US Politics, January 2020. Because we hate ourselves.

what makes you say that?

https://i.imgur.com/uHJgcQ7.jpg

at least Little Bush had The Fart Book

that poor kid looks so sad :(

Don't think that I won't judge him the instant he chooses to become a public figure.

Just, if people don't know, the US isn't in the top 15 when it comes to Military spending / Total government spending. It's 9% according to the World Bank. Which is a lot, it's 2,3% in Denmark. But it's not why you don't have M4A. In Israel it's 11,1%, and afaik, Israel has better social services. Anti-imperialism is just the completely wrong way to look at this.

― Frederik B, Monday, 6 January 2020 bookmarkflaglink

Just hundreds of billions, anti-imperialists are so greedy they just want it all for cultural sites!

I wouldn't be able to keep myself from peeling off the gold foil and eating the load-bearing chocolate superstructure

New John Bolton statement: "I have concluded that, if the Senate issues a subpoena for my testimony, I am prepared to testify." pic.twitter.com/1UIVIhLVb6

— Dustin Volz (@dnvolz) January 6, 2020

chances of senate issuing a subpoena to bolton?

subpoena the tax returns

good morning!

Fri. (12/27): we notify Deutsche Bank about our piece

Sun. (12/29): Trump + Putin have mystery phone call

Wed. (1/1): we tell DB we are publishing Fri.

Wed. (1/1): Trump decides to kill Soleimani

Thurs. (1/2): Soleimani assassinated

Fri. (1/3): we are cyberattacked

😳 weird

— Robert J. DeNault (@robertjdenault) January 5, 2020

xp

I mean, Fred's right, even if we cut military spending in half there is zero chance that money wouldn't somehow end up in the pockets of the rich

― frogbs, Monday, January 6, 2020 9:43 AM (three hours ago) bookmarkflaglink

yes but this is mostly* useful as a rhetorical strategy, i.e. "if you're concerned about that cost, you should logically also be concerned about this cost, unless your concern isn't actually about cost"

* except maybe not really, because the likely retort to that would probably be something along the lines of "we need to do this, we don't need universal health care," and then it's a stalemate, because what do you even do with that?

My point was more that the anti-imperialism argument just messes things up further. Isn't the point also that the US spends more on Health Care as a percent of GDP anyway? So the money is there.

General Milley has just said the letter regarding troop movements out of Iraq was a draft, and releasing it was a "mistake." It was however delivered to the Iraqi military. It seems the U.S. military is as confused as everyone else about what their intentions are.

— Liz Sly (@LizSly) January 6, 2020

hell of a story here
https://www.npr.org/2020/01/05/785672201/deceased-gop-strategists-daughter-makes-files-public-that-republicans-wanted-sea
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1Pw3lc2QPJ-eEeHszCdcfjbe3uZC1DbKz

Wow indeed.

fucking "trade secrets"

Correcting Bolton:

"I have concluded that, because the Senate will not issue a subpoena for my testimony, I am prepared to testify."

My point was more that the anti-imperialism argument just messes things up further. Isn't the point also that the US spends more on Health Care as a percent of GDP anyway? So the money is there.

― Frederik B, Monday, 6 January 2020 bookmarkflaglink

Tankie twitter has really wound up your soft left technocratic politics has it not?

you're obsessed

He is inventing a weird straw man to justify hundreds of billions in defence expenditure.

Fred how could you

Lol

An interesting Rolling Stone story about Lindsey Graham. (It's not just a rant; it contains actual reporting.) Here's the pull quote:

“People try to analyze Lindsey through the prism of the manifest inconsistencies that exist between things that he used to believe and what he’s doing now,” [Steve] Schmidt says. “The way to understand him is to look at what’s consistent. And essentially what he is in American politics is what, in the aquatic world, would be a pilot fish: a smaller fish that hovers about a larger predator, like a shark, living off of its detritus. That’s Lindsey. And when he swam around the McCain shark, broadly viewed as a virtuous and good shark, Lindsey took on the patina of virtue. But wherever the apex shark is, you find the Lindsey fish hovering about, and Trump’s the newest shark in the sea. Lindsey has a real draw to power — but he’s found it unattainable on his own merits.”

A good read.

