|
Post by Kapitan on Jan 26, 2020 14:17:04 GMT
What's interesting is that we've had the 2-party system basically forever, with a few changes in who the parties were over the first 100 years, but the same two for more than 150 years now. But until the 80s, the parties weren't so narrow in their membership. Conservative Democrats, progressive Republicans, as well as the more common inverse, not to mention all kinds of regional peculiarities.
I think it's a shame not just that we have two parties, but that each is increasingly monotone. It's an artificial restriction on the (perfectly acceptable and amicable) diversity of thought and priorities among the people. What should by nature be a somewhat chaotic but above-board free-for-all horse-trading session becomes trench warfare. The parties are more well defined and internally coherent, but also intolerably powerful by blocking out anything that doesn't fit into their two ideologies. They make it so you HAVE TO pick, and then they advertise it that anyone on Side B (however zealously or reluctantly he may have ended up identifying with that side) is evil incarnate.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Jan 27, 2020 12:56:39 GMT
Well, the Bolton book manuscript adds another twist to our national soap opera.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Jan 27, 2020 19:02:37 GMT
Somewhat lost in the impeachment drama is what otherwise, at least in any other administration, would be a big deal: the administration’s proposed plan for peace between Israel and the Palestinians. The president is supposed to unveil it to both candidates for prime minister in the upcoming Israeli elections, Prime Minister Netanyahu and Benny Gantz. My understanding is that the plan is not expected to include a two-state solution, which is a major change for U.S. policy. The Palestinians have rejected any overtures from the administration, especially since the move of the American embassy to Jerusalem and the president’s leniency on Israel with settlements in West Bank territory. Personally I doubt the plan will be fully and successfully implemented—and I don’t say that because of what’s likely to be in the plan, or because of Trump himself. But the two parties to that dispute have to be on the same page, and it doesn’t seem that’s the case in the slightest. Anyway, I hope it’s a fair proposal that both sides can take to their people as a win. Even if I’m not counting on it, I’m certainly hoping for resolution. (And if it holds, it would be kudos to the administration on this: most try, but few have had any tangible, lasting success since Carter brokered peace between Egypt and Israel 40 years ago.
|
|
|
Post by Sheriff John Stone on Jan 27, 2020 20:35:49 GMT
Well, the Bolton book manuscript adds another twist to our national soap opera. What are the odds that Nadler and especially Schiff are even listening to the proceedings today? They are undoubtedly preparing for their post-proceedings press conference later this afternoon where they will "hold court" and retry the case in front of the press. And, yes, their first point of business will be another leaked piece of evidence. Stay tuned for As The Impeachment Turns.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Jan 27, 2020 21:03:28 GMT
I don’t think anyone involved has been listening this whole time except to find points of contention.
Bolton should be on record about this though. So should Pompeo and other relevant officials. The administration can’t refuse to provide witnesses or testimony and then say the prosecution has no (first hand) witnesses or testimony.
As for the leaking, it seems to have been the administration that leaked it, from what I gather. They’ve been pretty bad along those lines, even by government standards.
|
|
|
Post by Sheriff John Stone on Jan 27, 2020 22:12:05 GMT
As for the leaking, it seems to have been the administration that leaked it, from what I gather. They’ve been pretty bad along those lines, even by government standards. Yeah, that's what I was thinking, too. There must be a rat in the White House. The timing of this particular leak appears very suspicious.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Jan 27, 2020 22:54:51 GMT
As for the leaking, it seems to have been the administration that leaked it, from what I gather. They’ve been pretty bad along those lines, even by government standards. Yeah, that's what I was thinking, too. There must be a rat in the White House. The timing of this particular leak appears very suspicious. There's nothing much but rats in the White House, as a matter of course. (I mean that across administrations.)
Leaks are tricky business. In many cases, they are essential to real reporting, because we live in a world in which press releases, press conferences, and official statements are basically just incomplete or misleading, rose-colored advertisements. We would have very little useful political reporting without them.
BUT ... leakers are humans with their own motivations. It's not just the common idea of someone going rogue against his boss. It's also administrations intentionally leaking ideas as "trial balloons" to see how things might go over with the public and press. It's people cultivating media relationships for their own futures. It's people using the media to act on their own grudges or press their own agendas. And reporters generally play along to continue curating their sources.
The Obama administration had been pretty tight-lipped as far as leaks go, but they were also REALLY tough on leaks ... and on the press. They prosecuted 3x as many whistleblowers and leakers as all previous administrations combined. That's the trade-off. And one man's heroic whistleblower is another man's scurrilous leaker.
To be fair, a certain degree of silence and secrecy is essential for, well, almost anything. Even running a small business, to say nothing of a country. But does that mean the government should be afforded that privacy? Well, no. But the devil, as always, is in the details.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Jan 28, 2020 22:50:49 GMT
I heard this story on my drive home from work today and was really disappointed in us as a society. We cannot let ourselves get to a point where we can't work with people who vote for someone we vote against unless or until we're approaching something like a Nazi party, a Stalinist communist party, a real fascist party.
