The Swamp

Trump DOJ clearly more well versed in the law than nine supreme court justices.

This is some federalist bullshit, right?

Asking for a friend who is even more ignorant than myself.

mister d wrote: ↑Tue Oct 08, 2019 10:09 am

tennbengal wrote: ↑Tue Oct 08, 2019 9:52 am The only reason not to subpoena him and then arrest him for refusing to honor the subpoena I can think of is that the Dems know that will precipitate making end of the republic official when they try do it and the order to arrest is not carried out.

And this might be the one area where I'm ok with backing off. I have the feeling most Republicans aren't ready for an all-out crisis like that either so if you think there's a way to wait out either the 2020 vote or Trump's dying brain versus lighting that match, I get it.

Was Sondland actually under subpoena? I had the impression he had just been invited by letter.

That being said, though, I think you're both right. This is like Andrew Jackson saying that Chief Justice Marshall "has made his decision, now let him enforce it." I don't know if the House really has any power to enforce a subpoena or a contempt order. The Republican party stopped vote-counting, initiated mid-decade redistricting, stopped the blue slip process, imposed a de-facto 60-vote requirement in the Senate, and stole a Supreme Court seat. Of course they would allow witnesses to ignore Democrat-imposed contempt sanctions. And so if we force the issue, like you said, we risk no longer having a Republic.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... e-closing/

Walls are closing in. Almost 60 percent of Americans (58) in favor of impeachment hearings, 49 percent in favor of removing from office. Important for Congress GOP, almost 30 percent of republicans polled in favor of the inquiry and around one fifth in favor of removal.

And that's before we get more details from texts and testimony.

Steve of phpBB wrote: ↑Tue Oct 08, 2019 12:04 pm

mister d wrote: ↑Tue Oct 08, 2019 10:09 am

tennbengal wrote: ↑Tue Oct 08, 2019 9:52 am The only reason not to subpoena him and then arrest him for refusing to honor the subpoena I can think of is that the Dems know that will precipitate making end of the republic official when they try do it and the order to arrest is not carried out.

And this might be the one area where I'm ok with backing off. I have the feeling most Republicans aren't ready for an all-out crisis like that either so if you think there's a way to wait out either the 2020 vote or Trump's dying brain versus lighting that match, I get it.

Was Sondland actually under subpoena? I had the impression he had just been invited by letter.

That being said, though, I think you're both right. This is like Andrew Jackson saying that Chief Justice Marshall "has made his decision, now let him enforce it." I don't know if the House really has any power to enforce a subpoena or a contempt order. The Republican party stopped vote-counting, initiated mid-decade redistricting, stopped the blue slip process, imposed a de-facto 60-vote requirement in the Senate, and stole a Supreme Court seat. Of course they would allow witnesses to ignore Democrat-imposed contempt sanctions. And so if we force the issue, like you said, we risk no longer having a Republic.

House Dems issuing a subpoena today/tomorrow (it's not clear in the reporting.) Per the article I linked:

The Trump administration on Tuesday blocked a planned deposition from Gordon Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the European Union and a central figure in the Democrats’ impeachment inquiry.

Democrats called the administration’s move an act of obstruction and said they would issue a subpoena for Sondland’s testimony, as well as emails and text messages that Sondland held on a personal device and that have been turned over to the State Department, which has yet to release them.

I also want to echo something that was said in the linked MSNBC clip and that (I think) is being under-reported this week:

Abandoning the Kurds, which is a boon to Erdogan and Putin, is also an extreme betrayal of Senate GOPers and the silent cast of characters that have left the Trump admin (like Mattis).

Doing this now... One really has to wonder what Trump's "strategy" is here. He is pouring gasoline on a fire that has a trail leading right to his feet.

A nice birthday present for Putin?

Nonlinear FC wrote: ↑Tue Oct 08, 2019 12:13 pm I also want to echo something that was said in the linked MSNBC clip and that (I think) is being under-reported this week:

Abandoning the Kurds, which is a boon to Erdogan and Putin, is also an extreme betrayal of Senate GOPers and the silent cast of characters that have left the Trump admin (like Mattis).

Doing this now... One really has to wonder what Trump's "strategy" is here. He is pouring gasoline on a fire that has a trail leading right to his feet.

It’s definitely a boon to Erdogan, but I don’t understand the Putin angle here. Russia has supported Assad’s government and I don’t think the regime will be happy about a Turkish invasion. I’m pretty sure Russia and Turkey have been on opposite sides vis-a-vis the Kurds.

Basically, Erdogan and Putin have (apparently) brokered a deal whereby Russia is the key arbiter of the space being vacated by the US military. It's unclear (to me) what exactly has been agreed upon, but it seems pretty clear that it makes Putin/Russia the driving and controlling force in that part of the middle east.

There is a long history between Russia and the Kurds, but it's REALLY unclear how much they will leverage their position to negotiate with Turkey on a number of touchy subjects in the region.

I don't have all the background on this, but I do know the Kurds are (once again) going to be a pawn in yet another regional power play.

