4712 replies to this topic

[caltrek]

 

Oh shoot, Jessica. I am afraid too many bread crumbs are missing.  Can somebody decode posts #4317.

 

 

Pretty much backs up what has been released by the house during the past week or two. LEV PARNAS is pretty much saying that rudy aimed to force the president of another country to investigate Trumps political opponents and they used $400 million dollars in military aid to push the issue. This also draws in Pence as he played a role in this mess. 

 

 

Thank you. I think one problem was that I was a little tired when I read the post in question.  Your comments, especially after a nights sleep, greatly help to put the story in context.

[caltrek]

 

 

The green new deal even if it were enacted would fail. The world cannot be saved by creating a fortress America that intends to save itself by using everyone else's natural resources to shield itself from environmental collapse. The deal in essence makes no attempt to actually stop global warming but only to save America from it, which won't work because the world is more than America and without the world there is no America.

 

Ok, this is a fundamental lack of understanding of the Green New Deal, at least as proposed by Bernie Sanders.  Bernie understands that the U.S. cannot do it alone.  The plan is for the U.S. to become a leader of the fight to address the problem, not reluctantly be dragged kicking and screaming by the rest of the world. That leadership would involve a commitment of resources, as in aid to foreign countries. Republicans, in contrast, not only think that no government action should be taken, but tend to be opposed to foreign aid, even when "U.S. interests" are at stake.  Why?

 

You put your finger on the reason:  building a fortress America.

 

Yes, a lot of Democrats support a strong defense budget.  Frankly, they are terrified by the thought of foreign governments overtaking the U.S. militarily.

 

Amazingly, a lot of those same people on the Republican side have no problem with foreign governments interfering with our elections.  Presumably, because such interference is seen as benefiting their candidate.

 

Essentially, we have built a huge military industrial complex - and are now contemplating putting it at the disposal of foreign powers. The very foreign power(s) that we once most feared.  The founder of this forum mentions the "stupidity singularity."  Another example if ever there was one.

[Jessica]

Bombshell Impeachment Testimony Shows Trump Let Russia Run America's Ukraine Policy

Posted on Mon, Nov 11th, 2019 by Sean Colarossi

Bombshell Impeachment Testimony Shows Trump Let Russia Run America’s Ukraine Policy


New testimony from Catherine Croft, a former White House official, shows that Donald Trump and Mick Mulvaney were essentially letting Russia run America’s policy toward Ukraine during the first year Trump was in office.

As The Daily Beast reported on Monday, citing Croft’s testimony, “Under Mick Mulvaney’s leadership, the Office of Management and Budget temporarily put a hold on the delivery of anti-tank missiles to Ukraine in 2017 because of concerns their arrival would upset Russia.”

Kyle Griffin
@kylegriffin1
Via key Catherine Croft excepts: OMB placed a separate, earlier hold on Javelin missiles because Mick Mulvaney was concerned that "Russia would react negatively to the provision of Javelins to Ukraine," despite the fact that "all of the other policy agencies were in support."
6:50 PM · Nov 11, 2019·

 

The Daily Beast notes that Croft called the move “highly unusual.”

More from the report:

Croft told congressional impeachment investigators that after the Trump administration greenlit the delivery of Javelin missiles to Ukraine in late 2017—the first delivery of lethal aid to the country since Russian separatists seized territory in its Eastern region in 2014—Mulvaney’s office held it up.

“Did you understand why?” asked the congressional staffer questioning her.

“I understood the reason to be a policy one,” she replied.

“What was the policy one?”

“In a briefing with Mick Mulvaney, the question centered around the Russian reaction,” she continued.

“What was the concern about the Russian reaction?” asked the staffer.

“That Russia would react negatively to the provision of Javelins to Ukraine,” she said.

