US Politics, January 2020. Because we hate ourselves.

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

I read today that nothing is stopping hte House from subpoena-ing Bolton. They could do that and create or amend the articles. They could even do this after sending the articles to the Senate. I don't know why they haven't yet. Maybe they will.

i think they should. he obviously wants to speak. he just wants to be forced to speak. go ahead house, force him to speak!

my rep tweeted 'shopped pic of Obama & Iranian Prez. When called out on it, he apologized profusely and vowed to be more careful with what info he shares online. Lol jk here's his response:

Gosar later sought to deflect criticism with more tweets disparaging those who ridiculed him, especially in the media.

"To the dim witted reporters ... no one said this wasn’t photoshopped. No one said the president of Iran was dead. No one said Obama met with Rouhani in person. The tweet says: 'the world is a better place without either of them in power'.

"The point remains to all but the dimmest: Obama coddled, appeased, nurtured and protected the worlds No. 1 sponsor of terror. The world is better without Obama as president. The world will be better off without Rouhani."

as we all know, every time you tweet a pic that is NOT 'shopped, it's customary to label it as such. Otherwise, everyone just assumes every pic is 'shopped.

sometimes I am amazed that this shithead was voted into office...but then I take a look at some of my neighbors and it makes more sense

"The world will be better off without Rouhani." Does Gosar know that Rouhani wasn't the one who was killed? Also Rouhani is relatively moderate as far as Iran goes? And also Rouhani doesn't have much power? fuck Gosar to death.

n.b. Bolton said he would comply with a _Senate_ subpoena, not a House one.

Because the gop majority Senate is not going to subpoena anyone, certainly not him, this is pretty much like saying you'd accept an invitation to become queen of England.

Exactly

even if he does testify and brings the goods "you can't impeach the president, we're at war now"

n.b. Bolton said he would comply with a _Senate_ subpoena, not a House one.

I get the reasoning but I think i think Bolton would look extremely bad if he didn’t comply with a house subpoena, especially if they subpoenaed him in response to the senate not doing it.

I agree, if the senate won't commit to it, the house should definitely subpoena him, and take him to court if necessary

Bolton is very careful to differentiate among those he thinks will disapprove of his statements or actions. He will continue to duck any House subpoena on his previously stated grounds, because he doesn't fear reprisals from Democrats. otoh, keeping in the good graces of the Republicans will ensure him a comfortable future, a good income, continuing political influence, and probably another stint in a high official position.

Bolton’s offer to testify is only so he can publish his book without getting blowback

the GOP, a study in contrasts

Natl Security officials gave a compelling briefing to Senators just now. They answered every important question.

Anyone who walks out & says they aren’t convinced action against #Soleimani was justified is either never going to be convinced or just oppose everything Trump does.

— Marco Rubio (@marcorubio) January 8, 2020

vs

Mike Lee calls Iran briefing “probably the worst briefing at least on a military issue I’ve seen,” adding that it was “insulting” to be told by administration officials not to debate merits of taking military action

— Igor Bobic (@igorbobic) January 8, 2020

A ticked off Mike Lee says the Iran briefing was so bad it changed his mind on Kaine’s war powers resolution, and now he’s going to support it

— Igor Bobic (@igorbobic) January 8, 2020