enough for a whistleblower to come forward, and we know the rest of that story.

It appears that this tale in not unknown to House Democrats. On Rachel’s show, she played footage of one representative (sorry I can’t remember who) emerging from a hearing and telling a reporter that “an enterprising journalist” should start looking into “javelins.”

Both bribery and obstruction of justice are implicated here. With respect to the bribery aspect, may I humbly beg the House and every pundit of sound mind to STOP CALLING IT ABUSE OF POWER and letting hours of trial and punditry be hijacked with a debate over whether a crime is needed to impeach. This is bribery, bribery is a crime, and a very impeachable one at that.

I’d go further and humbly beg that, this time around, the House not only give the crime its rightful name, bribery, but also note that multiple acts of bribery establish a pattern meriting a RICO charge.

Witness Intimidation/Obstruction of Justice/And yeah, especially, this time include Barr in the Articles

When the criminal controls the levers of justice, he can apparently announce his intended crimes in advance, and carry them out with relish and total lack of shame.

Multiple attempts to out a whistleblower, very likely endangering the safety of him/her and family. Firings and forced retirements of witnesses. All clearly intended to prevent any more whistleblowing or tattle-telling.

And all clearly effective: the rumor now is that Barr kiboshed several investigations that Mueller had spun off to SDNY, as well as potential new investigations. SDNY prosecutors are reportedly afraid to spill those beans. Understandably. LINK

There is also a rumor that Trump is going to fire the IC Inspector General who had the nerve to notify Congress of the whistleblower’s complaint. LINK

Anyone have any doubt that head is high on Trump’s retribution list?

Mueller Obstruction of Justice and Perjury

If the House can get McGahn to testify, there is the hearing, if not the charge, on obstruction of the Mueller investigation.

If the House can get the Grand Jury materials, there well may be evidence that Trump perjured himself in the written answers he gave the FBI. We know how the GOP feels about perjury!

Emoluments

A court of appeals just ruled that the Dems don’t have standing to sue over Trump’s multiple violations of the Constitution’s emoluments clause. SCOTUS doesn’t even have to sully its robes hearing that one, they can just let the lower court ruling stand. LINK

Me, I take this ruling as one more “you can’t sue the president, the only remedy is impeachment.”

So, let’s impeach.

My Consolation Prize

I greatly doubt the House is going to do a second impeachment, at least, assuming the Merkin-Crested Yam is not re-elected. And again, I can’t deny that is the politically wise decision. But Schiff et al. have confirmed that they will continue investigations.

And at the end of the day, impeachment was never about the impossible goal of removing Trump. It’s about educating the public, getting it out there, just how profoundly dangerous and criminal he is.

After all, as Alan Dershowitz tells us (I do agree with him on this), when someone is a serious candidate for president, nothing could be more proper and patriotic than exposing his crimes. So the American people can make an informed decision at the polls.

ITMFA

For those who don’t know, “ITMFA” was a marvelous fundraiser run by Dan Savage, love-and-sex advice columnist and podcaster. Through the sale of ITMFA merchandise, Savage raised $275,000, which he donated to Planned Parenthood, the ACLU and the International Refugee Assistance Project. ITMFA.org

Now that Trump has been impeached, Savage is no longer running the ITMFA fundraiser. But it was he who observed that ITMFA now stands for “Impeach The Mother Fucker Again.” It’s worth talking about, even if it never happens.

And btw, Dan’s podcast “Savage Love” is funny and wonderful and very astute. Great entertainment. Do check him out.

The House was Magnificent, but made three big mistakes: Bribery, Biden, Boring

sharman

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Sunday February 02, 2020 · 12:59 PM PST

2020/02/02 · 12:59

Mad respect, and overwhelming gratitude, for the work and brilliance of the House managers and their staff, preparing and presenting the impeachment case. In particular, Adam Schiff’s brains, work ethic and public speaking talent—no words. Except maybe, “Schiff 2028.”

But three big mistakes were made.