 

 

Trump has repeatedly shown that he is beholden to Russia

more...

https://www.politicu...ine-policy.html

[Erowind]

 

The green new deal even if it were enacted would fail. The world cannot be saved by creating a fortress America that intends to save itself by using everyone else's natural resources to shield itself from environmental collapse. The deal in essence makes no attempt to actually stop global warming but only to save America from it, which won't work because the world is more than America and without the world there is no America.

 
Ok, this is a fundamental lack of understanding of the Green New Deal, at least as proposed by Bernie Sanders.  Bernie understands that the U.S. cannot do it alone.  The plan is for the U.S. to become a leader of the fight to address the problem, not reluctantly be dragged kicking and screaming by the rest of the world. That leadership would involve a commitment of resources, as in aid to foreign countries. Republicans, in contrast, not only think that no government action should be taken, but tend to be opposed to foreign aid, even when "U.S. interests" are at stake.  Why?
 
You put your finger on the reason:  building a fortress America.
 
Yes, a lot of Democrats support a strong defense budget.  Frankly, they are terrified by the thought of foreign governments overtaking the U.S. militarily.
 
Amazingly, a lot of those same people on the Republican side have no problem with foreign governments interfering with our elections.  Presumably, because such interference is seen as benefiting their candidate.
 
Essentially, we have built a huge military industrial complex - and are now contemplating putting it at the disposal of foreign powers. The very foreign power(s) that we once most feared.  The founder of this forum mentions the "stupidity singularity."  Another example if ever there was one.

 

 
I disagree and believe the opposite. Most don't have a fundamental understanding of the logistical implications of the Green New Deal including myself up until a few months ago [edit, and still tbh.] I'll explain in brief here but this article does a much better job if anyone wants to read it. Trust me, I'm not happy that this is the case and coming to understand this was one of the first things that made me feel very uneasy about climate crisis because of how broad the problem actually is. That article is really just the tip of the iceberg with this whole mess.
 
https://communemag.c...green-new-deal/
 
When I say fortress America I mean that resource wise, which does have a military component but that's not the whole picture. In order to build all the renewable infrastructure to make America carbon neutral we have to import massive amounts of natural resources from every corner of the globe. The extraction of those resources requires burning carbon-based fuels because all the engines and machinery running the mining equipment, and manufacturing equipment and logistical supply chain are not carbon neutral. And companies in China, Brazil, India and wherever else that are part of that supply chain will be monetarily emphasized to lie about/not record their emissions in order to gain contract from people who in theory don't want to support more emissions. Domestic companies will lie all the same when necessary. This will be tolerated for the same reason that the EPA has tolerated the fracking industry during Obama's administration, let alone Trumps.
 
Even if it weren't tolerated what are governments to do? Tell their people that renewable, ecosystem friendly energy is largely an oxymoron barring rare cases like geothermal? No, they will keep playing along until the whole house of cards comes tumbling down as year over year scientific reports say that our emissions are not in fact decreasing. And we can't feasibly make the supply chain carbon neutral because there simply isn't enough lithium production to make enough batteries for all the equipment running on fossil fuels. Even then there's some equipment like cargo ships that would be an engineering, logistical and cost nightmare to build renewably due to their sheer size and energy consumption. (A return of sail boats is one potential solution, but global trade would have to decrease by virtue of shipping times alone.) As a futurist I'm all for engineering, logistical and cost nightmares in the context of progress when it's safe to do so. But our environment simply cannot support such things right now. 
 
So that leaves us with degrowth. Ethically lowering birthrates, using less electricity, eating drastically less meat, banning planned obsolescence, tearing up roads, outlawing excessive private car usage, ending consumerism and plenty of other things that the Green New Deal won't due even under a Sanders administration. Sanders is a social democrat and social democracy is still capitalism after all and capitalism is materially incompatible with the functioning biosphere of which we are part. This is what I mean by fortress America. American policy intends to position the country in a such a way where we will have the natural resources to keep using more electricity and go on with our consumerist ways while the rest of the world burns while hoping the fire doesn't catch up to ourselves. Other developed nations are gearing up to do the same and that leaves a global south filled with failed states, hundreds of millions of climate refugees and a selfish developed core materially poised to commit genocide to defend itself. 
 
