Wow! The last two weeks have been a ride.
If you asked me before then what the chances would be that the Mad Fuhrer of Mar-A-Lago (also known as electoral vote winner Donny) would face anything near an impeachment inquiry much less any chance of impeachment,I would've been skeptical. Because while he's committed more than his share3 of what could be considered high crimes an misdemeanors the Democratic Party leadership always seemed gun shy, almost dismissive of calls for impeachment from Rep. Maxine Waters and later the four freshman Congresswomen known as the Squad (Rashida Talib, Ayanna Pressely, Ilhan Oman, and Alexandria Ocasio Cortez). When asked why the party leadership usually spouted a variation of a theme that mixed some truth (no President was ever removed from office by impeachment) with speculation (the public wouldn't approve.voters might go further to Donny) and a mix of the two (the Repub controlled Senate would never let it happen). However, as news of the Mad Fuhrer's phone call with the Ukranian prime minister got leaked the sort of scandal that normally went away whenever Donny and company did something beyond the pale seemed to not take hold this time. This was even further made clear when a summary of the phone found the electoral vote winner apparently ask for the new leader of the Ukraine to dig up dirt on former vice presdient (and perceived political rival) Joe Biden. Still, even as the Mueller Report (or what the DOJ under Atty General Billy Barr allowed to not be redacted slowly got some interest in impeachment, the Democratic leadership in the House was reluctant.
However, as more became known it became increasingly clear that something was up that needed to be addressed. Still, when Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi announced an impeachment inquiry would happen I was honestly surprised. As more details come out it makes one wonder why it took this long.
As for the Mad Fuhrer of Mar-A-Lago himself, he's issuing his usual mix of smears and denials while the Repub politicians keep their distance, preferirng their hold on power to the interests of truth, much less interest of the country they're supposed to serve. As he ramps up claims of treason towards his opponents who are doing what they're allowed to do under the Constitution, Donny's fans and minions are still rallying around him publicly, even as news reports filter out claiming they're scared in private.
For now this journey can take any number of directions. What is apparent at this time though is that the impeachment beach party isn't going away any time in the near future. Time will tell what happens but things are getting scary and humorous at the same time.
Monday, October 7, 2019
Wednesday, July 24, 2019
Mueller at the House Judiciary Committee Hearing Today - Three Points and an Observation
As I type this former FBI Director and Special Counsel Robert Mueller had just completed his first of two hearing today in front of Committees in the House of Representatives by testifying under subpoena in front of the House Judiciary Committee (he later testifies in from to the Intelligence Committee). Having the day off from the paying job (ironically not because of this) and a long night last night I overslept but did catch the last couple of hours off and on. From what I've witnessed from both watching the hearing and commentary regarding it here are three points that came out that should be taken into account.
First - Mueller has now said that a President can be indicted once he leaves office.
The main reason from the Mueller Report why they didn't bring charges against electoral vote winner Donny was that DOJ had a rule that stated that a sitting President couldn't be indicted. This left open whether or not a President can be charged if he leaves office. Rep. Jerry Nadler got Mueller to state, for the record, that he was unable to indict the Mad Fuhrer of Mar-A-Lago for obstruction because of Office of Legal Counsel decision that a sitting president couldn't be indicted. This was said by Mueller at his press conference a while back but then Nadler asked if [electoral vote winner Donny] could be indicted once he leaves office. Mueller replied with one word: "True."
This alone would be something that should be notable. However, it was later in the hearing that Repub Sen. Ken Buck of Colorado asked if you could charge the President with a crime after he left office. Mueller said yes. By stating this again, Mueller basically reaffirms the possibility that the decision of the DOJ not to charge electoral vote winner Donny did not mean he was exonerated and that other investigations can still (and will still) occur. It also leaves open a chance that leaving office doesn't mean that Donny can get away with it and he could still be charged if the Dept of Justice in the next administration after he leaves office would choose to do so.
While there can be some debate over whether this means the OLC decision was the only reason Donny wasn't charged, this and the fact that Mueller reaffirmed similar things means that the Mad Fuhrer of Mar-A-Lago wasn't completely exonerated by the Report.
Second - Mueller Didn't Interview with Electoral Vote Winner Donny to Return to work as FBI Director
One of the things the Mad Fuhrer, his minions, and Repubs in general have tried to throw against the wall in trying to dismiss the Mueller Report is that Donny didn't hire him as FBI Director and that Mueller was probing him in a case of sour grapes. Donny even tweeted something to that effect this morning as the hearing was getting underway. Early in the hearing he was asked by Repub Rep Louie Gohmert of Texas if when they met the day before if they discussed FBI Director James Comey's firing. Mueller interjected immediately that he was not a candidate, The fact that Mueller preemptively shot that line down is important in that it derails somewhat this theory that Donny has thrown out on twitter. While the Mad Fuhrer of Mar-A-Lago will likely continue to throw out that red meat Mueller saying that without actually being asked while under oath is important.