This was never about convicting and removing Trump ,no one expected that. But it was an opportunity to rub the public’s nose in Trump’s awfulness. As great a job as the House certainly did, sadly, three big mistakes were made.

Bribery

Why in god’s name did the House not name the impeachable crime, the right-there-in-the-Constitution crime, bribery? As everyone guessed, the GOP defense eventually came down to, “ok he did it, but not impeachable.”

I’d have given a lot to see Dershowitz et al. argue that bribery is not an impeachable offense, the furthest thing from the Framers’ minds. Naming the crime might well have spared us Dershowitz and the not impeachable defense entirely, wouldn’t that have been a boon? We’d have had hours less stupid debate, and more attention to the mountain of evidence, the sheer magnitude of the offense.

It was very late in the day, Wednesday night, that Adam Schiff finally said that what Trump did was indeed “crime-like” (Dershowitz’ inimitable phrase), that it was awfully damn much like bribery. A few speakers later, Nadler came out with “hell fucking yes it was bribery.” Then Schiff, in answer to a direct question, offered up some odd reasons the House chose not to use the B-word.

And none of that registered. Hours of TV time on whether “abuse of power” was impeachable, but never did I hear the word “bribery,” let alone, that bribery is right-there-in-the-Constitution. We finished out the trial with Lamar Alexander free to say Trump Did It, but It did not meet the “high bar of impeachment.”

It’s clear to me from the Schiff/Nadler interaction that this was a bitter debate in the House (and Nadler is still pissed he lost it). My best guess, the more vulnerable House members were afraid to level such a stark, gut-punching charge, and Nancy sacrificed the knock-out punch in favor of Dem unity and a decisive vote.

Biden

The House should have had Joe Biden testify.

Yes of course, the GOP wanted Biden on the stand to carry out the very plot that Trump pursued in his Ukraine shakedown, to smear his likely opponent with a false charge of corruption. Guess what, the GOP did it anyway. Had we had Biden testifying (and I would have also wanted at least one expert witness to prove the baselessness of the charge), that would have been the most effective counter.

Even the biggest impeachment junkies didn’t watch the entire marathon, let alone the less-engaged of the general public. But witness testimony, Biden himself, those hours would have been watched, and replayed on TV.

And the House (and y’all) are wrong about one thing: the Biden smear is not irrelevant. Team Trump could not sustain Trump’s claim of “no quid pro quo.” They fell back on the second element of bribery, corrupt intent: if a leading presidential candidate was corrupt, it was in the public interest to hear it. I’d go so far as to agree with Dershowitz on this, that Trump becoming interested in Biden’s corruption only when Biden started running was not proof Trump was not fighting corruption. Were the shoe on the other foot, information showing a GOPer’s corruption, damn straight I’d want it made public before election day. The proof of Trump’s corrupt intent was not his interest in Biden, but that he damn well knew the accusations were false, that the sources Rudy was pumping were the poster boys of Ukrainian corruption.

The House managers did expose the baselessness of the Biden accusation, indeed they did a very good job of it. But, a lot more people would have paid attention to those important facts if they had come from Biden himself, on the witness stand.

Biden’s numbers dropped considerably recently. I gotta wonder if Trump’s fucked-up plot succeeded, the impeachment trial became the vehicle to hobble the frontrunner. Big opportunity missed.

Boring

Adam Schiff was incredible, it was a privilege to see such talent and brains and passion on display. Truly an “I lived to see this tour de force” moment. A few others were good too. But too many of the House managers were simply awful. Sorry, but if public speaking is not your talent, you shouldn’t be on such an important stage.

Also in this vein, the length of time and repetition in the House’s presentation of its case was poor execution. This mistake gave the snotty GOP Heathers the opportunity to roll their eyes, (justifiably) complain of boredom and generally show their contempt for the Democratic Party. Trump’s Cult thrives on contempt; our side should not give them something legitimate to sneer at.