I'm not trying to be fatalistic quite the opposite. If we don't take this seriously and make systemic change it will be the end of global civilization as we know it. (Not extinction, just collapse.) This idea that we can just build renewables and keep with the growth economics that's being spread by the media--which should be educating people--is just another more subtle form of climate denialism. It seems to me that few people are ready to confront the reality and implications of climate crisis. This crisis requires sacrifice, if we were taking it seriously there would be rations on certain goods tomorrow. With that sacrifice will come a better world for everyone though. We can take pride in all working to save the world while enjoying our delicious plentiful food cooked to magnificence from our personal/community gardens. We can enjoy art, and science and love and a common sense of purpose instead of feeling jaded and empty everytime we unbox our new iphones and turn on the news to programming that only serves to alienate and anger us. The future is bright if we seize it! 
 
Writing this I've realized that when I say "America" it seems I'm actually talking about the developed world at large. That said, America specifically does proportionally consume more than most of the developed world.
 
 
 
 
Edit: This line from Bernie's website really shows what I'm talking about 
 
Making massive investments in research and development. We will invest in public research to drastically reduce the cost of energy storage, electric vehicles, and make our plastic more sustainable through advanced chemistry.
 
We don't need more sustainable plastics we need no plastic barring mission critical infrastructure like medicine. We don't need electric cars we need to remove 90% of the cars on the road. We don't necessarily need more energy storage we need to use less energy. We cannot buy our way out of this crisis. 

 

https://berniesander...green-new-deal/

[Alislaws]

 

We cannot buy our way out of this crisis. 

I agree with pretty much everything you've said except: No one has actually​ ​​tried​ to buy their way out of the crisis, since that's expensive and policy makers have so far mostly followed the "lalala I'm not listening" school of climate change preparation. (or at best: "Quick! Everyone look busy! We need to be seen to be doing something about this!")

 

I don't know what would happen if the US Govt put a couple of $trillion per year into fusion research for a decade. Maybe nothing, but maybe by 2030 we'd have something working

 

(you can switch fusion for any form of energy tech with room for improvement, batteries/storage, wind, solar etc.)

 

As you noted there are lot of tough to extract rare things that are needed for a transition to renewable energy, but that doesn't mean we might not be able to find ways to achieve the same results with more common/accessible/safe resources given sufficient levels of investment. 

[caltrek]

Let me kind of take Erowind's comments a chunk at a time on account of that is how my mind works.  From the cited article:

 

 

 

 

The Green New Deal thus risks becoming a sort of Sisyphean reform, rolling the rock of emissions reductions up the hill each day only to have a growing, energy-hungry economy knock it back down to the bottom each night.

 

"Risks" is the key word there. Not "will be inevitable" but "risks."

 

 

Having been a grant administrator and a project planner I can tell you how I envision it will probably work, or at least can potentially work. 

 

Here in the U.S. projects are subject to an environmental review process  It will be simple enough to include in such a process criteria such as "impacts on greenhouse emissions."  This could very well include indirect impacts alluded to in the article, such as the process of mining to obtain raw materials, etc.     

 

Incentives could then be designed, such as rewards for use of recycled materials that involve less emissions, etc.

 

Sure, that process will need to be very carefully designed to work as intended, and may even easily be corrupted.  That does not mean that such corruption will be inevitable one hundred per cent of the time.

[caltrek]

 

 

there’s no need to shackle ourselves to the gruesome imperatives of growth. A society in which everyone is free to pursue learning, play, sport, amusement, companionship, and travel, in this we see the abundance that matters.

 

 

True.  Socialism can indulge in zero growth as long as it makes progress in avoiding poverty at the lowest levels of society.  At least that is a condition that I would want it to meet. Capitalism is more dependent on growth to survive.  Most systems these days are of a mixed variety.