I don't really mind being in less foreign affairs, and I don't think kids sign up to die for random Syrian wars.

However, I also have full faith that Trump will do this in the dipshittiest way possible and fuck everything up worse than it already was.

Problem is though - this could lead to a bloodbath of horrifying proportions.

Abandoning allies to their mortal enemies is cold hearted and remarkably cowardly.

This was a horrible decision, but it bears noting that as bad as Trump has been:

1) you can make an argument when you tally everything up that Bush 43 was worse, especially when you start to factor in the effect of completely destabilizing the Middle East, the massive increase of the national debt and the loss of life -- both American and otherwise.

2) Trump's apparent lack of appetite to send American troops into battle for neocon wars in Iran or North Korea is probably his greatest "accomplishment" as President and I almost hate to use quotes because President Ted Cruz almost certainly would have invaded Iran by now I believe.

I think this take is pretty spot on:

Not trying to be a dick, but no shit. That's such an obvious point it doesn't really illuminate the very real reality on the ground. Like LVbri said, Bush 43 got us into this fucking mess. And since then we've leaned VERY heavily on the Kurds to carry our water. Now, after ph calls btwn Erdogan and Trump, we've got to suddenly pick up our shit and bail, leaving the Kurds under (hopefully) the protection of Putin?

Of course it's a shit sandwich. We're making it worse by leaving a complete power vacuum in a region that is already a powder keg.

So you're saying this has gotten your attention off impeachment for a bit?

mister d wrote: ↑Tue Oct 08, 2019 3:02 pm So you're saying this has gotten your attention off impeachment for a bit?

1) I don't buy Trump is that smart.
2) I don't buy that pissing off his GOP allies to create a distraction is smart, period.
3) It really didn't work since the biggest news thus far today was the EU ambassador being forced by the State Department to not testify and forcing the House to subpoena him.

(I do agree a "Wag The Dog" type distraction down the road is a legit concern though.)

Nonlinear FC wrote: ↑Tue Oct 08, 2019 2:57 pm Not trying to be a dick, but no shit. That's such an obvious point it doesn't really illuminate the very real reality on the ground. Like LVbri said, Bush 43 got us into this fucking mess. And since then we've leaned VERY heavily on the Kurds to carry our water. Now, after ph calls btwn Erdogan and Trump, we've got to suddenly pick up our shit and bail, leaving the Kurds under (hopefully) the protection of Putin?

Of course it's a shit sandwich. We're making it worse by leaving a complete power vacuum in a region that is already a powder keg.

Is it an obvious point, though? In your previous post, you noted the criticism of withdrawal that it would make Russia the power broker in this very unstable region. But the US’s attempts to play that role over the last few decades have resulted in countless bad unintended consequences. And FWIW, the Syrian Civil War started during Obama’s presidency, not Bush’s, and even Obama’s more nuanced attempt to walk the tightrope in Syria was largely a failure. I agree with Gunpowder that Trump will likely manage withdrawal in the most disastrous way possible. But the underlying problem is that no US President is likely to succeed playing traffic cop in the Middle East.

I take the point, but far from distracting people, it's pointing out what a (probably) compromised "president" is capable of doing when he's shitting his pants about... impeachment, so... No, not really very effective.

Also what bri just said. Remember when we talked about how/why the Ukraine scandal was resonating so much more with the American people? Because it's such a simple, one phrase explainer.

Syria is the opposite of that, which is evidenced by our fairly nuanced (and somewhat muddled) discussion on here today. And this is a board chock full of relatively informed folks.

This is too confusing to be a wag the dog moment.

And I've been on record since before the guy was put in office that there'd be some kind of military distraction if this guy thought he was in a corner. Haven't budged from that one bit.

ETA - Meant to quote Delaware on this.

Joe K wrote: ↑Tue Oct 08, 2019 3:10 pm

Nonlinear FC wrote: ↑Tue Oct 08, 2019 2:57 pm Not trying to be a dick, but no shit. That's such an obvious point it doesn't really illuminate the very real reality on the ground. Like LVbri said, Bush 43 got us into this fucking mess. And since then we've leaned VERY heavily on the Kurds to carry our water. Now, after ph calls btwn Erdogan and Trump, we've got to suddenly pick up our shit and bail, leaving the Kurds under (hopefully) the protection of Putin?

Of course it's a shit sandwich. We're making it worse by leaving a complete power vacuum in a region that is already a powder keg.

Is it an obvious point, though? In your previous post, you noted the criticism of withdrawal that it would make Russia the power broker in this very unstable region. But the US’s attempts to play that role over the last few decades have resulted in countless bad unintended consequences. And FWIW, the Syrian Civil War started during Obama’s presidency, not Bush’s, and even Obama’s more nuanced attempt to walk the tightrope in Syria was largely a failure. I agree with Gunpowder that Trump will likely manage withdrawal in the most disastrous way possible. But the underlying problem is that no US President is likely to succeed playing traffic cop in the Middle East.

