December 9, 2018

Maybe The OP Author's Question is Premature - Maybe There are More Important Questions to Start With

These more important questions are: After the new House is sworn sworn in in early January, (1) Will there be any R-members of the House who will vote for any of the actual articles that the democrats are likely to submit to the house for a vote? ; (2) How many such Rs might there be?: (3) Who might such Rs be?; and (4) What districts and states would they come from? With an informed and intelligent set of possible answers to these questions, the OP author's question will become much more interesting and informative to consider.

October 28, 2018

1933, Yes; 1934, 1935 . . . Yes As Well

In 2015 I said to some friends that Trump could be compared with Hitler. This was met by the usual response that this was going too far, that one just doesn’t make such a comparison. My response was that “Your making the mistake of thinking that my comparison is Trump to the 1943 Hitler. No,” I said, “the correct comparison is to the 1933 Hitler.” That remark usually was met with thoughtful silence. Today in 2018, I am afraid that the correct comparison is moving forward . . . to the 1934 Hitler, the 1935 Hitler . . . . Almost none of my friends would push back on that concept anymore. The situation now is DIRE, and it is truly TERRIFYING. The longer Trump stays in office the closer the correct comparison gets to 1943!

September 10, 2018

isaac Chotiner's Take on Woodward's Book

Isaac Chotiner’s latest article on Bob Woodward’s book “Fear” on Slate.com is definitely worth reading - preferably BEFORE you read the book.

https://slate.com/culture/2018/09/bob-woodwards-new-book-fear-trump-in-the-white-house-reviewed.html

August 21, 2018

Almost Certainly

Manafort was sent to jail by the judge before whom Manafort will be tried in DC in September, not by judge Ellis in Alexandria. Absolutely no reason to change his status of incarceration.

August 18, 2018

To Really Put this Article into Focus Read This Quote

This quote appears about 20% into the article and records the reaction to its content of the Deputy Whitewater prosecutor (who investigated Bill Clinton in the 1990s):

“A prosecutor would kill for that,” said Solomon L. Wisenberg, a deputy independent counsel in the Whitewater investigation, which did not have the same level of cooperation from President Bill Clinton’s lawyers. “Oh my God, it would have been phenomenally helpful to us. It would have been like having the keys to the kingdom.”

August 14, 2018

UCmeNdc in Reply #68 You Have Asked Some Reasonable Questions - Here Are My Responses

Question 1: Absolutely not, I had no plan before Rachel’s opening segment to post anything last night. I was, and am still, a big fan of Rachel’s. In my opinion Rachel normally holds herself to a very high standard in regard to her reporting and her commentary. But I believe that during last night’s opening segment she failed to maintain that standard. I found this failure to be quite serious and disturbing. I decided to post my OP because of that failure.

Question 2: Yes, I think that many of her listeners learned valuable information from Rachel’s first segment. In fact, I learned valuable information. Although I believe I am quite well informed about the ongoing Trumpian catastrophe, I did not learn until that segment that all but one of the FBI higher-ups to whom Comey had reported his communications with Trump (by memo or otherwise) had been driven out of the FBI. I knew that some had left the Bureau but not that nearly all were gone.

Question 3: I assume that you are referring to other TV channels (cable or network) in this question. I have no idea what other such channels presented on this matter. As for print or internet, I also don’t know what they printed or posted on these details. I also don’t think it matters. What does matter here are her remarks during the segment that plainly implied that by knocking these recipients of Comey’s reports in the winter of 2017 on his communications with Trump out of the FBI, Trump had eliminated their capacity to provide corroboration to Comey’s position. Because she made absolutely no reference during the segment to the fact that all those recipients can still give testimony about what Comey informed them of and when, I felt that her failure to mention that fact was not merely an oversight – rather, I concluded that she was, as I put it in my OP, scare mongering. I still feel that way.

Question 4: Most of her observations were spot on in my opinion. But that is not the point. In my opinion she left out (whether intentionally or carelessly) any discussion of the continuing capacity of these recipients to testify in the Senate in the event of impeachment, or at trial in the event of indictment. It is virtually inconceivable that she was unaware of this during her segment. If she had some reason why she believed there is a possibility that these recipients could be kept from testifying, she absolutely should have discussed her reasoning. It was dereliction for her not to have done so.

Question 5: I think the answers above cover this question. I continue to believe that she let her audience down last night. I stand by my OP.

August 14, 2018

Only After Complete Implosion of the Current Party

Perhaps someday there will be a new conservative party that acts like the R party of 50+ years ago run by people like Kasich, Schmidt, Frum, Dent and Jolly, etc. who will be willing to work with Dems to get some things done for the good of country.

Personally, I very strongly doubt I will agree with the core positions of such a party, but I will be able to respect their integrity.

August 14, 2018

Rachel - Misleading and Extremely Disappointing Tonight

I was totally dismayed - and maybe more than a little disgusted - at Rachel’s opening segment tonight. After recounting the fact that all but one of the members of the upper echelon of the FBI whom former FBI director Comey told and/or memo’d about his interactions with Trump (e.g. Trump’s attempt to get Comey to go easy on Michael Flynn, etc.) have been driven out of the FBI, she more than than strongly (and over and over) implied that these individuals have thereby been prevented from supporting the accuracy and honesty of Comey’s story. This is plainly (almost) deliberately deceptive nonsense! All these former FBI higher-ups obviously can testify about what they know about the interactions between Comey and Trump and about Comey’s memo. In my view Rachel, in this situation, was engaging in inappropriate scare mongering.

I have never been so disappointed with Rachel. I think she should apologize for this abomination.

July 31, 2018

Possibly The Best Way for Players to Respond

Since everything these gutless owners do is for the purpose of keeping their wallets as fat as possible - in fact causing them to get ever fatter. For this they need their players. The players should show unity and let the owners and Roger Goodell know that unless these un-American positions are reversed by the league and the teams, they will go on strike - en masse! That will send a message straight to those billionaire wallets. The owners will find it very hard to ignore, with the whole season at risk for the whole league.

July 18, 2018

Here is Section 2381 of Title 18 of the U S Code

This is the treason statute 18 USC, section 2381:

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States

Note especially the last clause of the statute. In a sense violation of this statute amounts to a self executing impeachment (and conviction) when applied to a president.