[caltrek]

 

 

All of this is possible, but not if we continue to shovel one half of all the wealth produced on the planet into the maw of capital, not if we continue to sacrifice some fraction of each generation by sending them into the pits, not if we continue to allow those whose only aim is profit to decide how we live.

 

Ok, is the objection that the problem of global warming cannot be solved if we continue to operate as a largely capitalist society?

 

 

Or, is the objection that the Green New Deal may very well solve the problem of global warming while at the same time protecting capitalism?

[caltrek]

One problem with news media's near constant obsession with every little detail about the Ukraine scandal (and the Russia investigation) is that the public can easily lose track of what the core issues are; and so making it simpler for people -- e.g. with a Q&A site -- is a must.

Any little misdeed is blown up as the crime to end all crimes; and then a few days later, another one tops it. The news media needs to find a way to keep most of these in the background, and only use big, block-letter headlines for the most egregious stuff.

Or maybe they can save it up, and summarize in a weekly post all the bad stuff.

I had the same problem with the Syrian Civil War: there are just so many details that it's hard to figure out the core issues, unless you are willing to spend several hours on it. It's like a conversation with a historian. They all are very detail-oriented, and love to rattle off lots of facts and causal chains -- but it all blurs together, at least one the first hearing. Scientists talk and think differently: we seek convergence towards a single, overarching theory that we mention first, and then mention the supporting evidence and deductive chains.

 

 

So, if i understand you correctly, there are (at least)  three approaches:

 

1. A journalistic approach.
2. An approach that is detail oriented in much the way an historian might analyze it.
3. A scientific approach.

RE: the journalistic approach - sometimes called the first draft of history.  A primary driver here is to sell newspapers and satisfy advertisers. This involves selling the news to the public, but also making claims about circulation  to impress advertisers.

 

RE: detail oriented versus scientific approach.  Yes, I suppose scientists can be very convergent oriented. Of course that doesn't stop them from being a very talkative and verbose group.

 

Any approach can be overwhelming to the casual reader.  Even concise abstractions run the risk of oversimplification. Readers are often motivated by a "bottom line" approach.  As in "please - not another thirty two pages of analysis before you finally get to what happened today."   

 

Concise language can also be very confusing to the layman if there is use of a lot of vocabulary to which (s)he is not familiar.  There are only so many times that they are willing to "ask Google" what such and such a word means.  In fact, for some that number is approximately zero.

 

So, one man's "obsession" may be another man's "superficial account."  If the source is not considered particularly trustworthy, that can be even more problematic.  Most readers resolve that by selecting an interpretation that makes most sense to them.  So, an untrustworthy source with an explanation that doesn't seem to make such sense will carry little weight.  Conversely, a tweet from Trump may be taken as gospel, "as in pay no attention  - it is just 'fake' news."

 

The result can often be two (or more) competing versions of reality. 

 

Take CNN versus MSNBC.

 

CNN often tries to have a balanced panel Two Obvious Democrats versus Two Obvious Republicans.   Of course, if the Republicans are lying through their teeth, and only the Democrats are telling the truth, then the purpose of educating the public may not be particularly well served.  One might add that this can be equally true if the Democrats are doing all of the lying  

 

MSNBC has a somewhat different approach.  Don't worry about balance, focus on use of guests who have interesting things to say that will be trusted by your audience.  The problem here might very well be that MSNBC will be accused of "bias."  This is especially true with the knee-jerk "well that stupid lying corrupt Trump is at it again."  

 

Calling Trump stupid is a little bit lying saying "oh don't worry about that snake and the rattling sound it is making.  It can't hurt you."

[Jessica]

Trump's 10 interactions with indicted Giuliani associates

(CNN)President Donald Trump has had at least 10 encounters with Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman, the indicted associates of Rudy Giuliani the President has adamantly claimed not to know.

Prosecutors allege Parnas and his business partner Fruman illegally funded Republican politicians and campaigns with money from foreign nationals in attempts to buy influence. That pair are also said to have aided Giuliani, the President's personal attorney, in efforts to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden related to Ukraine.

