Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

They traffic in fear. it is their only currency. if we are fearful, they are winning.

Proof that we need a blogger ethics panel.

I really should read my own blog.

People are complicated. Love is not.

Teach a man to fish, and he’ll sit in a boat all day drinking beer.

Battle won, war still ongoing.

This really is a full service blog.

if you can’t see it, then you are useless in the fight to stop it.

This fight is for everything.

Putting aside our relentless self-interest because the moral imperative is crystal clear.

In my day, never was longer.

The party of Reagan has become the party of Putin.

And now I have baud making fun of me. this day can’t get worse.

Republican obstruction dressed up as bipartisanship. Again.

Putin must be throwing ketchup at the walls.

We are builders in a constant struggle with destroyers. let’s win this.

The willow is too close to the house.

Despite his magical powers, I don’t think Trump is thinking this through, to be honest.

Bark louder, little dog.

We still have time to mess this up!

It’s the corruption, stupid.

You can’t attract Republican voters. You can only out organize them.

The revolution will be supervised.

Historically it was a little unusual for the president to be an incoherent babbling moron.

You are here: Home / Politics / Impeachment / Impeach the Motherfucker! / There Will Be No Testimony

There Will Be No Testimony

by | 118 Comments

This post is in: 

One of Josh Marshall’s readers who’s also a federal prosecutor sent in an email setting up a possible showdown where John Roberts would be making rulings on whether players like Bolton and Mulvaney could be forced to testify. His theory is that, with everyone watching, Roberts will be a pretty straight referee who will allow subpoenas for those who haven’t testified yet, and force the Senate to vote to overrule him. Read it all here.

This made me wonder about witnesses in general. Let’s look at what happened at Clinton’s impeachment:

A resolution on rules and procedure for the trial was adopted unanimously on the following day; however, senators tabled the question of whether to call witnesses in the trial. The trial remained in recess while briefs were filed by the House (January 11) and Clinton (January 13). […]

Over three days, February 1–3, House managers took videotaped closed-door depositions from Monica Lewinsky, Clinton’s friend Vernon Jordan, and White House aide Sidney Blumenthal. On February 4, however, the Senate voted 70–30 that excerpting these videotapes would suffice as testimony, rather than calling live witnesses to appear at trial. The videos were played in the Senate on February 6, featuring 30 excerpts of Lewinsky discussing her affidavit in the Paula Jones case, the hiding of small gifts Clinton had given her, and his involvement in procurement of a job for Lewinsky.

In other words, the Senate adopts its own rules for impeachment, and given the makeup of the Senate, it’s unlikely that they will call witnesses if they think it will damage Trump.

If someone knows more about this, please sound off in the comments, but from what I see, there ain’t no savior rising from these streets.

Reader Interactions

118Comments

  1. 1.

    hueyplong

    Yes, the GOP has an easy counter to the clever plan of saving witnesses for the trial.

     

    “Checkmate, libtards” always trumps any thought of getting to the truth, justice, etc.

  2. 2.

    JMG

    According to several Congressional reporters, McConnell doesn’t have enough votes to either dismiss the impeachment with no trial or to rule out actual testimony. Senators up in 2020 who could lose (Collins, McNally, etc.) want at least a chance to look like they’re participating in a fair trial before voting to acquit.

  3. 3.

    randy khan

    My working assumption is that the Republicans in the Senate will adopt the rules they think are the most advantageous to Trump [edit: and themselves] *unless* Trump insists otherwise.  So we may well see live testimony from people he thinks will help him, whether or not they actually do help him.  He might even insist on testifying himself, since he keeps saying how “perfect” the call was.  (I think this is a real long shot, but it’s not entirely out of the question and it sure would be fun.)

  4. 4.

    rikyrah

    Let’s say everybody that they say who would help Dolt45, but, are refusing House Subpoenas right now (Pompeo, Mulvaney, etc.), shows up to testify in the Senate trial.

    Do the minority get a counsel that can ask questions too?