I had no mouth and needed to scream

For various reasons, I was unable to comment on Dailykos during most of the trial. Going back through diaries and comments on the live blog, I saw very little about the most important of these issues, the failure to name bribery in the Articles; I would especially love to hear your thoughts and comments about that.

Mostly though, I have found that writing out these kind of thoughts in a diary is the only way to quiet the screaming in my head, as we live through these too-interesting times. Thanks to all who read, and thanks in advance for your comments.

Let's Get the "Foreign Interference" Message Right

sharman

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Sunday January 26, 2020 · 2:36 PM PST

2020/01/26 · 14:36

As magnificent a job as the House committees and managers have done pursuing and arguing Trump’s crimes in L’Affaire Ukraine—Adam Schiff is a god, no words adequate—there are a couple things I think our side is getting very wrong. The whole “soliciting foreign interference in an election” is at the top of the list.

Yes, one of the things our founders most feared for our new nation was foreign interference. But, in this hellacious moment in history we are living through, the pernicious interference is not from Ukraine, it is from Russia.

Back in the days of the Constitutional Convention, the US was a weak country, vulnerable to interference from a host of stronger powers. Ukraine is not strong-arming us. Ukraine did not choose to foist Corrupt Biden and CrowdStrike into our national conversation. The coercion, of course, was entirely in the other direction.

It is of course Russia, not Ukraine, that is the threat.

There have been multiple instances in which Trump has been Russia’s willing Useful Idiot, furthering Russia’s goals. In L’Affaire Ukraine alone, there are multiple such instances.

This did not start with Zelensky’s administration. Trump has secured goodies for Russia from Ukraine from the gitgo, starting with the administration of corrupt President Poroshenko and his corrupt prosecutor Lutsenko.

The first things Trump got from Poroshenko was the kiboshing of its prosecution of Manafort and cooperation with the Mueller investigation. Sure, those things helped Trump, but they also helped Russia. In return, Poroshenko got increased military aid, including the javelins Obama refused and an oval office meeting to help boost his image as he ran for reelection.

Now we knew at the time that Ukraine had suddenly let Manafort off the hook and cold-shouldered Mueller. The House sent a letter inquiring about the Mueller non-cooperation, but got no response.

At the time, I did not know if Trump was quid-pro-quo-ing—sorry, Art of the Deal-ing—if Trump initiated the trade or if Poroshenko initiated, correctly surmised how to get on Trump’s good side, and the goodies flowed accordingly. I still could not say for sure. But Rachel Maddow reported a few months ago, based on a Washington Post opinion piece by Jackson Diehl, a guy who has shown an inside track on matters Ukraine before, that the about-face on both fronts was sudden, and just happened to come down quickly after visits from Rudy Giuliani. WaPo piece

So Trump knew Poroshenko was a man he could work with, and when he decided to call on Ukraine to go after Biden, he went back to the Poroshenko well again. We know that from Rudy’s gallivanting and TV appearances, but we really know it now, for sure, from Parnas. His mission, on Team Trump/Giuliani, was to horsetrade investigations in exchange for an oval office meeting (sound familiar?) that would give Poroshenko cache in his battle to get re-elected, and more javelins.

And that was when and why the push to oust Ambassador Yovanovich came about. Both Poroshenko and Lutsenko saw her as an obstacle to carrying out the quid Trump wanted.

Instead, Zelensky got elected, an anti-corruption crusader, and it took months and a phalanx of operatives and a host of threats to bring him to heel. As we know, but for a whistleblower getting military aid released days before Zelensky’s scheduled CNN interview, Trump would have succeeded. It was the fact that Zelensky held out so long, and it took an army of operatives and dozens of acts and communications to pursue the extortion plot, that Trump now stands impeached on a mountain of evidence.

To be sure, Trump got a lot for himself from Poroshenko, and sought things in his personal interest from Zelensky; the Corrupt Biden narrative in particular was candy for the Merkin-Crested Yam. Oh joy, once again he could lead chants of Lock Him Up, just the pronoun changed. Pure crack to his damaged ego.