Since their indictment, Trump has stated publicly that he doesn't know Parnas and Fruman.

The interactions, of which many new details are being reported here for the first time, include VIP photos at campaign events, attendance at high-dollar fundraisers and a retreat. They also include a pre-inauguration gala for high-dollar donors, an intimate dinner with the President and photos at the White House Hanukkah dinner with the President, Vice President and Giuliani.

 

https://www.cnn.com/...ates/index.html

[Jessica]

Kyle Griffin‏Verified account @kylegriffin1

 

 

 

 

 

Breaking via NYT: Trump has discussed dismissing the intelligence community's inspector general, Michael Atkinson, because Atkinson reported the whistleblower's complaint about Trump's interactions with Ukraine to Congress.

 

 

https://www.nytimes....or-general.html

[Jessica]

Mick Mulvaney is reportedly telling associates Trump can't fire him because he 'knows too much'

 

Mick Mulvaney has all the Ukraine beans and nowhere to spill them.

That's why the acting White House chief of staff is reportedly convinced that even as Trump seemingly sours on his performance, his job is safe. And, as The New York Times reports, he's going around telling everyone in the White House that he's got a lock on his position as Trump's right-hand man.

Mulvaney has been in his "acting" spot for nearly the whole year, and has also run the Office of Management and Budget for all of Trump's presidency. That puts Mulvaney in two very consequential spots when it comes to Trump's Ukraine dealings. Mulvaney would've been running the OMB when it withheld security funds from Ukraine, allegedly over Trump's desire to have Ukraine probe his political rivals, and he's also been right by Trump's side as the whole impeachment inquiry goes down.

As a result, Mulvaney is telling his associates "there is no easy way for Trump to fire him in the midst of the impeachment fight," implying that "he knows too much" about Trump's Ukraine "pressure campaign," the Times writes. He seemed to solidify that allegiance to Trump on Tuesday when his lawyers said he wouldn't file an impeachment lawsuit but still "rely on the direction of the president" when it comes to possible impeachment testimony. And if Trump doesn't want another John Bolton situation on his hands, he'll probably keep Mulvaney on the payroll. Kathryn Krawczyk

 

https://theweek.com/...ause-knows-much

[caltrek]

The article below demonstrates what happens when you give a man like Trump a free pass on the issue of obstruction of justice and witness tampering (as in witness intimidation).  Meanwhile, his defenders in Congress insist he is not "being treated fairly."  

 

Why?

 

Because he is now being subject to the same impeachment process to which that they subjected Bill Clinton.

 

 

As Trump Attacks, Death Threats Against the Whistleblower and His Lawyers Increase

 

https://www.motherjo...wyers-increase/

 

Introduction:

 

(Mother Jones) In the past two weeks, as the House impeachment inquiry has proceeded, President Donald Trump has ramped up his public attacks on the US government whistleblower who triggered the scandal, and in this stretch the flow of threats, including death threats, directed at the whistleblower and his private attorneys has intensified. According to a source close to the legal team, “threats, including physical harm, and harassment have definitely increased.” The source adds, “Law enforcement is involved.”

 

Since September 20, Trump has tweeted almost 100 times about the whistleblower. And the pace has quickened in the past week, with Trump zeroing in on the whistleblower on 16 occasions. Trump has assailed the whistleblower as a traitor and deep state operative. In remarks made at the US mission to the United Nations on September 27, Trump compared the whistleblower to a “spy,” and added, “You know what we used to do in the old days when we were smart? Right? With spies and treason, right?” This was a clear reference to execution: This guy deserves to die. In recent tweets, Trump has approvingly quoted his defenders, who have accused the whistleblower of being corrupt and conspiring with Democrats to topple Trump, and Trump has blasted the whistleblower’s attorneys as “fake.” On Monday, Trump tweeted: “the Whistleblower, his lawyer and Corrupt politician Schiff should be investigated for fraud!” 