  5. 5.

    mistermix loves your ass

    @JMG: I have to imagine that the way that Collins, Romney and the rest will appear to be fair minded yet help Trump is to vote for rules that prohibit witnesses and then, maybe if they really ate their Wheaties that morning, vote to remove.  More likely is to have a trial that has the appearance of fairness, calls no witnesses, and then they furrow their brows and vote to acquit.

  7. 7.

    MattF

    I think the Dem strategy should be to make R senators vote repeatedly to protect Trump. The unknown element is Trump himself– will he demand the opportunity to testify? One can hope so, but we shall see.

  8. 8.

    JMG

    @mistermix loves your ass: It’s very hard to have the appearance of a fair trial without witnesses of some kind. The Clinton impeachment was weird because it used the Starr Report as its sole source of evidence, which may skew all our memories.

  9. 9.

    mistermix loves your ass

    @JMG: Here’s an easy one:  make a rule that the only witnesses that can be called are ones that appeared in the House hearings.  Sounds fair, doesn’t it?  McConnell will have something like that figured out.

  10. 10.

    cleek

    witnesses don’t have to help Trump – there’s no need for the Senate GOP to do that since Trump’s in no danger of removal. but they can call witnesses to help the GOP’s pursuit of unicorns, bigfoots and squonks.

  11. 11.

    hueyplong

    @JMG: In things get really hinky for Trump he is heavily leaning on a no- witnesses Senate trial as an existential mandate, it will be interesting to see the battle Royale between Senators’ own senses of self-preservation and their obsequious fealty to Dear Leader.

  12. 12.

    JMG

    @mistermix loves your ass: Those witnesses were not exactly favorable to the defense, even the ones requested by Republicans. I’m not sure they really want to see Sondland try his fourth version of events. But I’d bet that’s how it winds up. It will not be a good look for some GOP Senators to vote to prevent witnesses such as Giuliani from testifying. I mean, they’ll do it, but it’s super attack ad fodder.

  13. 13.

    randy khan

    @JMG:

     

    I can see it now:  “Senator [x] wouldn’t let [pick name of witness] testify at Trump’s impeachment trial.  Why was s/he afraid of the truth?”

    or

     

    “Trump wanted to keep [name of witness] from testifying at the impeachment trial.  Senator [x] helped Trump hide the truth.”

  14. 14.

    tobie

    Who are the House managers? I hope Schiff is one of them. I’m asking because he’s not a member of the Judiciary Committee and that might make a difference.

  15. 15.

    Mnemosyne

    Graham has apparently been threatening to call Schiff as a witness, and I wish that a motherfucker would.

  16. 16.

    Duane

    @JMG: The Clinton impeachment reads like a children’s story compared  to Trumpov’s criminality. Clinton’s acts were personal in nature. The current situation threatens everything our country stands for.

  17. 17.

    Mnemosyne

    @tobie:

     

    Locals can tell you that Schiff being a House Manager would be ironic to the point of hilarity, because one of the reasons Schiff won the seat was that his Republican predecessor was one of the House Managers for the Clinton impeachment.

    Schiff may want to avoid it just to avoid that association of House Manager of impeachment = lost seat.

  21. 21.

    MattF

    @Mnemosyne: I wonder what Graham is hoping to accomplish. He apparently desperately wants a starring role in the trial… but to what end? I’m just boggled here.

  22. 22.

    Omnes Omnibus

    @tobie: OMFG!   There are no managers because Trump has not been impeached yet.  I get that you love Schiff but let the fucking process take its course.

  31. 31.

    catclub

    @randy khan:  It was the only way to keep the godless liberals from winning.  Will work for many of their voters.

    Why was s/he afraid of the truth?”

  34. 34.

    tobie

    @Omnes Omnibus: I friggin’ get that we’re not at that stage yet. I friggin’ get that the Intelligence Committee hasn’t prepared its report yet. But it’s also true that the House has chosen an expedited path with no further witnesses to be called so speculation about who the House managers are, how they are chosen, whether they would be restricted to the Judiciary Committee or could be drawn from other committees is not premature. Your condescension is annoying as all get up.

  40. 40.

    MomSense

    I have a question following Sondland’s admission that Pence was in the loop.  What is his exposure to impeachment?  As much as I hate the apricot asshole, I may actually despise Pence a bit more for wrapping his cruelty, stupidity, and opportunism in religion. Fucking fake piety makes me furious.

