Impeach the Motherfucker III

According to The Times, the U.S. is taking “more aggressive digital action” in Russia’s power grid “in a warning to Moscow and in a demonstration of its abilities,” explicitly to brush Putin back from further election interference. Yesterday afternoon, Ryan Goodman, professor and former special counsel to the DoD, highlighted this excerpt from The Times article (source):

So, Pentagon and intelligence officials are taking action independently because everyone’s afraid if they clue Trump in, he’ll blurt out details to a hostile foreign power’s officials or quash the effort altogether. My gratitude that at least someone is taking the threat of Russian interference seriously is tempered by the knowledge that, under normal circumstances, unelected officials shouldn’t freelance U.S. foreign policy. There’s a norm that will be difficult to reestablish.

Anyhoo, yesterday evening, Trump confirmed that efforts to counter Russian interference in U.S. elections either have to take place behind his back or not at all:

Recall former DHS Sec Kirstjen Nielsen’s failed attempt to put plans in place to deal with Russian interference in the upcoming election. One of the primary duties of the DHS secretary is to ensure election security. But in a bid to save her job, Nielsen focused on caging kids instead when she was told that bringing up Russian interference wounds Trump’s ego. [Mother Jones]

When former Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen began to prepare a plan to address potential Russian interference in the 2020 election, she was told by President Donald Trump’s chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney, to refrain from discussing the issue in front of the president, according to a report from the New York Times.

A senior Trump administration official recalled to the Times that Mr. Mulvaney said it “wasn’t a great subject and should be kept below his level,” because Trump considers any discussion of Russia’s interference in the 2016 election to be a challenge to the legitimacy of his presidency.

The DHS is the federal agency primarily responsible for election security, but despite Nielsen’s growing concerns about Russia’s continued involvement in the 2018 midterms, she abandoned her effort to organize a meeting with the White House in the hopes of creating a cohesive strategy for 2020 after pushback from Mulvaney. The issue therefore did not gain traction within the White House and has resulted in a lack of public awareness regarding the latest potential attempts of Russian election interference.

These are two instances we know about where Trump’s ego and unwillingness to address urgent threats compromised national security.* Mitch McConnell was complicit before and after the 2016 election, refusing to join a bipartisan effort to counter foreign interlopers prior to the last presidential election and refusing to bring a bipartisan election security bill to the floor of the Senate for a vote now.

We know what’s going on here. Trump always abandons his responsibilities as president when they conflict with his personal interests and is keen to avoid any suggestion that someone other than his magnificent self was responsible for his glorious victory. McConnell and the Republicans have known for some time that they can’t harness white grievance to secure power to enact plutocrat-friendly policies forever, which is why they started laying the groundwork for minority rule long before Trump came along, rigging elections and cheating in every conceivable way.

The House is the last line of defense. The situation demands an impeachment inquiry focused on Trump’s attempts to thwart an investigation of previous election interference and failure to protect the country from foreign interlopers going forward. Hearings would expose Republican complicity and, if House leadership follows Laurence Tribe’s recommendation, deny McConnell the opportunity to “exonerate” Trump via acquittal in the Senate — all while underscoring the corruption of the Republican Party.

I have a ton of respect for Nancy Pelosi, who knows a lot more about congressional procedures and political strategy than I can ever hope to learn. My hope is she’s being deliberate about impeachment because she has a strategy to not only expose Trump but also his corrupt enablers in Congress. I sincerely hope so, because lawlessness will continue until lawbreakers are held accountable, and past a certain point, it will be too late.

*Thanks, it must be said, to The Times. Their garbage Beltway reportage notwithstanding, the paper still breaks some incredibly important stories.






130 replies
  1. 1
    Baud says:

    I wish they hadn’t broken this story. Now Trump knows about it.

  2. 2

    Like a lot of other stories relying on leaks from the administration, and where technical issues intersect with politics, there are a lot of questions about that Times story. Thomas Rid, an expert in cyber stuff, wrote a Twitter thread laying out some of the questions last night.

    But that doesn’t undercut Betty’s basic message: Impeach the Orange King!

  3. 3
    Baud says:

    Also, too, if they had already started on impeachment on obstruction, would stories like this have even made a blip.

    I think that’s part of the reason for the delay.

  4. 4
    MomSense says:

    The motherfucker should be impeached AND removed from office but treason turtle McConnell has made it very clear the Senate will quash impeachment. Impeachment won’t remove him from office and if we time it poorly, he will be impeached and then will claim exonerated (repeated by media), and it will be forgotten before the election. We only get one chance at this and it will only remove him from office if we time it such that his high crimes and misdemeanors are revealed in a steady shit stream in the months immediately preceding the election.