[caltrek]

Top NSC Official Says Mick Mulvaney Was Key Player in Trump-Ukraine Quid Pro Quo

 

https://www.motherjo...achment/#791356

 

Introduction:

 

(Mother Jones) On Friday afternoon, the House committees conducting the impeachment inquiry released the deposition of Fiona Hill, the former top Russia staffer on the White House National Security Council. The transcript is hundreds of pages long and covers many key areas of the Trump-Ukraine scandal. 

 

Our own David Corn has been poring over it and has some instant take-aways. As he notes, Hill’s testimony is significant because it depicts acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney as central to the administration’s efforts to pressure Ukraine to investigate Trump’s domestic political enemies. Hill testified that Rudy Giuliani, who is Trump’s lawyer, was helping Russian disinformation efforts by spreading the debunked (but Trump-favored) conspiracy theory that Ukraine intervened in the 2016 US election. She also told lawmakers that Giuliani and his now-indicted business associates, Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman, mounted a campaign to oust US ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch to advance their own business interests—and that she suspected Giuliani might have been involved in criminal activity. And Hill described how she has become the target of conspiracy theories that have led to death threats.

[caltrek]

Public Access Brings Television to Impeachment Hearings

 

https://www.courthou...hment-hearings/

 

Introduction:

 

WASHINGTON (Courthouse News) – Wednesday marks the start of televised testimony as lawmakers work to impeach President Donald Trump, ramping up public scrutiny on an administration that has seen its share of closely watched hearings in Congress.

 

When former special counsel Robert Mueller testified about his findings on Russian interference in the 2016 election and instances of obstruction into that probe perpetrated by Trump, some 13 million spectators viewed the broadcast, according to Nielsen television ratings.

 

Another 15.8 million viewers tuned in when Trump’s personal attorney and fixer Michael Cohen testified publicly — just before beginning a prison sentence for making hush-money payments at Trump’s direction to women who alleged affairs with Trump.

 

But the most viewers — some 19.5 million Americans — were drawn in 2017 when former FBI Director James Comey testified that the reason he believed he was fired was so the Trump administration could undermine an effort by the FBI to probe possible collusion between Trump’s campaign and Russia.

 

Those records will likely be smashed Wednesday as the House Intelligence, Foreign Affairs and Oversight committees kick off the first public hearing of the impeachment inquiry with testimony from George Kent, the deputy assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs.

 

 

[caltrek]

Ex-Trump Aide Blames National Security for Impeachment Probe No-Show

 

https://www.courthou...-probe-no-show/

 

Introduction:

 

WASHINGTON (Courthouse News) — The former deputy to ex-national security adviser John Bolton told House impeachment investigators Friday through court papers that national security concerns prevented him from complying with a subpoena.

 

In the letter on behalf of Charles Kupperman, attorney Charles Cooper references an earlier assertion made by the House Judiciary Committee when it demanded an appearance by Don McGahn, President Donald Trump’s former White House counsel.

 

Cooper said the House showed in a federal court brief that testimonial immunity “could apply to an exceedingly narrow category of ‘aides entrusted with discretionary authority in such sensitive areas as national security or foreign policy.’”

 

“Here, unlike McGahn, information concerning national security and foreign affairs is at the heart of the Committees’ impeachment inquiry, and it is difficult to imagine any question that the Committees’ [sic] might put to Dr. Kupperman that would not implicate these sensitive areas,” the letter continues.

 

Kupperman filed suit to challenge his subpoena last month, asking a federal judge in Washington to sort out the White House’s instructions that he not cooperate with proceedings. House lawmakers have described the suit as a delay tactic engineered to obstruct the committees’ inquiries into Trump’s conduct. 

[Jessica]

Ukraine Aid Was Released After Federal Lawyers Said Trump Freeze Was Illegal: Report

Quote

 

It wasn’t Donald Trump who released the promised military aid to Ukraine, but the State Department, after lawyers determined that the White House freeze on the funds was illegal, several sources have told Bloomberg.