  47. 47.

    Jay

    Andy Ngo's "journalism" has resulted in countless activists and journalists being doxxed, harassed, threatened, & put on neo-nazi kill lists — often just for being present at a protest.Maybe those Northwestern students aren't so "idiotic," huh? 8/https://t.co/zCbJlLccfT pic.twitter.com/UU98U5jjdP— Caroline Orr (@RVAwonk) November 22, 2019

    Thread,………

    Get used to things changing on the journalism front, now that even benign interaction with a journalist on a mundane story can result in misidentification, death threats, violent attacks, job losses, etc. Many on the Reich are going full ISIL.

  48. 48.

    Searcher

    @Baud: I’m trying to remember now if I had a color phaser script installed on my MUD client, or just on my Yahoo! chat client.

  49. 49.

    zhena gogolia

    @MomSense:

     

    All I know is, the NYT is very concerned that Nancy Pelosi might become president, and has been urging the Democrats to announce that they will not follow the law that’s been in effect since 1947, but will let a Republican become President so we don’t overturn the results of the election. They’ve had both an editorial and a piece by David Leonhardt to this effect.

     

    Hi, Omnes!

  50. 50.

    bbleh

    Sorry to say that I agree entirely with the post, and with the poster’s responses.  Senate Republicans will act in lockstep to do what is 100% best for Trump, appearances be damned, because doing what’s good for Trump IS the most important appearance for their supporters.

     

    McConnell isn’t as smart as Pelosi, but he’s no fool.  The trial will be 100% staged to exonerate.

     

    And in any case, I think the facts are now irrelevant, precisely because they are now entirely clear.  It’s obvious what Trump did — both the abuse of office and the obstruction — and what he is.  The question now is, are you for him and Murka, or for those scheming libruls and all the Others they want to give your money to?

  53. 53.

    MJS

    I’m wondering, if it’s decided that Mulvaney, et al, don’t have to honor subpoenas, is there any utility in holding hearings with legal expert witnesses that will testify that the act of ignoring subpoenas is itself evidence of obstruction of justice, which was (I believe) included in the articles of impeachment drawn up against Nixon and Clinton? It obviously won’t do any good in the Senate, but there needs to be a way to get that issue in front of the general public.

  54. 54.

    germy

    Re: speaking up — since resigning as National Security Advisor, the @WhiteHouse refused to return access to my personal Twitter account. Out of fear of what I may say? To those who speculated I went into hiding, I’m sorry to disappoint!— John Bolton (@AmbJohnBolton) November 22, 2019

    You could also have started a new account. I believe @BigWhiteStache2019 was open. (just for example.)— Jeremy Newberger (@jeremynewberger) November 22, 2019

  58. 58.

    Jay

    @tobie:

    “All of this is up to the committees of jurisdiction. They have the responsibility and they see the flow of evidence in fact,” Pelosi said. “We aren’t finished yet, the day is not over, and you never know what testimony of one person may lead to need for testimony of the other, as we saw with Ambassador Taylor at the beginning of last week bringing forth Mr. Holmes today.”

    pundits in DC have a bad habit of calling the results of a horserace while the horses are still running,…..

    Nobody in a position of authority has said that the hearings are over, nor have they said that the hearings arn’t over, just as they havn’t said that impeachment will be expedited, or dragged out.

    Those who are in control of the Impeachment process have said, it will take as long as it takes.

  61. 61.

    Baud

    @germy: Ha! I thought we only handed our servers to Ukraine.

     

    Seriously, it took Bolton two months to figure out he could create a new account?

  62. 62.

    mad citizen

    I read on my elevator news screen that trump today on live tv admitted to the crime again, holding up the military aid for an investigation, etc.  Not seeing this on CNNs site I can only assume he was babbling on Fox.

  63. 63.

    low-tech cyclist

    Here’s what I expect of CJ Roberts in the way of fair play:

    1. He won’t cut the Dems off, but will give them sufficient time to *verbally* present their case.
    2. He will give equal time to the prosecution and defense.
    3. IF the Senate chooses to allow witnesses, he’ll allow both sides to call witnesses, and question each other’s witnesses.  But he won’t require them to allow witnesses to be called.