Third - It Looks Like The Mad Fuhrer of Mar-A-Lago and his minions had asked his staff to falsify records.
In one exchange with Rep.Cedric Richmond (D, LA) it was revealed that Donny and company tried to protect himself by asking staff to falsify information and that there was an attempt to get White House Counsel Don McGahan to provide a false written record of information, In other words, lie to those investigating your side.
Now anyone with eyes and ears who pays attention knows Donnya nd company seems to obstruct justice in regards to their BS on an almost daily basis (way too many instances to claim). What makes thids differnet is the fact that,if it were anyone else, there'd be charges and court dates involved but since OLC rules don't allow the Justice Dept to indict a sitting president, he still gets to stay where he is. It also reiterates Mueller's replay that the Report DID NOT EXONERATE the Mad Fuhrer of Mar-A-Lago regardless of what the latter tweets.
With those three points (which likely have been made by others in a batter way) in tow let's tackle an observation I have regarding the Repubs on these committees.
The Repub Congresspeople Seem to Channel Someone who confuses talking too fast with making a good debate point
Granted I walked in on the middle of Matt Gaets' attempt to show boat to gain the Mad Fuhrer's approval as my starting point but I noticed that they all seem to channel their inner Ben Shapiro at some point. Usually they start slow but somewhere get to a point where they try to say a lot of words really fast regarding things that have little to do with what was supposed ot be talked about. Several of them even seemed to use Ben's phrasing. It would be funny if it wasn't for the fact these people were elected to guide this country yet seem to want a pat on the hand from Donny more than serving the people they supposedly represent.
In time I'm sure there will be a lot of things that people find in here that may sway thigs one way or the other. For now though I think the good of the hearings is more adding some context to what was in the Mueller Report since at over 400 pages many people don't have to time to check it out.
Woder how the Intelligence hearing will stand out.
First - Mueller has now said that a President can be indicted once he leaves office.
The main reason from the Mueller Report why they didn't bring charges against electoral vote winner Donny was that DOJ had a rule that stated that a sitting President couldn't be indicted. This left open whether or not a President can be charged if he leaves office. Rep. Jerry Nadler got Mueller to state, for the record, that he was unable to indict the Mad Fuhrer of Mar-A-Lago for obstruction because of Office of Legal Counsel decision that a sitting president couldn't be indicted. This was said by Mueller at his press conference a while back but then Nadler asked if [electoral vote winner Donny] could be indicted once he leaves office. Mueller replied with one word: "True."
This alone would be something that should be notable. However, it was later in the hearing that Repub Sen. Ken Buck of Colorado asked if you could charge the President with a crime after he left office. Mueller said yes. By stating this again, Mueller basically reaffirms the possibility that the decision of the DOJ not to charge electoral vote winner Donny did not mean he was exonerated and that other investigations can still (and will still) occur. It also leaves open a chance that leaving office doesn't mean that Donny can get away with it and he could still be charged if the Dept of Justice in the next administration after he leaves office would choose to do so.
While there can be some debate over whether this means the OLC decision was the only reason Donny wasn't charged, this and the fact that Mueller reaffirmed similar things means that the Mad Fuhrer of Mar-A-Lago wasn't completely exonerated by the Report.
Second - Mueller Didn't Interview with Electoral Vote Winner Donny to Return to work as FBI Director
One of the things the Mad Fuhrer, his minions, and Repubs in general have tried to throw against the wall in trying to dismiss the Mueller Report is that Donny didn't hire him as FBI Director and that Mueller was probing him in a case of sour grapes. Donny even tweeted something to that effect this morning as the hearing was getting underway. Early in the hearing he was asked by Repub Rep Louie Gohmert of Texas if when they met the day before if they discussed FBI Director James Comey's firing. Mueller interjected immediately that he was not a candidate, The fact that Mueller preemptively shot that line down is important in that it derails somewhat this theory that Donny has thrown out on twitter. While the Mad Fuhrer of Mar-A-Lago will likely continue to throw out that red meat Mueller saying that without actually being asked while under oath is important.
Third - It Looks Like The Mad Fuhrer of Mar-A-Lago and his minions had asked his staff to falsify records.
In one exchange with Rep.Cedric Richmond (D, LA) it was revealed that Donny and company tried to protect himself by asking staff to falsify information and that there was an attempt to get White House Counsel Don McGahan to provide a false written record of information, In other words, lie to those investigating your side.
Now anyone with eyes and ears who pays attention knows Donnya nd company seems to obstruct justice in regards to their BS on an almost daily basis (way too many instances to claim). What makes thids differnet is the fact that,if it were anyone else, there'd be charges and court dates involved but since OLC rules don't allow the Justice Dept to indict a sitting president, he still gets to stay where he is. It also reiterates Mueller's replay that the Report DID NOT EXONERATE the Mad Fuhrer of Mar-A-Lago regardless of what the latter tweets.