 

[Jessica]

Congress can seek eight years of Trump's tax records, appeals court rules

 

Congress can seek eight years of President Trump’s tax records, according to a federal appeals court order Wednesday that moves the separation-of-powers conflict one step closer to the Supreme Court.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit let stand an earlier ruling against the president that affirmed Congress’s investigative authority on a day when the House was holding its first public impeachment inquiry hearing. Trump’s lawyers have said they are prepared to ask the Supreme Court to intervene in this case and in several other legal battles between the president and Congress.

The D.C. Circuit was responding Wednesday to Trump’s request to have a full panel of judges rehear a three-judge decision from October that rejected the president’s request to block lawmakers from subpoenaing his longtime accounting firm.The order does not mean Trump’s taxes will be turned over to Congress immediately. The D.C. Circuit previously said it would put any ruling against the president on hold for seven days to give Trump’s attorneys time to ask the Supreme Court to step in.

Trump’s attorneys also are planning to ask the high court as soon as this week to block a similar subpoena for the president’s tax records from the Manhattan district attorney, who is investigating hush-money payments in the lead-up to the 2016 election. The New York-based appeals court ruled against Trump this month and refused to block the subpoena to his accounting firm, Mazars USA.

 

Read more: https://www.washingt...9124_story.html

[Jessica]

Nixon WH Lawyer John Dean: First Day of Trump Hearings Yielded More Damning Testimony Than All of Wa

[link:https://www.mediaite...l-of-watergate/|

By Reed Richardson Nov 13th, 2019, 9:10 pm
 

Former Nixon White House counsel John Dean characterized the first day of public impeachment testimony against President Donald Trump as both thorough and damning, saying House Democrats “already have more than they had against Richard Nixon to impeach him. Just on all accounts.

Dean, who has become a vocal, voluble critic of Trump, made his comments to a massive, nine-person panel during CNN’s AC360. Dean famously turned against his former boss and became the star witness in the House impeachment investigation of Nixon’s misconduct in the Watergate scandal.

“John, I mean, given what you saw today, did this move the needle for any Republican senators who are watching?” CNN host Anderson Cooper asked Dean.

 

[caltrek]

‘Comically incompetent’ Jim Jordan and Devin Nunes crashed and burned after just one impeachment hearing

 

https://www.alternet...ive-strategist/

 

Introduction:

 

(Alternet) According to conservative political strategist Rick Wilson, the first day of the House impeachment hearings could hardly have gone worse for Donald Trump because his staunchest defenders — Repps. Devin Nunes (R-CA) and Jim Jordan (R-OH) thoroughly embarrassed themselves and the GOP with their nationally televised antics.

 

In a brutally blunt column for the Daily Beast, Wilson scorched the two lawmakers and Trump’s other “skells, sycophants, and dead-end goons on the committee” for faceplanting spectacularly on just the first day of the hearings.

 

Wilson got right to the point by noting that the president is likely furious about how the first day of impeachment hearings played out.

 

“Wednesday’s opening act of the impeachment of Donald J. Trump was only going to end one way for Trump and his defenders, and that was badly,” he began. “In the face of two credible, non-partisan witnesses of unimpeachable character and service, the Trump House Clown Caucus brought their A-game, and instead of changing the dialogue and owning the libs they managed to validate the witnesses, embarrass themselves, and doubtlessly enrage the Audience of One.”

 

“You could practically hear him screaming all the way down Pennsylvania Avenue as his allies’ carefully constructed tower of bullsh*t collapsed under the matter-of-fact, up-the-middle baritone recitation of his plan from men who lived through the Ukraine scandal,” he continued, adding,“Trump relied on his shriveled, impotent House caucus to destroy Taylor and Kent, and the unfocused, pathetic performances his mooks put on must have left The Donald tearing his wig out.”

 

According to Wilson, Nunes was comically overwhelmed as was evidenced by his opening statement that did nothing to waylay the evidence against the president.