    Other than that, the Dems can’t expect any help from him.  That’s all he has to do to appear fair, so that’s what he will do, and no more.

  64. 64.

    LongHairedWeirdo

    There’s been speculation that the Senate will want to hold a “real” trial to avoid appearing to be part of a coverup. I think that’s not entirely unreasonable – but honestly? You’d have guessed the Senate would hold at least a *hearing* on Merrick Garland.

    The question will, as always, come down to “what do they think they can do to ride out the electoral effects?” and, BTW, that should be infuriating and disqualifying for anyone who wants to wear the title of “conservative” with pride, rather than having it a synonym for “kisser of Trump’s <strike>mushroom</strike> boots”

  67. 67.

    Chief Oshkosh

    Somewhat related:

     

    Do we know if FOIA requests have been made asking for details about July 4th, 2018 visit to Moscow by The Prostrate Eight (aka, Moscow Mules): Sens. Richard C. Shelby (Ala.), Steve Daines (Mont.), John Hoeven (N.D.), John Neely Kennedy (La.), Jerry Moran (Kan.), John Thune (S.D.) and Ron Johnson (Wisc.), plus Rep. Kay Granger (Tex.)?

     

    Sure would be nice to have all minutes of all the meetings, including lists of attendees. And, it would be timely if this information was provided as the Senate began a trial based on a House impeachment vote. Would be good for TV producers to have chyrons made up to remind the viewing public, replacing their state’s initials with “Moscow” or “Russia”:

     

    Ron Johnson (Mosc.); Richard C. Shelby (Rus.), etc.

     

    Like they say, ya can’t know the players if ya don’t have a program!

  68. 68.

    germy

    @Baud:

    Seriously, it took Bolton two months to figure out he could create a new account?

    Seems to be the old account.  Ambassador John Bolton.

  70. 70.

    Emerald

    @MattF:

    I think the Dem strategy should be to make R senators vote repeatedly to protect Trump.

    Agree, and I think that’s Pelosi’s strategy. She’s in it for the long game. She knows he won’t be removed, absent some kind of miracle. No, she wants to preserve the House majority and win the Senate. She said months ago that the Republican senators would have to live with their votes.

     

    That’s what she intends to make them do. As close to the elections as possible. After damning evidence has been made abundantly clear to the voting public.

  72. 72.

    mad citizen

    @NotMax: Ha!  At work, I’m on the 15th floor out of 16, so see very short news things.  The system is called Captivate, they have a website as well.

     

    Turns out trumpov was on Fox and Friends.  Story I saw is from Business Insider, google link says it was 3 days ago but the site is dated Nov. 22.  Maybe it’s no longer news when he admits impeachable crimes.

  75. 75.

    Captain C

    @Mnemosyne: Graham has apparently been threatening to call Schiff as a witness, and I wish that a motherfucker would.

    I’d like to see Graham called in front of Schiff’s committee:

     

    “Just one question, Senator:  what do they have on you?  And remember, you’re under oath.”

  76. 76.

    germy

    The impeachment hearings would be more credible if Democrats hadn't been champing at the bit to impeach Trump since before he took office. https://t.co/5k8yU7kKv2— The American Conservative (@amconmag) November 22, 2019

    Your trolling would be more credible if you hadn’t spent my entire lifetime veering from one exploding disaster or scandal after another. You people can’t keep your dicks in your pants or your hands out of our pockets. You are as lawless as you are immoral. https://t.co/FDIl3yFiUi— Susan of Texas (@SusanofTexas) November 22, 2019

  78. 78.

    gene108

    @MattF:

     

     

     

    I think the Dem strategy should be to make R senators vote repeatedly to protect Trump. The unknown element is Trump himself– will he demand the opportunity to testify? One can hope so, but we shall see.

    Trump’s been sued enough times, and been deposed enough times, that what to do in a trial is something he may have a clue about.

    But I’d love to see him testify, under oath.

    The man’s a pathological liar. He will most definitely lie under oath.