I would argue (rather strongly) that reason Obama felt compelled and in position to muck about in Syria is because GB had the US set up military shop in the heart of the ME. If we weren't already fulled engaged and in place, I highly doubt Obama drops US military might in the region.

And, yes, the point that the US shouldn't have ever been playing military cop in the region is pretty obvious. From our hindsight position, it is painfully obvious to all but the truest hawk that we should never have recreated Vietnam in an even dicier region of the world. That is the point that I am saying is obvious, not what route we should take in Syria, which is inherently a complicated mess with no good solutions at this point.

brian wrote: ↑Tue Oct 08, 2019 3:04 pm2) I don't buy that pissing off his GOP allies to create a distraction is smart, period.

Trump's entire game forever has been use of leverage, so if he thinks this creates a leverage point, why not?

(Granted, I thought the exact same thing was happening during the gov't shutdown and either I was wrong there or his attempt failed.)

So this happened (could be time to start finding some people in contempt of Congress):

Many goals like

lowering my golf score, protecting my hotels, lining my pockets with foreign and taxpayer money.

This is a good lawyer joke.

The Middle East has been a mess since WW1 and it's going to be a mess forever if we just stay there and plug holes.

brian wrote: ↑Tue Oct 08, 2019 5:17 pm So this happened (could be time to start finding some people in contempt of Congress):

And the internet is full of morons saying things like "this isn't like Nixon, he was actually guilty!", as if what's going on now isn't exactly how people reacted back then.

Texas probably won't even put this in our Holy History books.

Nixon didn’t have Fox News blowing smoke up his ass.

EnochRoot wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2019 11:06 am Nixon didn’t have Fox News blowing smoke up his ass.

The difference between Nixon and Trump is Fox News

Rush2112 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2019 11:31 am

EnochRoot wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2019 11:06 am Nixon didn’t have Fox News blowing smoke up his ass.

The difference between Nixon and Trump is Fox News

Boom.

So, what exactly is the basis for the claim that the Dems are being unfair in how they are proceeding? Have the Dems rejected Republican requests for subpoenas to be issued? Have the Dems unfairly limited the Republicans' questioning time?

I mean, I realize Republicans are full of shit, it's what they do, but usually there's at least something they are misrepresenting when they come up with bullshit like this. I can't figure it out.

Steve of phpBB wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2019 11:47 am So, what exactly is the basis for the claim that the Dems are being unfair in how they are proceeding? Have the Dems rejected Republican requests for subpoenas to be issued? Have the Dems unfairly limited the Republicans' questioning time?

I mean, I realize Republicans are full of shit, it's what they do, but usually there's at least something they are misrepresenting when they come up with bullshit like this. I can't figure it out.

It doesn't have to be true. Think about who you're talking about here. Trump could say his YUGE brain power comes from eating his own shit and you'd have 50 million idiots later that day pooping in Tupperware containers and mowing that shit down.

The claim seems to be that Richard Nixon's admin shouldn't have been treated the way they were to set this precedent because the President and his admin should have broad immunity.

brian wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2019 11:50 am

Steve of phpBB wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2019 11:47 am So, what exactly is the basis for the claim that the Dems are being unfair in how they are proceeding? Have the Dems rejected Republican requests for subpoenas to be issued? Have the Dems unfairly limited the Republicans' questioning time?

I mean, I realize Republicans are full of shit, it's what they do, but usually there's at least something they are misrepresenting when they come up with bullshit like this. I can't figure it out.

It doesn't have to be true. Think about who you're talking about here. Trump could say his YUGE brain power comes from eating his own shit and you'd have 50 million idiots later that day pooping in Tupperware containers and mowing that shit down.

I know it isn't true. But usually it's based on misrepresenting or misinterpreting something - like Schiff's exaggerated paraphrase of the Ukraine conversation, which one of you directed me to a few days ago.

A_B wrote: ↑Tue Oct 08, 2019 11:55 am Trump DOJ clearly more well versed in the law than nine supreme court justices.

Edit: It was just 8. Rehnquist recused himself since he had served in the Admin. What a weird thing to do!

brian wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2019 1:56 pm

Hm. Why does Greenpeace care which factions and tribes we support in the Middle East?

A fair question to be sure, but the intent is good.

Steve of phpBB wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2019 2:07 pm

brian wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2019 1:56 pm

Hm. Why does Greenpeace care which factions and tribes we support in the Middle East?

A fair question to be sure, but I'm happy any time I see somebody publicly attacking Trump.

Greenpeace is extremely anti-Trump, so it's somewhat on brand in that sense.

https://www.insider.com/the-murder-of-j ... gi-2019-10

This probably belongs in the Long Reads thread, but just a reminder:

Jared is best buddies with MBS, the Saudi prince that 100 percent ordered the assassination of a WaPo columnist LAST YEAR. Think about that... This just happened last October, and we've got Jared and Trump parroting Saudi talking points about Kashoggi being a radical islamist and danger to the Saudi kingdom (he was neither.)

It's a remarkable sign of this presidency that this was pretty much a non-story a few weeks after it all came out.