With those three points (which likely have been made by others in a batter way) in tow let's tackle an observation I have regarding the Repubs on these committees.
The Repub Congresspeople Seem to Channel Someone who confuses talking too fast with making a good debate point
Granted I walked in on the middle of Matt Gaets' attempt to show boat to gain the Mad Fuhrer's approval as my starting point but I noticed that they all seem to channel their inner Ben Shapiro at some point. Usually they start slow but somewhere get to a point where they try to say a lot of words really fast regarding things that have little to do with what was supposed ot be talked about. Several of them even seemed to use Ben's phrasing. It would be funny if it wasn't for the fact these people were elected to guide this country yet seem to want a pat on the hand from Donny more than serving the people they supposedly represent.
In time I'm sure there will be a lot of things that people find in here that may sway thigs one way or the other. For now though I think the good of the hearings is more adding some context to what was in the Mueller Report since at over 400 pages many people don't have to time to check it out.
Woder how the Intelligence hearing will stand out.
Tuesday, July 23, 2019
So Mueller’s Gonna testify Today
Update: Edited and corrected to include both hearings.
It's July 24, 2019 and former special counsel Robert Mueller will be testifying in front of the House Judiciary Committee followed by a hearing in front of the House Intelligence committee sometime today answering questions related to the Mueller Report regarding possible collusion and obstruction of justice by electoral vote winner Donny and his minions. While Mueller has said that any testimony will mainly apply to what he’s already said in a previous press conference and what's in the report itself this is still a big deal.
It's July 24, 2019 and former special counsel Robert Mueller will be testifying in front of the House Judiciary Committee followed by a hearing in front of the House Intelligence committee sometime today answering questions related to the Mueller Report regarding possible collusion and obstruction of justice by electoral vote winner Donny and his minions. While Mueller has said that any testimony will mainly apply to what he’s already said in a previous press conference and what's in the report itself this is still a big deal.
lt is a big deal because while this will mainly cover a lot
of ground many already know if they pay attention, the fact that most people
haven't read the Mueller Report (at over
400 pages that’s understandable since it is a commitment to get through it)
means this will provide some context and some information that people don't
already know, flesh it out so to speak. Regardless of whether or not there are
any bombshells revealed in his testimony this means that we're going to lease get some
new context on what was in the report and why he came up with the conclusions
he did as well as possibly understand what limits were placed on the
investigation itself.
Either way this is
going to be a bumpy ride. Though electoral vote winner Donny (a/k/a: the Mad
Fuhrer of Mar-A-Lago) has already said
that he has no plans to watch it then said he might watch a little in the same
gaggle. What that means is he totally plans to watch the testimony and will
likely be tweeting about it all damn day instead of doing his job.
Time will tell what happens as result of Mueller's testimony,
It might push the buttons to get people on board to impeach the Mad Fuhrer, it might avoid that but open up new paths for Congress to investigate (Mueller said in his pres conference a while back that while the DOJ couldn't charge a sitting president, congress could). The abut one thing is for certain this is going to add another twist and turn to the
ride that's already bumpy and leading to a long scary year before the 2020 election.
Monday, July 15, 2019
Electoral Vote Winner Donny 's Sunday Tweets at Four Congresswomen
When it comes to the tweets of electoral vote winner Donny (a/k/a: the Mad Fuhrer of Mar-A-Lago) I try to be careful about commenting on them too deeply. In some instances he shoots off on something whenever the mainstream media isn't focused on him in an attempt to either divert from something bad or make things all about him. Sadly, more often than not the media starts talking about him and his latest social media cherry bomb (sometimes in regards to something he knows nothings about) rather than the issue at hand. However, once in a while he comes up with something so beyond the pale that we have to take a look at it. Here is his latest case in point.
In the early morning hours of Sunday July 14, 2019 the Mad Fuhrer of Mar-A-Lago decided, for reasons unknown to us, to send out a vile tweet regarding four "Progressive Democratic Congresswomen," which many believe is aimed at Rep. Ilhan Omar (D, MN), Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D, MI), Rep, Ayanna Pressley (D, MA) and Alexandria Ocasio Cortez (D, NY and a/k/a: AOC). In this tweet he claimed the four came "from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe, the worst, most corrupt and inept anywhere in the world" and that they were "loudly and viciously telling the people of the United States, the greatest and most powerful Nation on earth, how our government is to be run" before telling them to go back to "the crime infested places from where they came."
All of this before most people even woke up to have breakfast, get ready for whatever was planned for the day and the like. Almost immediately after the anger in the Mad Fuhrer's tweet kicked in came the reaction where the silence of most of his fellow Repubs was almost as telling as those who pointed out that it was racist, with the exception of Repubs who tried to bend themselves into near pretzel like conditions to claim what electoral vote winner Donny tweeted wasn't racist. With that in mind, a brief look at the tweet is in order. This will likely cover ground that's already been covered but it has to be done.