  80. 80.

    germy

    Social Security Administration staffers who set up Medicare hoped that lawmakers would incrementally expand Medicare to include everyone — not just the elderly.

    “The original idea behind Medicare was Medicare for all.” https://t.co/VeGPh0zn0Q

    — Thanksgiving ? March for Progress (@march4progress) November 22, 2019

  81. 81.

    Kent

    @MomSense: They can impeach anyone.  But to go after Pence would likely require a whole new set of hearings and witnesses and I doubt the Dems have the stomach for separate Pence hearings.  Especially if he is more or less tainted by Trump’s crimes and doesn’t really seem to have his own independent ones.   If Pence was running off half cocked doing all his own crimes independent from Trump, along the lines of say Agnew, then maybe.

     

    Eyes on the prize.  Holding Trump accountable is the main objective here.  Every damn one of his cabinet could probably also be impeached as well.  But none of that is happening before 2020.

  85. 85.

    gene108

    @bbleh:

     

    McConnell isn’t as smart as Pelosi, but he’s no fool.

     

    Facts not in evidence.

    I hate McConnell.

    I hope he has a long, slow, agonizing death due to an incurable disease, over the next ten years, while he’s caged in a baby jail, being gnawed on by rates, but he engineered the destruction of all Senate norms, and held his caucus together for it.

    I don’t know, who is smarter, but McConnell is smart* enough to have caused lasting damage to this country, and the Democratic Party**, for short term political gain.

    * Being an evil, cynical, soulless, turtleman, is not a reflection on intelligence.

    ** Stacking the courts, like he has, is going to hamper all Democratic reforms over the next 50 years.

  86. 86.

    piratedan

    I fully expect that regardless of the decisions made by the Senate, I take it as a given that whatever The Turtle decides to do, that it will cause my blood pressure to go up as I expect the truth to be distorted, disassembled and reconstructed into a semblance that no one could easily identify outside of Fox and Friends.

  89. 89.

    MattF

    @gene108: And Trump has said, repeatedly, that the phone call was perfect, that it’s fine for foreign powers to investigate Democrats, that the only 2016 conspiracy was Ukrainian, etc. Just repeating what he usually says would be more than enough to prove he’s guilty, guilty, guilty.

  90. 90.

    Another Scott

    I think it’s hard to know how all of this plays out.  I heard pieces of a CSpan interview with someone from Politico yesterday.  He said:

    • He doesn’t expect more public testimony, but that can always change.
    • He expects Schiff’s committee to work over the Thanksgiving break and then send a report to Pelosi and the other committees.
    • He thinks impeachment articles will be written in Pelosi’s office and it will take a couple of weeks.
    • He thinks the House will debate the impeachment articles for a couple of weeks, and the actual vote(s) on Articles of Impeachment will be in January.

    He didn’t explain the reasoning for these opinions, at least that I heard.

     

    While Donnie signed the latest CR yesterday – preventing a shutdown – it’s not at all guaranteed that he won’t pull some sort of stunt around December 20 to prevent another CR or an actual budget.

     

    McConnell and a bunch of other GOP Senators met with Donnie and his family recently to plot their strategery.  Supposedly they want a full trial (which probably means that they don’t have the votes to cut it short).

     

    Donnie lies about everything, so him saying “of course he wants to testify” means he never will.

     

    I think it’s far too early to know how it will go in the Senate.  GOP people are still trying to figure out what the recent elections in Virginia, Kentucky, and Louisiana mean.  The fact that many of the end-of-the-day votes in Schiff’s committee were 13-3 or 14-4 tells me that the GOP people – even those on the committees – don’t want to defend Donnie in the House.  Senators are less vulnerable than Representatives to Donnie’s awesome Twitter power! so they should be freer to do what they think is best, not what Donnie demands.

     

    We’ll see.

     

    Cheers,

    Scott.

  91. 91.

    Kent

    Honestly, I’ve been quite pleasantly surprised at the competence or even brilliance of the Dem leadership so far regarding impeachment.

     

    I think they got the timing just right, waiting until they had a rock solid actual crime rather than something vague like collusion or obstruction.  And an actual crime that is easily understandable and has no mitigating explanation.  Like he was embarrassed and just wanted to cover up an affair.