But that was also all good for Russia, wasn’t it? Getting Manafort off, and depriving Mueller of cooperation, was also good for Russia. Getting Poroshenko re-elected, stomping out the candidate who rose to carry out the anti-corruption reforms the Ukrainian people wanted—indeed, getting Trump re-elected—all would have been and would be big pluses in Russia’s book.

But isn’t CrowdStrike particularly, perhaps even solely, all about a thing Russia wanted? Russia was early to promote, if not the actual source of, the CrowdStrike CT. Putin forced Trump to embrace it publicly in Helsinki.

Sure, CrowdStrike might benefit Trump by removing some of the tarnish of his Great Electoral Victory. But that’s not what this is about. Trump has been forced to publicly accept the conclusions of the IC and both chambers of Congress, that Russia interfered in our election in a “sweeping and systemic fashion.” And even when Trump tried to deny that truth—in Helsinki, remember “I don’t why it WOULD be Russia [that interfered]”--the Official White House walked it back, insisting that Trump had actually said “I don’t know why it WOULDN’T be Russia.”

Embracing CrowdStrike—and now putting the entire GOP in the excruciatingly embarrassing position of also giving the CT credence—is a net negative for Trump. He was forced to sit through multiple sessions with advisers bombarding him with evidence that CrowdStrike is bullshit, and you know that has to have annoyed him mightily. He is not stupid, he knows CrowdStrike makes him look stupid. He knows that is it not winning him any warm feeling from his party, that they now have to endorse it as well.

Nope. This one is all for Russia. In fact, and I really think this is true, my theory is that Putin forced CrowdStrike on Trump to humiliate him. For Putin’s amusement. Remember what a whipped puppy Trump looked, when he walked out to the podium in Helsinki with Putin holding the leash? And if you don’t believe me, look up the Twitter output of Russia expert Julia Davis, @JuliaDavidNews, who regularly posts and translates Russian TV for us. They mock him openly.

So, “foreign interference” in our election, in our affairs, like the Founders feared? That’s not Ukraine interfering, it is not Trump “soliciting” interference from Ukraine. Ukraine is a weak nation, we are powerful. That isn’t what kept the Founders awake at night.

We are indeed fending off foreign interference in our election, and other affairs, from a powerful adversary. Russia is powerful now because they have figured out how to weaponize social media, but especially because they own Trump, lock, stock and barrel, probably through a combination of kompromat and bribes.

Let’s not get that crucial part of the message wrong. There used to be, and hopefully still is some left, bipartisan concern about the Russian threat. Let’s not miss this opportunity to remind voters which party is fighting that threat, and which aiding and abetting.

CrowdStrike Conspiracy Theory: Make every GOPer answer these questions

sharman

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Sunday January 26, 2020 · 1:13 PM PST

2020/01/26 · 13:13

[Admin note: title and text edited to remove ambiguity of “CrowdStrike” and “CrowdStrike Conspiracy Theory”]

I’ve been waiting for this moment in the impeachment saga, rubbing my hands with glee. The moment every stupid lying GOPer would be forced to defend the CrowdStrike CT, their act of fealty to the Frankenstein monster who owns their asses. Choose between incurring the wrath of Trump and his Cult, and putting the clown shoes on their own feet.

So Brian Williams interviews James Lankford, asshole senator from Oklahoma, asks him about the CrowdStrike CT. Yes! At last. Can’t wait to see how this goes.

And of course Williams lets him off so fucking easy.

So, to ease the screaming in my head, I turn to this outlet to shout the follow up questions that should have been.

Senator Lankford’s glib story: President Trump, he gets some information from one source, he gets some information from another source, he wants to get to the bottom of it. So he asks President Zelensky to investigate. Nothing wrong, nothing wrong at all, for a president to ask another leader to carry out an investigation.

Jesus.

Follow up Question 1: No one is saying there’s anything wrong with Trump asking another leader to look into something he wants cleared up. Trump is not being impeached for asking for help in an investigation. He’s being impeached for extorting an investigation.