You say pilot fish, I say

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/a7/e6/bc/a7e6bc66156b7c7a993420d39b44e507.jpg

was waiting for this to become the official party line

On Fox & Friends, Kevin McCarthy suggests that if Adam Schiff had "been trying to protect us" from Iran instead of doing impeachment, Trump wouldn't have droned Soleimani. pic.twitter.com/VFyhLsIgtb

— Bobby Lewis (@revrrlewis) January 7, 2020

2020 - it's all adam schiff's fault

by the way, i think maybe someone mentioned this upthread, but is there anything that prevents the House from issuing a subpoena to Bolton? sure, the Senate isn't going to be likely to do it unless a handful of republicans are willing to break away from mcconnell's grip and allow it to happen (i think they just need a simple majority for a subpoena). but the house could do it, and what reason would Bolton have to agree to testify in front of the senate but not the house?

no idea if the House can call witnesses after submitting articles

i don't see why not. have the proceedings of the house investigative committees officially closed? and even if they have, what would happen in the (wildly hypothetical, of course) scenario that trump continues to commit more crimes more or less in public?

i realize they're trying to go with a narrow impeachment proceeding, rather than fully pursue the dozens of different impeachable offenses that are ongoing, so all this is moot. but dang, i wish they'd just carry on with their work and keep tacking on new articles of impeachment every couple weeks.

You are too sensible, Karl.

Senate trial, Senate rules. If Schumer doesn't have enough starch in his shorts to hammer out terms beforehand, whoever's prosecuting the trial for the House won't get to call witnesses, as I understand it.

This is the moment when someone catches a reptilian putting extra starch into the senate dry cleaner service, but no one can connect the dots

never wanna think about "starch" and "Schumer's shorts."

articles of impeachment are like
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKMYs-9LW2w

never wanna think about "starch" and "Schumer's shorts."

All the other metaphors that came to mind were worse.

maybe i'm giving the democrats too much credit, but right now i like to think they're trying to figure out via informal lines of communication what bolton would say if they got him on the record.

"baba booey"

bolton's timing with the whole 'escalating WWIII' thing is interesting. he suddenly made his availability to testify known after the assassination. one would think that he would pleased with the assassination, since it could lead to the war he so desperately wants. but his announcement immediately freaked the GOP out. maybe bolton was alarmed by the way the assassination was approved so haphazardly, and finally realized that yeah, it's time to impeach the motherfucker since he's the dumbest person in the solar system (want to make sure to include orbiting astronauts)? or was his timing purely coincidental?

there's a lot of really weird shit going on right now, of which we have very little information. ah, reminds me of the mid-90s, kinda comforting. along the same lines is the "imminent threat" that led to the assassination. pretty clear now there was no imminent threat, based upon 1) the trump administration lying about matters big and small from the very first second they were sworn in, 2) the lack of a consistent explanation of what the threat was or could be, and 3) the lack of any evidence for an imminent threat

ah, reminds me of the mid-90s

lol i saw a youtube comment (on the music video for stone temple pilots' "interstate love song") that said "bring back 1994, put 2019 in the trash" and i was like... hmmmmmm

obv they were referring to music but i was still like "lol"

🎵 promises of what I seemed to be 🎵

So the House can absolutely subpoena Bolton, but there's no guarantee he'd honor it.
I'm a little surprised they don't seem to be doing much of anything at the moment. I think the House should continue to hold hearings if they aren't getting cooperation from the Senate.

In letter and spirit not what the Constitution says, nor what Hamilton explicates in the Federalist papers concerning impeachment. https://t.co/OFG4OKFmMn

— Richard M. Nixon (@dick_nixon) January 6, 2020

Um, er https://media1.tenor.com/images/37b57399cd901b6e27fe26150262a301/tenor.gif

meanwhile Mindy Moderate has spoken:

Susan] Collins told reporters at Monday evening votes that the Senate should follow the 1999 precedent and consider the question of subpoenaing additional witnesses and documents only after House impeachment managers and Trump’s defense team present their opening arguments.
She noted in a statement Monday that then-Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) and Democratic Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) adopted a resolution in 1999 to set out the rules for the proceeding that didn't include any agreement for specific witnesses to testify.

“The process moved to a period during which the Senate debated and voted that three witnesses should be deposed. I believe that this process — the Clinton approach — worked well,” she said. Murkowski also urged colleagues to follow the path laid out during the Clinton trial. “I think we need to do what they did the last time they did this unfortunate process and that was to go through a first phase and then they reassessed after that,” she told reporters.

Yes because the same Mitch McConnell that refused to confirm Merrick Garland based on some complete bullshit could definitely be trusted to run a straightforward senate trial.

why don't schumer/pelosi just go ahead and formally say they'd like to hear from trump during the trial, in addition to the other four? he's the one at the center of this. he probably WANTS to do it, since he loves being on tv and thinks he can convincingly talk himself out of anything.

hell, we can even throw in a sweetener: his entire testimony could take place under the deafening roar of helicopter blades, his favorite place to discuss important matters

ideally schedule that for October 28