     

    And I think they have been masterful in selecting Schiff as the leader and the intelligence committee with Nunes as the forum.   They have also been masterful in selecting which witnesses to bring forward in prime time.  I mean fuck, these people have been good.   And frankly going forward with witnesses like Vindeman and Hill while they ignore and pass over witnesses like Mulvaney has been working.  Much as I’d like to see Mulvaney and Pompeo on the stand, they are actually political pros and would likely be disappointing witnesses with all their “failure to recollect” and muddying the water.  Putting forward bright, articulate, serious professionals like Hill has turned out to be a far better strategy than a Mulvaney who would likely be a hostile witness going off on endless tangents and generally just mucking up the affair.  Imagine trying to interrogate someone like Nunes.   The cognoscenti might enjoy it but it wouldn’t likely lead to much in the way of useful information and would likely produce a whole lot of confusing nonsense for Fox to exploit.

     

    Honestly this whole process is proceeding far better than I ever expected.   And with Schiff doing his opening and closing monologues they are setting exactly the right tone.

     

    So I trust them to know what they are fucking doing when it comes to timing and process with any Senate trial.  Schiff and the rest must have some pretty damn good staff who are working 24/7 on this.  Because it shows.

  93. 93.

    feebog

    I keep seeing Republicans post how they can’t wait for the Senate trial so “their side” will be able to call witnesses and Trump’s lawyers can cross examine them.  They are going to be disappointed.  No way in hell Mc Connell wants witnesses who will be under oath and subject to examination by House Managers.

  94. 94.

    janesays

    @rikyrah: I think it works completely different than the House proceedings we’ve seen – the Republicans wouldn’t be questioning witnesses on Trump’s behalf, Trump’s chosen counsel would. The House managers (who will be made up of Democratic House members) will serve as the prosecution. If no witnesses are called, the House managers will present their case over the course of several days, and then Trump’s counsel will be afforded the opportunity to present their defense for a few days afterward. Following that, members of the both sides of the Senate are given the opportunity to question the House managers as well as Trump’s defense counsel.

  95. 95.

    Warblewarble

    The long game is the game that matters. Get your popcorn now, it will be a long game ,Nancy knows what needs be done,tRUMPthuglican ratfucking goes on and on. Now is the hour of the Shermans and the Grants,never forget the Virginian George H. Thomas stood by the Union when Lee was making the south safe for slavery

  97. 97.

    janesays

    @tobie: They’re chosen by a House resolution. Typically they are mainly members of the Judiciary Committee, but there’s no requirement that they must be from that committee. They also choose a lead House manager (who functions as lead prosecutor). I think there’s a good chance Schiff winds up as one of the managers. Nadler will probably be lead, though.

  100. 100.

    mad citizen

    @zhena gogolia: Thanks, I listened to the clips.  All along, I’ve been amazed that the sheer stupidity and incompetence of this man is not an 80 point headline of every newspaper and the first 3 minutes of every newscast every damn day.

  102. 102.

    Jay

    Unfortunately, in our current information environment, this update — which essentially makes it a non-story — will have no effect on the right-wing media machine, which has moved on from scandalizing the initial story and is now producing entirely new, conspiratorial spinoffs. https://t.co/1CMBsbeyH2— Caroline Orr (@RVAwonk) November 22, 2019

  105. 105.

    Ella in New Mexico

    I keep wondering if maybe, as long as Trump has the Republicans and Fox and all the RW propaganda outlets blowing these false conspiracy theories up the asses of Trumps supporters, maybe it would be a good strategy for Adam Schiff to go ahead and play chicken.

     

    What if he announces that his committee is now investigating the origins of these false conspiracy tales including Burisma/Hunter Biden and that the Ukrainians conspired with Democrats in 2016/Crowdstrike bullshit? Which would include collusion/conspiracy by people in the President’s Re-Election campaign, his “personal attorney”, members of Congress, the Senate and the Administration working with known international criminals and Russian actors who assisted in trying to create a false narrative in order to help the POTUS in his 2020 Election Campaign? Make it an aspect of the Impeachment investigation, in that it’s an abuse of Trump’s powers to coerce this in order to win his election.