First up is the question of racism- was the Mad Fuhrer of Mar-A-Lago's tweet at four U.S. Congresswomen of color racist? In a sane and just world one wouldn't even have to ask this question because it should be obvious that the tweet was hella fucking racist. The racism here is obvious for several reasons. One, all of the women are U.S. citizens (which you have to be, either by birth or being naturalized at least seven years previous) with Ocasio Cortez, Tlaib, and Pressley all being born in the United States. Since that makes them from here for all intents and purposes, telling them to go back where they came from is really nothing more than racist code speech intended to rile up the white supremacists and their closet fans that make up a good chunk of his base.
So, why is he tweeting this? Some people have suggested it may be a diversion from several things in the news whether it be the Jeffrey Esptein case (remember that Donny at one time claimed to be a friend of his) or to keep people from talking about conditions at the border Trumpcentration camps. There may be some truth to this in that such a tweet does take some of the oxygen out of the room and force people to take on the tweet itself. At the same time one has to remember that Donny has long used racism to gain power whether it was using birther rhetoric during the era of President Obama and claiming the country's first black President wasn't born in the U.S. and isn't really president to his frequent retweeting of white nationalist memes, refusal to disavow David Duke, and having his grown sons go on a white nationalist radio show twice before the 2016 election. During that campaign the question of whether or not Donny was a racist became irrelevant as his willingness to play in that sandbox was just as dangerous as if he were the reincarnation of a segregationist sheriff from the 1950s south.
However, when placed in context with actions such as getting sued by the Federal Government in the 1970s (along with his father) for refusing to rent to minorities or his continuing to not acknowledge that the five people who became known as the Central Park 5 (and which example he used for an op ed supporting bringing back the death penalty in the early 90s) were innocent of the crimes they were accused of committing despite eventually being exonerated by DNA evidence and the confession of the actual culprit years after they were convicted to the birtherism reveals a lot more about whether the Mad Fuhrer of Mar-A-Lago may be racist than his so easy to dispute denials (like his claims that he's the least racist person ever).
Is this merely riling up the base? Is it an election campaign tactic to get the white supremacist part of his base to come along? Both? It's hard to say but it's easy to figure out that all of this may be true and that things are going to get a hell of a lot uglier before the 2020 election.
In the upcoming print issue I'll dive into a couple of things that weren't really discussed here - including one thing the Mad Fuhrer of Mar-A-Lago doesn't even get he's right about. As for comments, I still refuse to right to delete comments that are totally ignorant, hateful (racist/Misogynist/homophobic/anti trans etc) or arguments I believe are in bad faith.
In the early morning hours of Sunday July 14, 2019 the Mad Fuhrer of Mar-A-Lago decided, for reasons unknown to us, to send out a vile tweet regarding four "Progressive Democratic Congresswomen," which many believe is aimed at Rep. Ilhan Omar (D, MN), Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D, MI), Rep, Ayanna Pressley (D, MA) and Alexandria Ocasio Cortez (D, NY and a/k/a: AOC). In this tweet he claimed the four came "from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe, the worst, most corrupt and inept anywhere in the world" and that they were "loudly and viciously telling the people of the United States, the greatest and most powerful Nation on earth, how our government is to be run" before telling them to go back to "the crime infested places from where they came."
All of this before most people even woke up to have breakfast, get ready for whatever was planned for the day and the like. Almost immediately after the anger in the Mad Fuhrer's tweet kicked in came the reaction where the silence of most of his fellow Repubs was almost as telling as those who pointed out that it was racist, with the exception of Repubs who tried to bend themselves into near pretzel like conditions to claim what electoral vote winner Donny tweeted wasn't racist. With that in mind, a brief look at the tweet is in order. This will likely cover ground that's already been covered but it has to be done.
First up is the question of racism- was the Mad Fuhrer of Mar-A-Lago's tweet at four U.S. Congresswomen of color racist? In a sane and just world one wouldn't even have to ask this question because it should be obvious that the tweet was hella fucking racist. The racism here is obvious for several reasons. One, all of the women are U.S. citizens (which you have to be, either by birth or being naturalized at least seven years previous) with Ocasio Cortez, Tlaib, and Pressley all being born in the United States. Since that makes them from here for all intents and purposes, telling them to go back where they came from is really nothing more than racist code speech intended to rile up the white supremacists and their closet fans that make up a good chunk of his base.
So, why is he tweeting this? Some people have suggested it may be a diversion from several things in the news whether it be the Jeffrey Esptein case (remember that Donny at one time claimed to be a friend of his) or to keep people from talking about conditions at the border Trumpcentration camps. There may be some truth to this in that such a tweet does take some of the oxygen out of the room and force people to take on the tweet itself. At the same time one has to remember that Donny has long used racism to gain power whether it was using birther rhetoric during the era of President Obama and claiming the country's first black President wasn't born in the U.S. and isn't really president to his frequent retweeting of white nationalist memes, refusal to disavow David Duke, and having his grown sons go on a white nationalist radio show twice before the 2016 election. During that campaign the question of whether or not Donny was a racist became irrelevant as his willingness to play in that sandbox was just as dangerous as if he were the reincarnation of a segregationist sheriff from the 1950s south.