Are you saying there’s nothing wrong with extortion? Trump used the power of his office, withholding aid and the support that would be signaled by an oval office meeting, to extort a vulnerable ally under attack from our enemy Russia. That cool with you?

Follow up Question 1A: Or are you saying there was no extortion? The House managers spent hours laying out the evidence of extortion, aka quid pro quo. Do you dispute any of the facts alleged by witnesses? Do you have a credible alternative explanation for what was revealed in testimony and text messages? Do you know of any evidence for that alternative theory? Let’s do hear it.

And: If you do not believe the House has proven its quid pro quo case, is not the House—and more importantly, the American people—entitled to see the evidence the president is hiding?

Follow up Question 2B: You say all the president did was ask for an investigation. But that’s not what the evidence shows, is it? He did not ask—or rather, demand, extort—for an investigation, he “asked” for a public announcement of an investigation. What was the purpose of that?

And why did he not go through the proper, usual channels—the FBI, the treaty procedures—that are in place for precisely this purpose, asking foreign governments to assist us with investigations?

And why did the president go to such lengths to hide the “ask”?

Follow up Question 2: Yes, there’s nothing with one leader asking another leader to assist in an investigation—when it’s to further the nation’s interests. Is it proper to ask for that investigation, to use the powers of the office to get it, when it’s for the president’s personal benefit?

Follow up Questions 2A and 2B: Do you dispute that President Trump wanted the investigation for his own personal benefit? Didn’t the House present compelling evidence of that motive, for example, the fact that it was not enough for Zelensky to agree to investigate, Trump insisted Zelensky make a public announcement on cable news? Where was the national interest in that?

And again, (a) do you have facts or analysis for a different conclusion—let’s hear ‘em—and (b) if you did not find the House’s evidence convincing, are not the House and American people entitled to hear the rest of the evidence?

Follow up Question 3: Even if you stumbled your way through those questions, are you not troubled by the—what’s a polite word?—thinness of the evidence for the proposition Trump apparently finds credible enough to not only have investigated, but extort a vulnerable ally to investigate? Indeed, to risk our national security in the pursuit of that goal?

In short:

JESUS CHRIST ARE YOU GOING TO STAND THERE AND SAY YOU THINK THERE IS MERIT TO THE CROWDSTRIKE CONSPIRACY THEORY? WHEN OUR OWN INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES UNANIMOUSLY CONCLUDE IT WAS RUSSIA THAT ATTACKED US?

Yes yes, we’ve heard thE dodge, first put out by the president, and recently tweeted by the White House, to the effect that: We Do Not Doubt the Assessment of our IC, that Russia interfered in our election. But! That does not mean there were not other countries that also interfered, right?

Cool cool. Maybe there were indeed other countries with their fingers in the pot. Like maybe Israel. But we are not talking about whether Ukraine did things to favor Hillary Clinton’s chances over Trump’s. The “CrowdStrike” CT is not about generic election interference, it is a very specific proposition, namely, that it was Ukraine that hacked the DNC’s emails and passed them on to Wikileaks to dump during the election.

Our IC says Russia did the hacking and leaking. You say you accept their assessment. Please then explain how both Russia and Ukraine hacked the same emails and make the same hand off to Wikileaks.

(In fairness, Adam Schiff made this excellent point.)

And there are more reasons to doubt the CrowdStrike theory. The CrowdStrike CT points the finger at Ukraine because CrowdStrike is owned by “wealthy Ukrainians.” (You see Trump alluding to “wealthy Ukrainians” in the July 25 phone call.) In fact, CrowdStrike was founded by a US citizen. The “CrowdStrike” CT posits that the physical DNC server was taken and is now hidden somewhere in Ukraine, in order to keep the FBI from discovering Ukraine’s role in the hack. But there was no physical server, the DNC’s emails were stored in a cloud system. And if those “wealthy Ukrainians” were all about hiding their act, why not destroy the server?