(And yes, it's a slippery slope: I get that those things don't just suddenly pop up and declare themselves. But let's use some common sense in looking at the USA and recognize that neither the Democrats nor the Republicans are anywhere near those parties. The best proof? Each has the other loudly opposing it; people aren't being sent off to jail, prison camps, or concentration camps for it.)
It breaks my heart--seriously, it does--to know that people in a t-shirt factory, a library, and a construction company are intimidating and/or being intimidated by their colleagues over this stuff in the course of their daily work.
|
|
|
Post by Sheriff John Stone on Jan 29, 2020 20:38:10 GMT
This "questions portion" of the impeachment hearings is a farce. You have each party addressing the questions - not to the opposing party - but to their own party/people. So, what we're getting is more of the same. The same people are standing up and saying the same things, for the 27th time. I don't think this is the way this questions phase was intended to work.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Jan 29, 2020 20:50:50 GMT
I haven’t been listening but definitely felt similar with questions in the House, with the Cohen hearings, etc. so tedious: yes yes, by all means, let’s hear your talking points. Again.
|
|
|
Post by Sheriff John Stone on Jan 31, 2020 4:51:35 GMT
I was in favor of Dershowitz joining Trump's defense team, but it turned out to be a mistake. However, it's not entirely Dershowitz's fault. The other night, after a slow start, I thought Dershowitz hit his stride and was very effective. I'm far from a legal/constitutional scholar, but I think I understood his main point about mixed motives and that some - repeat SOME - quid quo pros are not impeachable, and that Trump's behavior did not meet the impeachable standard of obstruction of congress or abuse of power. I think I really got his points. However, what the defense team should have expected was that Dershowitz's words and meanings would be twisted, misquoted, and taken out of context. And that's exactly what happened. All I'm hearing is that "A President can do ANYTHING he wants for personal gain and get away with it if he thinks it's in the country's best interest." That's not what Dershowitz said, and the Republican Senate should've known that it would be misrepresented - and ultimately used against them. The other side had Adam Schiff. Nuff said.
But this is what really bothers me. I've been watching the impeachment proceedings "post game show", and all they are talking about is Dershowitz's theory and that Trump can do whatever he wants and there's nothing anyone can do about it. That's not what Dershowitz said or implied, but it doesn't matter. And what's even more frustrating is that it gives the Democrats a brand new, homemade "line" to use for the rest of the campaign which is "Don't vote for Trump because he's NOW too dangerous, even more dangerous than before, and he will make all kind of deals with countries like Russia for his own personal and political gain, and our national security is shot, and on and on - and there's nothing anyone can do about it (even though Americans CAN at the ballot box). And it's the Republican party that is gonna get beat up, and it didn't have to be that way. They had Schiff, Nadler, and Co. on the ropes. They countered every argument expertly. They stopped witnesses and documents from coming in. They weathered all of the storms. All the defense team had to do was ride it out, answer the two day's of questions, vote to acquit on Friday, and the whole thing is over. They could've claimed victory, at least in the public court of appeal, I think convincingly. Now, they literally handed the Democrats a new talking point, a rallying cry, another reason to fear and despise Trump, and this one is a lot stronger than "we hate him and want to get rid of his bragging, egotistical ass." Now they have a legal reason to attach to their message, a legal reason that Dershowitz, while maybe correct, opened up, basically a Pandora's box that ain't gonna close.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Jan 31, 2020 13:16:23 GMT
Serious kudos do you, SJS, for how closely you've watched all this. Honestly, I think very few American citizens gave it half the attention you did.
I'm not sure the Dershowitz defense is quite so important.
(On the issue itself, I don't know... Trump and his defense definitely has a higher view of executive power than I do. But what is or isn't impeachable, that seems murky to me, with the best answer being, "well, did the president get impeached for it? Then it's impeachable. [Or not, then not.])
But the reason I don't think it's such a big deal anyway is the reality of the situation. As you know and have said, Democrats have had their hatred of the president shading everything, and their position was going to be anti-president regardless of the defense. They were going to attack any and every defense with equal, similar responses. And while I've resisted this particular sentiment for decades now, I think the media were going to do the same. (I don't believe the media is liberal or progressive, but I increasingly believe that the mainstream media is either pro-Democrat or anti-Republican, or both. )
So my point is, if Dershowitz hadn't been there and said what he said, I think we'd see the exact same thing going on with some other poorly worded moment, some other gaffe, from the thirty-something hours of hearings. Something AG Bondy said, or something Jay Sekulow said, or something Pat Cipollone said.