However, when placed in context with actions such as getting sued by the Federal Government in the 1970s (along with his father) for refusing to rent to minorities or his continuing to not acknowledge that the five people who became known as the Central Park 5 (and which example he used for an op ed supporting bringing back the death penalty in the early 90s) were innocent of the crimes they were accused of committing despite eventually being exonerated by DNA evidence and the confession of the actual culprit years after they were convicted to the birtherism reveals a lot more about whether the Mad Fuhrer of Mar-A-Lago may be racist than his so easy to dispute denials (like his claims that he's the least racist person ever).
Is this merely riling up the base? Is it an election campaign tactic to get the white supremacist part of his base to come along? Both? It's hard to say but it's easy to figure out that all of this may be true and that things are going to get a hell of a lot uglier before the 2020 election.
In the upcoming print issue I'll dive into a couple of things that weren't really discussed here - including one thing the Mad Fuhrer of Mar-A-Lago doesn't even get he's right about. As for comments, I still refuse to right to delete comments that are totally ignorant, hateful (racist/Misogynist/homophobic/anti trans etc) or arguments I believe are in bad faith.
Monday, June 24, 2019
A Couple of Points Where Joe Biden Seems Really Naive
I've been meaning to type this for about a week or so but a mix of current events and my paying job schedule got in the way. Thus, the post is being put on here now and while in another time this would come off as dated Biden's response to one of these points keeps it vital and should be remembered as we near the caucuses and primaries over the next months.
Is it just me or does anyone else think former Vice President Joe Biden is awfully naive on a couple of points as he runs for President?
Biden, currently the front runner in the Democratic primary race for the 2020 election, is being pitched by the mainstream media as the electable choice who can cross the aisle and get things done in this tense and divided climate. Running on a mix of name recognition and his past Biden's place in these early polls are read as a rebuke to what's perceived as "the far left" of the Democratic Party whose alleged cries of "socialism" will turn away "white working class voters" long lamented by corporate media pundits as those who deserted the party to support the Mad Fuhrer of Mar-A-Lago in 2016. However, while it's true that Biden has a lot of knowledge of how Washington has traditionally worked from nearly 50 years in Federal government (his first election to the Senate was in 1972 and had never had to run a competitive election race outside of his failed Presidential runs in the 1988 and 2008 race {the latter of which led to his becoming the VP running mate for Barack Obama and then two terms as Vice President), his continuing to work in that mindset has lead to a couple of things he seems really naive about.
First, let's talk about his claim that nobody running has a more progressive record than him over the years. On the surface it seems like typically campaign braggadocio (every person running might say something similar on the Democratic Party side and/or thinks they're the person who can beat electoral vote winner Donny [why would they run if they didn't]), it shows the former VP still in what campaigning used to be, making claims and expecting people to be too busy to research and challenge them. The problem with this is that we live in the age of the Internet and, while the stupid things private individuals do might not be totally accessible, a public officials record can be tracked down and debunked not just via "oppo research" from either political opponents or in preparation by one's own team but by those in the general public willing to do the research. As a result we have learned about Biden's past support of the Hyde Amendment (which bans Federal funds from being used for abortion care - and a stance he continued to support until public outcry forced him to change it) as well as his support on various laws related ot the War on Crime in the 1990s including some that even former President Bill Clinton has said were wrong in retrospect). The fact that he continues to be proud of that part of his voting record in effects undermines his claims of being the most progressive candidate in the 2020 Presidential race. In fact, Biden's continuing to try to use his record as a selling point while claiming he's the most progressive candidate is a prime example of him continuing to run as if nothing has changed - when two plus years of the Mad Fuhrer has proven otherwise.
The other place where Biden seems really naive is related to the issue of civility in this political climate. Biden has gone on record as reportedly believing that once electoral vote winner Donny was out of office the Repubs in Congress and the Senate would then suddenly have an epiphany and realize that they shouldn't be acting the way they're currently acting and thus a spirit of bipartisanship will re-emerge. It's one thing for a private citizen unaware of how Washington works or the machinations of current politicians to state something like this. However, Biden spent eight years one heartbeat away from the Oval Office as VP to Barack Obama, the first black president of the U.S. and a man who administration was constantly hindered by Repubs in the legislative branch who, from day one were trying to make him a one term President and, when that didn't work, tried their hardest to make sure gridlock was the best case scenario. For Joe Biden to actually say this with a straight face it makes one wonder if he learned anything from the eight years he spent as VP under Obama. Add to this current Senate Majority Leader Addison the Turtle (some of y'all call him Mitch McConnell) stating that if a Democrat wins the 2020 election he will make sure no Democratic legislation gets passed in his time in office, and it's clear that civility won't just reappear if the Oval Office changes parties next year.