The House has produced evidence that our IC has repeatedly attempted to show the President that there is no basis to the CrowdStrike CT. So he knows all that, and probably more.

And you know all that too. So again:

ARE YOU GOING TO STAND THERE, WITH A STRAIGHT FACE, AND SAY YOU AGREE WITH TRUMP, YOU THINK THERE IS SO MUCH MERIT TO THE CROWDSTRIKE THEORY THAT UKRAINE SHOULD INVESTIGATE?

How do those clown shoes feel?

Finally, one follow up question for Ted Cruz: Did your dad kill JFK?

That “I Want Nothing/No QPQ” Phone Call Destroys a Key Trump Defense

sharman

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Thursday November 21, 2019 · 5:06 PM PST

2019/11/21 · 17:06

During today’s impeachment hearing, Trump charged out on the White House lawn to yell triumphantly at the assembled reporters--“you got the cameras rolling?”—the following, from his Sharpie-scrawled notes:

I want nothing

No quid pro quo

President Zelinksy should do the right thing

I want him to do what he ran on

This is what Trump said to Sondland on September 9, when Sondland (prompted by the “are we conditioning aid on investigations? That’s crazy” text exchange with Taylor) called to ask “What do you want from Zelinsky?”

And there you have it, all Trump wanted was for Zelinsky to do the right thing, no quid pro quo. Case Closed, right?

Now all day long, you can roll your eyes at the notion that this phone call exonerates Trump. There’s a ton that can be said in rebuttal, but chiefly of course, September 9 was the day the House got wind of the whistle blower’s complaint. In Adam Schiff’s three little words: “He got caught.”

But I maintain, there is much more to be said, beyond dismissing Trump’s hand-in-the-cookie-jar “no quid pro quo.” in fact, this phone call destroys a key part of the Republicans’ defense, that Trump did finally release the aid.

(The quid Zelensky sought, for which Trump demanded the quo of two investigations, also included a White House meeting, but the Republicans are ready to shrug that off. Zelensky got a [half-assed] meeting when the two presidents were in New York for the UN General Assembly session, they point out (I could go on and on about that farce, but this piece is already too long). But primarily, they calculate the public isn’t going to care about the denial of a White House meeting. One of the Rs laid that out in today’s hearing: “We’re going to impeach a president over a meeting not taken? The Democrat Party is going to look pretty stupid in the eyes of history.”)

Now, the Republicans are well aware that “he got the aid, no harm no foul” is not going to cut it all by itself. They also have to explain why Trump held up the aid to begin with, and released it when he did, pure coincidence that the House learned of the whistle blower complaint just two days before.

The story they have hit on—and it is their most insufferable member who was chosen to spin it, Jim Jordan—goes like this. It was Trump’s deep concern over Ukraine’s history of corruption that prompted the hold. New guy in town, got to check him out, make sure he’s the real deal. And the good news is, by September 11, Trump had completed his due diligence, and the results were positive. Trump’s boys thoroughly checked Zelensky out, Pence met with him, and they were able to report that the new guy seems legit. Plus, the new Ukraine parliament had recently enacted a key anti-corruption law. It all came together after a 55-day effort, not such a long time, happy ending.

So mystery solved! The hold had nothing to do with the favor that Trump—merely—requested in the July 25 phone call. If a small army of Trump’s henchmen and all Zelensky’s people got the idea that announcing Burisma and 2016 investigations was a requirement, a condition, a—choke—quid pro quo, well, I guess that was all just an unfortunate misunderstanding.

Cue the trademark Jim Jordan smirk.

So now, let’s look again at the September 9 phone call between Sondland and Trump. It is clear, and not denied by the Rs, that Trump understood “what do you want from Zelensky?” to be “what do you want, in order to release the aid?” That’s clear just from Trump immediately going to “no quid pro quo.”

It’s also clear that Sondland was asking the question with a good deal of frustration and urgency. The more accurate transcript of Sondland’s question was “what the fuck do you want?” And if I heard Trump correctly, he also made reference to there being some shouting on the phone call.