We're in the same place we would have been anyway. The president is going to be acquitted, probably today since it appears there won't be further witnesses. Democrats are going to run almost exclusively on the evils of the president. They'll probably keep the House, they may well take the Senate, and the presidency is up for grabs (but I'd say slightly leaning toward the president being re-elected).
|
|
|
Post by Sheriff John Stone on Jan 31, 2020 13:32:44 GMT
I just wanted to say one more thing (I already edited my above post about five times ). Maybe I can word it better this time.
I think without Dershowitz, the takeaway would've been that the Republicans didn't think Trump was guilty, that the Democrats didn't prove their case, and that the Democrats were trying to directly affect the upcoming election. The Republicans could've easily walked away from the proceedings with that line and momentum. It would've been, "See, we told you..."
Now, with Dershowitz's theory, the takeaway is the the Republicans DID think Trump was guilty, that the Democrats DID prove their case - and that the Republicans DIDN'T CARE. Instead of the momentum being with the Republicans going forward, they'll now have to spend the foreseeable future defending themselves. Big difference.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Jan 31, 2020 13:34:18 GMT
If you'll indulge me, I wanted to make a few other comments. Nothing that wraps it all up and concludes the thing, just little thoughts.
The Democrats really bungled their case. While I was not a fan of proceeding with impeachment to begin with unless or until they had at least some significant Republican support, once they went down that path, they still bungled it--particularly on the witnesses issue.
Yes, the administration pushed back against them, seemingly more than previous administrations did (although every administration I can recall has pushed back on subpoenas or other requests for testimony and document discovery). And maybe that's because the administration is covering up guilt, or maybe not. But regardless, the options were to subpoena sought-after witnesses and let the courts resolve the matter, or not. The former route would have taken time, gone into summer, maybe even fall. It could have been awkward, election-wise. It might have even dragged out past the president's term, though I suspect it would have been pushed through quickly, as the court system has done many times over the years for significant cases. But they could have done that, and it might have resulted in the testimony of John Bolton, Mike Pompeo, Mick Mulvaney, maybe even Rudy Giuliani and the president himself.
They chose not to do that. They didn't want to wait. That's fine, it's their prerogative. But it also isn't an excuse. And it doesn't mean anyone else--specifically the Republican-controlled Senate--is under any obligation to bend to their preference. The House Democrats had a choice, and like many choices in life, none of the options were perfect. But they chose. You can't have it both ways.
I've been reminded of a situation that I recall from 30 years ago, when I was in high school. (OK, not quite 30 ... but it's getting darn close. I am OLD!) Several of my classmates got their parents to complain that they were unable to take all of the electives they wanted: it was impossible to be in choir, band, a foreign language, and to have a study hall. I saw this as a fact, a fork in the road requiring a choice, and took choir, band, Spanish, and no study hall. Even as a 15-year-old (or whatever), that seemed obvious to me: it's not the school's job to make sure I get to do anything I might want to do. There are choices to be made. Or as Pres. Obama said, when you're president, every choice that reaches you is a tough decision, is a bad choice. There are no good, easy choices at that level.
Well, that's the situation for the Democrats in this instance. They could have fought for the witnesses, and potentially dragged out the hearings for months and months (and maybe lost). Or the courts might have sided with them and the likes of John Bolton might have condemned the president and changed history. We won't ever know.
But the takeaway is, the world isn't set to a default in the Democratic position. "Correct" and "Democratic platform" aren't synonymous. Even if the president is unpopular (which, in considering the population at large, he undeniably is); even if the president is a criminal (which is more debatable); it's not up to Republicans and Trump supporters to prove that.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Jan 31, 2020 13:39:44 GMT
Now, with Dershowitz's theory, the takeaway is the the Republicans DID think Trump was guilty, that the Democrats DID prove their case - and that the Republicans DIDN'T CARE. Instead of the momentum being with the Republicans going forward, they'll now have to spend the foreseeable future defending themselves. Big difference. One interesting note is, there are a lot of Republicans and conservatives who are somewhere in this ballpark in a way that, frankly, I think is the most accurate and defensible: that Trump is guilty of trying to force Ukraine into chasing (or at least pretending to chase) some big non-issue, but that while that's a bad thing, it's not impeachable. (That's not quite the same as "didn't care," though obviously it would be presented that way by pro-impeachment people.)
I actually thought the defense team and some senators were almost offering that as a compromise olive branch at times yesterday, when some GOP senators asked "isn't there something else that the Congress could do to reprimand the president's behavior short of impeachment?"
There could be middle ground. There are positions between impeach the devil and worship the god-president, between he's always all wrong and he walks on water. But Democrats have been obsessed all along, and Trump has pulled an inordinate number of Republicans into a creepy kind of worship as well. (As an aside, his ability to pull the entire party to personal loyalty has been astounding and I think terrible, not because of who he is specifically--though I don't like him in the slightest--but just conceptually, I don't like personal loyalty, fealty, charisma in politics.)
|
|