In fairness, the latter is not just Biden's naivete on this issue. There tends to be a desire for merely pre Donny in much of the Democratic Party establishment, thinking that once he's gone that all will be well again. The problem though is that the Repub party only agrees to anything bipartisan if they get what they want and the Democrats cave, thus moving things further to the right. With the current Repub leadership emboldened by the Mad Fuhrer and his fan club of white conservative christians and white supremacists, there's no reason for anyone to think that if their side loses next year on the Presidency but keeps the Senate that the GOP will suddenly start playing fair and not constantly block everything until they get almost all of what they want. Still, someone running for President should know better - especially if he knows how the other side actually works and should know by now that the civility they speak of exists just slightly this side of a unicorn in today's legislative body.
Now does that mean Joe Biden would be just as horrible as the Mad Fuhrer of Mar-A-Lago has been since taking office in January 2017? I think it's fair to say that he would be less terrible but the way things are going, it would be only by a matter of degrees; and thinking small moves will solve things these days is a prime example of how the politicians in Washington are being totally naive.
Is it just me or does anyone else think former Vice President Joe Biden is awfully naive on a couple of points as he runs for President?
Biden, currently the front runner in the Democratic primary race for the 2020 election, is being pitched by the mainstream media as the electable choice who can cross the aisle and get things done in this tense and divided climate. Running on a mix of name recognition and his past Biden's place in these early polls are read as a rebuke to what's perceived as "the far left" of the Democratic Party whose alleged cries of "socialism" will turn away "white working class voters" long lamented by corporate media pundits as those who deserted the party to support the Mad Fuhrer of Mar-A-Lago in 2016. However, while it's true that Biden has a lot of knowledge of how Washington has traditionally worked from nearly 50 years in Federal government (his first election to the Senate was in 1972 and had never had to run a competitive election race outside of his failed Presidential runs in the 1988 and 2008 race {the latter of which led to his becoming the VP running mate for Barack Obama and then two terms as Vice President), his continuing to work in that mindset has lead to a couple of things he seems really naive about.
First, let's talk about his claim that nobody running has a more progressive record than him over the years. On the surface it seems like typically campaign braggadocio (every person running might say something similar on the Democratic Party side and/or thinks they're the person who can beat electoral vote winner Donny [why would they run if they didn't]), it shows the former VP still in what campaigning used to be, making claims and expecting people to be too busy to research and challenge them. The problem with this is that we live in the age of the Internet and, while the stupid things private individuals do might not be totally accessible, a public officials record can be tracked down and debunked not just via "oppo research" from either political opponents or in preparation by one's own team but by those in the general public willing to do the research. As a result we have learned about Biden's past support of the Hyde Amendment (which bans Federal funds from being used for abortion care - and a stance he continued to support until public outcry forced him to change it) as well as his support on various laws related ot the War on Crime in the 1990s including some that even former President Bill Clinton has said were wrong in retrospect). The fact that he continues to be proud of that part of his voting record in effects undermines his claims of being the most progressive candidate in the 2020 Presidential race. In fact, Biden's continuing to try to use his record as a selling point while claiming he's the most progressive candidate is a prime example of him continuing to run as if nothing has changed - when two plus years of the Mad Fuhrer has proven otherwise.
The other place where Biden seems really naive is related to the issue of civility in this political climate. Biden has gone on record as reportedly believing that once electoral vote winner Donny was out of office the Repubs in Congress and the Senate would then suddenly have an epiphany and realize that they shouldn't be acting the way they're currently acting and thus a spirit of bipartisanship will re-emerge. It's one thing for a private citizen unaware of how Washington works or the machinations of current politicians to state something like this. However, Biden spent eight years one heartbeat away from the Oval Office as VP to Barack Obama, the first black president of the U.S. and a man who administration was constantly hindered by Repubs in the legislative branch who, from day one were trying to make him a one term President and, when that didn't work, tried their hardest to make sure gridlock was the best case scenario. For Joe Biden to actually say this with a straight face it makes one wonder if he learned anything from the eight years he spent as VP under Obama. Add to this current Senate Majority Leader Addison the Turtle (some of y'all call him Mitch McConnell) stating that if a Democrat wins the 2020 election he will make sure no Democratic legislation gets passed in his time in office, and it's clear that civility won't just reappear if the Oval Office changes parties next year.
In fairness, the latter is not just Biden's naivete on this issue. There tends to be a desire for merely pre Donny in much of the Democratic Party establishment, thinking that once he's gone that all will be well again. The problem though is that the Repub party only agrees to anything bipartisan if they get what they want and the Democrats cave, thus moving things further to the right. With the current Repub leadership emboldened by the Mad Fuhrer and his fan club of white conservative christians and white supremacists, there's no reason for anyone to think that if their side loses next year on the Presidency but keeps the Senate that the GOP will suddenly start playing fair and not constantly block everything until they get almost all of what they want. Still, someone running for President should know better - especially if he knows how the other side actually works and should know by now that the civility they speak of exists just slightly this side of a unicorn in today's legislative body.