     

    Contrary to some, I DO think these hearings have moved public opinion. Even Fox couldn’t filter out the obvious, and while some of its commentators were pushing the Trump Cult line, many didn’t. The truth squeaked out in a way that without the hearings, it wouldn’t have.

     

    The Committee could call a ton of very credible and well informed experts to testify, lay out exactly why its all a big fat fairy tale. Turn the whole fucking spotlight on Nunes, McCarthy, Sessions, Graham, Johnson and Barr. Force them to testify or at the very least if they refuse present the damning evidence we’re reading gathered by good journalists. Associate them with the Russian GRU, oligarchs, and mobsters behind all this garbage.

     

    We can’t just not push back, or expect average people to go looking this stuff up. Hearings would do that for us.

  106. 106.

    Jay

    @Ella in New Mexico:

     

    chasing down the Fake News won’t stop Faux News, the Russians, QAnon and your Facebook Uncle from just inventing and chaseing after new Fake News.

     

    as Carol pointed out, the report that a contract FBI Lawyer minorly changed a survelliance report on Page, that did not effect the FISA application or FBI investigation one little bit, has not even slowed down the nutters online from running with it.

  108. 108.

    catclub

    @Kent: I thought upholding the rule of law is the prize. If Pence has committed impeachable crimes, or Pompeo, or Mulvaney, they should be impeached.

     

    Eyes on the prize. Holding Trump accountable is the main objective here.

  110. 110.

    w

    Comrade Kryuchov spelled out how to undermine western democracy. First recruit narcisstic fantascists with crooked buisiness dealings add white supremecists ,gunhumpers ,evangelicits wrap it up with kompromat and you are in the driving seat. breaking up NATO and the EU and all other alliences come easy and cheap (see brexit)

  111. 111.

    Goku (aka Amerikan Baka)

    @bbleh:

    And in any case, I think the facts are now irrelevant, precisely because they are now entirely clear.  It’s obvious what Trump did — both the abuse of office and the obstruction — and what he is.  The question now is, are you for him and Murka, or for those scheming libruls and all the Others they want to give your money to?

    What do you mean by that?

  113. 113.

    Ella in New Mexico

    @Jay: I hear what you’re saying, but I guess what I’m thinking of is not giving THEM an opportunity to air THEIR bullshit, but turning the tables on the whole thing by saying up front that it’s not just a hoax, but that it’s a false and contrived conspiracy designed to A. Help Russia and B. Help Trump win re-election and is therefore a corrupt and possibly criminal endeavor–label all of it a HUGE national security threat and an impeachable offense in perpetuating it.

  114. 114.

    tobie

    @Jay: The leak about this apparently trivial alteration on the FISA warrant application that had no material effect on the process was planted yesterday to divert attention from the hearings. I don’t get why the media never considers the motivation for leaks. This was such a transparent case of misdirection.

  116. 116.

    Dan B

    @zhena gogolia: Will anyone submit an ad to Facebook for Atomwaffen (sp?) or a similar white nationalist group and include a quote from a prominent fascist or Hitler, and a link to a fake / parody website?

     

    Sorta like a stress test for Facebook and Zuck.

  117. 117.

    bbleh

    @Goku (aka Amerikan Baka): I mean that the question has now been reduced purely to a choosing of sides.  The facts are clear.  Some people may choose to deny or ignore them — “nuh-uh nuh-uh, can’t HEAR you, lalalalala” — but there are no material questions of fact remaining.  The only choice remaining is, what do we do given those facts?  And the only practical options are, support Trump or oppose him.

     

    I would also observe that this is how Trump himself has always viewed it.  His biographers and his ghostwriter have been consistent and clear about this.  It’s him against the world.

     

    Like modern American “conservatives,” who long have imagined themselves not merely opposed but hated and oppressed by their political adversaries, he has created a self-fulfilling prophecy (self-fulfilling in more ways than one, ha).  And in that world, there is no nuance.

     

    As one who has always believed in shades of gray, it’s tough for me to admit.  But there really aren’t any in this case.

Comments are closed.