The call took place on September 9, the aid was released on September 11, two days. The meeting with Pence had happened over a week before. The bill passed by the Ukrainian parliament had already happened. There had been almost two months in which Trump’s henchmen met repeatedly with Zelensky and his people, ample opportunity to do all the sniffing they felt necessary. Presumably, there was not a flurry of additional, critical, due diligence that only came together in the space of two magic days between September 9 and 11.

In other words, if you believe Jim Jordan’s tale, the 55-day-long investigation into Zelensky’s corruption-fighting bona fides was no doubt complete, or very damn nearly complete, when Sondland called.

So. Instead of a curt, cranky, defensive “I want nothing. I want nothing. I want President Zelensky to do the right thing”--

Why didn’t Trump just deliver the good news? Sondland was frantic, why not put his fears to rest? “You’re asking about the aid, well I’m happy to tell you, I had some concerns but I’ve been able to get them resolved to my satisfaction.” Or “I’ve been checking out the guy’s commitment to honest government, I’m a few days away from finished with it, but I can tell you, it’s looking good, and I think we’ll be able to lift the hold very soon.”

Why such an angry, testy, and short phone call? It should have been all happiness and relief, right? Why the vague “I want him to do the right thing,” instead of the far more satisfying and timely answer, “he did what I wanted, he passed the test, the aid will be released shortly”?

Explain that away, SmirkFace.

The Republican War on Synonyms

sharman

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Sunday November 17, 2019 · 6:37 PM PST

2019/11/17 · 18:37

I swear, the Republican arguments on impeachment are so stupid, you can feel your IQ shedding points as soon as your brain starts winding up the rebuttal. The Republicans’ latest is a particularly choice entry in this crowded field but hell, can’t help myself, I’m going in.

The Democrats got nothing! You know how we can tell? They started with “quid pro quo,” then it was “extortion,” now it’s “bribery.” Clearly, they are floundering, all over the place, changing their story because they can’t pin anything on him. Case closed!

Jesus. Ok:

Quid pro quo, bribery, extortion. All the same thing, the same charge the Dems have levied against Trump from the start.

“Quid pro quo.” That is an element of bribery. In fact, this phrase was made central to the debate by Trump, not the Dems. It was Trump’s first and most insistent defense, that he did not in fact demand Investigations in exchange for the military aid. Sure, he asked as a favor, a friendly suggestion—President Zelensky should want to do the investigations!—but he was not demanding it as a condition of getting the aid.

Well, half a dozen credible witnesses later, it is pretty much conceded on the other side that, yeah quid pro quo. But that’s how foreign policy works, right? We don’t just hand over money willy nilly, we make sure we get something for our taxpayers’ hard-earned dollars. Totally appropriate, it’s what presidents are supposed to do.

That brings us to “bribery.” Getting something for the USA, in exchange for foreign aid, is indeed a good thing, standard foreign policy stuff. The problem we have here, however, is that Trump was trading for something that benefited him personally, not the country. It’s the classic example of an impeachable offense, abusing the power of the office for personal gain.

And finally, “extortion.” Extortion is a particularly nasty form of bribery. There, the quid being dangled for the quo demanded is to refrain from hurting the victim.

Synonyms. Nuances. Breaking the crime down into its constituent parts, for discussion and proof. Not a shifting playbook of different crimes, just different words to describe and discuss the same offense. Indeed, when Nancy Pelosi announced that the House was commencing the impeachment inquiry, she used the word “shakedown.” A colorful synonym for “extortion.”

Kind of basic stuff, should not be necessary to explain to anyone reasonably fluent in English. But just for kicks, let’s try this additional exercise:

WITCH HUNT!

HOAX!

HOAX WITCHHUNT!

PRESIDENTIAL HARRASSMENT!

A SCAM! A SHAM!

A JOKE!

TREASON!!!

Wait, what? Are we supposed to laugh Adam Schiff off the stage or march him to the gallows?

Newer
Older

RSS