Now does that mean Joe Biden would be just as horrible as the Mad Fuhrer of Mar-A-Lago has been since taking office in January 2017? I think it's fair to say that he would be less terrible but the way things are going, it would be only by a matter of degrees; and thinking small moves will solve things these days is a prime example of how the politicians in Washington are being totally naive.
Friday, June 21, 2019
Wasn't yesterday a Ride?
Does anybody else think that yesterday was really really bizarre?
In the course of one day, the Mad Führer of Mar-A-Lago went from threatening Iran to claiming that said nation's attack on a U.S. military drone was an accident to calling for an airstrike to calling off that airstrike. It was definitely a bizarre thing to read about when I got home from the paying job last night.
So why did it happen? Some have suggested that there is friction between National Security Advisor John Bolton's camp and electoral vote winner Donny. Others have suggested that maybe the Mad Fuhrer really doesn't want this war but is being led around by the military. There are even reports that Valdimir Putin suggested that this attack would be a bad idea. So what do we know?
First, national security and diplomacy experts are saying this didn't help electoral vote winner Donny or the country's standing in the world. Also, this might not be over yet as there are still a few ships heading towards the region to be stationaed near Iran (so he might still get this war yet).
Personally, I'm amongst those who think the Mad Fuhrer of Mar-A-:ago wants a war for several reasons: One, the mainstream media usually follows along for a while and is less critical when a war goes down (see both wars with Iraq, Afghanistan, etc). It also is a great motive by which he can quash dissent. For those reasons alone I think he may still want this.
So why didn't it happen yesterday? I honestly don't know. Donny claims a sudden concern over loss of life if a strike happened. However, given his disregard for human life in his own country whether it be the growing income inequality or locking migrants and asylum seekers in what is safe to call concentration camps at this point this excuse seems hollow. Maybe it was Putin, maybe it was blowback by his donors. As I said time will tell on what happens next.
While we don't know what elctoral vote winner Donny is going to do about Iran (hell, in the next 12 hours he could suddenly do the mother of all strikes) on thing is clear: yesterday was a bizarre ride that, if nothing else, shows that maybe there is something to the theory that the Mad Fuhrer of Mar-A-Lago is a malleable useful idiot for whatever forces in power want, whether it be influence, a theocracy, or war.
Regardless, it's something that's scary to contemplate.
In the course of one day, the Mad Führer of Mar-A-Lago went from threatening Iran to claiming that said nation's attack on a U.S. military drone was an accident to calling for an airstrike to calling off that airstrike. It was definitely a bizarre thing to read about when I got home from the paying job last night.
So why did it happen? Some have suggested that there is friction between National Security Advisor John Bolton's camp and electoral vote winner Donny. Others have suggested that maybe the Mad Fuhrer really doesn't want this war but is being led around by the military. There are even reports that Valdimir Putin suggested that this attack would be a bad idea. So what do we know?
First, national security and diplomacy experts are saying this didn't help electoral vote winner Donny or the country's standing in the world. Also, this might not be over yet as there are still a few ships heading towards the region to be stationaed near Iran (so he might still get this war yet).
Personally, I'm amongst those who think the Mad Fuhrer of Mar-A-:ago wants a war for several reasons: One, the mainstream media usually follows along for a while and is less critical when a war goes down (see both wars with Iraq, Afghanistan, etc). It also is a great motive by which he can quash dissent. For those reasons alone I think he may still want this.
So why didn't it happen yesterday? I honestly don't know. Donny claims a sudden concern over loss of life if a strike happened. However, given his disregard for human life in his own country whether it be the growing income inequality or locking migrants and asylum seekers in what is safe to call concentration camps at this point this excuse seems hollow. Maybe it was Putin, maybe it was blowback by his donors. As I said time will tell on what happens next.
While we don't know what elctoral vote winner Donny is going to do about Iran (hell, in the next 12 hours he could suddenly do the mother of all strikes) on thing is clear: yesterday was a bizarre ride that, if nothing else, shows that maybe there is something to the theory that the Mad Fuhrer of Mar-A-Lago is a malleable useful idiot for whatever forces in power want, whether it be influence, a theocracy, or war.
Regardless, it's something that's scary to contemplate.
Friday, June 14, 2019
So The Mad Fuhrer Admits He Might Accept Foreign Help and Thus Break the Law
Boy have the last few days been a ride. I'd been working on finishing the new print issue (and a double issue at that) so between that and the paying job I'd been slightly out of the loop when it comes to news. However, since there's been a lot of stuff coming down recently it feels important to at least address what happened Wednesday.
On Wednesday afternoon news broke regarding a one on one interview that George Stephanopolous of ABC News did an Oval Office one on one interview with electoral vote winner Donny when George asked him a somewhat hypothetical question regarding the 2020 election. The Mad Fuhrer was given a scenario where a foreign power contacted his campaign (offering Russia or China as a couple of examples) and said they had dirt on his opponent, then asked in that case should his campaign listen or should they contact the FBI. Without missing a bea and just after slightly turning his head, the Mad Fuhrer of Mar-A-Lago said he'd "probably do both."
Yes, you read that right. Even after just being investigated in the Mueller probe for similar things electoral vote winner Donny is again on national TV openly admitting he'd probably accept dirt from foreign governments on election opponents in the upcoming election. While that alone seems to show he doesn't the laws he's supposed to defend and enact, there's something else here that needs to be said.
First up is the question itself. Stephanopolous is an establishment journalist so it makes sense this shouldn't be a gotcha question - and it wasn't/ Hell, it wasn't even a softball question. This question was basically tee ball, as in ABC News set up a question on the tee and all electoral vote winner Donny had to do was hit the metaphorical ball by stating either that of course they'd go to the FBI or something about following Federal law on the issue (accepting help from a foreign power on an election campaign is against Federal law) or something like that. After two and a half years in office this wasn't a question that should've made the news.
However, the Mad Fuhrer of Mar-A-Lago, being who he is, somehow either wasn't told that or chooses not to say he'd follow the law. And that is the second concern. When Robert Mueller finally commented on his investigation a month or so ago he basically said what many already had an idea about: it wasn't an exoneration and while they couldn't bring charges under Justice Department rules Congress can look into it further. One has to wonder if it will take electoral vote winner Donny actually being impeached to get him to finally get the hint.
Even then, would it work? Electoral vote winner Donny has a history of disregarding the law when it's in his interest to do so. This makes the 2020 election take an ominous turn as some wonder if he will leave office willingly if voted out.
While that is conjecture at this point, what is known is the Mad Fuhrer of Mar-A-Lago seems hell-bent on gaslighting America by telling what he's likely to do and hten telling them he didn't say what we actually saw and heard him say. This makes Donny's statement telling as, even though there's more than enough evidence that such an action would violate the law, the fact he can't even just say he'd follow Federal law when it comes to foregin powers offering dirt on electoral opponents shows that next year's elections is going to get dirty and ugly indeed, and that the Repubs will do anything to try and keep power - ethics and the law be damned.
This should scare anyone who wants elections to be free and fair in the USA.
On Wednesday afternoon news broke regarding a one on one interview that George Stephanopolous of ABC News did an Oval Office one on one interview with electoral vote winner Donny when George asked him a somewhat hypothetical question regarding the 2020 election. The Mad Fuhrer was given a scenario where a foreign power contacted his campaign (offering Russia or China as a couple of examples) and said they had dirt on his opponent, then asked in that case should his campaign listen or should they contact the FBI. Without missing a bea and just after slightly turning his head, the Mad Fuhrer of Mar-A-Lago said he'd "probably do both."
Yes, you read that right. Even after just being investigated in the Mueller probe for similar things electoral vote winner Donny is again on national TV openly admitting he'd probably accept dirt from foreign governments on election opponents in the upcoming election. While that alone seems to show he doesn't the laws he's supposed to defend and enact, there's something else here that needs to be said.
First up is the question itself. Stephanopolous is an establishment journalist so it makes sense this shouldn't be a gotcha question - and it wasn't/ Hell, it wasn't even a softball question. This question was basically tee ball, as in ABC News set up a question on the tee and all electoral vote winner Donny had to do was hit the metaphorical ball by stating either that of course they'd go to the FBI or something about following Federal law on the issue (accepting help from a foreign power on an election campaign is against Federal law) or something like that. After two and a half years in office this wasn't a question that should've made the news.
However, the Mad Fuhrer of Mar-A-Lago, being who he is, somehow either wasn't told that or chooses not to say he'd follow the law. And that is the second concern. When Robert Mueller finally commented on his investigation a month or so ago he basically said what many already had an idea about: it wasn't an exoneration and while they couldn't bring charges under Justice Department rules Congress can look into it further. One has to wonder if it will take electoral vote winner Donny actually being impeached to get him to finally get the hint.
Even then, would it work? Electoral vote winner Donny has a history of disregarding the law when it's in his interest to do so. This makes the 2020 election take an ominous turn as some wonder if he will leave office willingly if voted out.
While that is conjecture at this point, what is known is the Mad Fuhrer of Mar-A-Lago seems hell-bent on gaslighting America by telling what he's likely to do and hten telling them he didn't say what we actually saw and heard him say. This makes Donny's statement telling as, even though there's more than enough evidence that such an action would violate the law, the fact he can't even just say he'd follow Federal law when it comes to foregin powers offering dirt on electoral opponents shows that next year's elections is going to get dirty and ugly indeed, and that the Repubs will do anything to try and keep power - ethics and the law be damned.
This should scare anyone who wants elections to be free and fair in the USA.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)