  5. 5
    Immanentize says:

    @Baud:
    I understand why you wish the story had been deep sixed. But these stories are the types of things that make Trump act out in completely cuckoo bananas ways. So, more impeachment fodder.

  6. 6
    germy says:

    The funniest (sob) thing was greenwald tweeting the story about the aggressive digital action and remarking “Is this something a puppet of Putin would do??” and then trump’s tweet appeared calling the action Fake News.

    So then greenwald immediately pivoted to how alarming it is that the deep state is going behind the president’s back.

  7. 7
    Baud says:

    @Immanentize:

    Maybe. I’m more concerned about them stopping the work or telling Russia about it.

    @germy:

    Propagandist.

    Like Snowden didn’t go behind Obama’s back.

  8. 8
    Betty Cracker says:

    @germy: How perfectly in character.

  9. 9
    RandomMonster says:

    Any chance a leaked story like this couldn’t be a heads up to (and for the benefit of) Russian intelligence?

  10. 10
    Lapassionara says:

    @MomSense: he is an unindicted co-conspirator in the Michael Cohen matter. He violates his oath of office daily. He admitted that he would not follow election law. He is a clear and present security risk to the US. Even if we don’t call what the hearings are by the magic word, there needs to be something going on daily that focuses on his depravity.

  11. 11
    SFAW says:

    I think the Russos should do an “Avengers: Saving the World” version, wherein Thanos snaps his fingers, and only the evil RWMFs disappear. Of course, there wouldn’t be a follow-on movie, because those left would give thanks every day, and get back to living without the existential terror/pain that the RWMFs have wrought.

  12. 12
    SFAW says:

    @germy:
    Fuck Glemwald and everyone that looks like him.

  13. 13
    SFAW says:

    I have a tiny request: can the rotating tag be changed from “Impeach the Motherfucker!” to “IATMFA!”

    As in: “Impeach ALL the Motherfuckers Already!”

    Barr, DeVos, Chao, Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, Shanahan, and the rest of them; they all need to be gone.

  14. 14
    debbie says:

    I would hate for this story to impact IC’s efforts. But it would be good if this turns out to be another Judith Miller-type disaster.

  15. 15
    cynthia ackerman says:

    @Baud:

    Your comment at #3 suggests one reason why dipshit knowing about the story is a net positive. His counterpunches undo him.

    To dumb to be an effective autocrat. Idiocrat? Apologies to President Camacho, who’d be a welcome change.

  16. 16
    Baud says:

    @cynthia ackerman:

    Fair enough. It’s a crap shoot trying to game how all this will play out.

  17. 17
    germy says:

    Sarah did an admirable job in the face of dealing with the biased, hysterical Liberal Media. Rather than demonized, a marginalized person like herself should be commended.

    @realDonaldTrump, are you hiring? https://t.co/hHssiQUEcs

    — Glem (I Do *NOT* Support Trump) (@GlemGreenwald) June 13, 2019

  18. 18
    Betty Cracker says:

    @Baud: I imagine it’s pretty easy to throw Trump off the scent — all Mulvaney or whoever has to do is assure Trump it’s “fake news” so he can go tweet-scream about it. Whether it’ll tip off someone with a functioning yet evil brain who might stop the effort is a valid concern though.

  19. 19
    germy says:

    We know the real Donald Trump. America needs four more years | Opinion https://t.co/mwpG9apDQv— Newsweek (@Newsweek) June 14, 2019

    It’s shocking to me that more people don’t know this about #Newsweek HERE YOU GO… https://t.co/7NWsr3lq4S https://t.co/7FmkUX5Pkp— Kathy Griffin (@kathygriffin) June 15, 2019

    Hey IBT Media…caught ya! It is important to know the agenda of the parent companies who own the media so many people consume. #Newsweek https://t.co/7FmkUX5Pkp pic.twitter.com/OeugGcE4dE— Kathy Griffin (@kathygriffin) June 15, 2019

  20. 20
    germy says:

    Hey IBT Media…caught ya! It is important to know the agenda of the parent companies who own the media so many people consume. #Newsweek https://t.co/7FmkUX5Pkp pic.twitter.com/OeugGcE4dE— Kathy Griffin (@kathygriffin) June 15, 2019

  21. 21
    MomSense says:

    @Lapassionara:

    Yes we definitely need oversight and investigatory hearings every day. From what I’ve heard from Pelosi,Nadler, Schiff, Waters, and Cummings that is the plan.

  22. 22
    germy says:

    @Betty Cracker:

    tweet-scream

    Another one for the Lexicon.

  23. 23
    Kay says:

    @germy:

    So then greenwald immediately pivoted to how alarming it is that the deep state is going behind the president’s back.

    Congress is an elected branch, and the US House majority were just specifically elected as a counter to Trump, which Greenwald and his followers have now all conveniently forgotten. It’s bizarre that they have set up Trump as the only elected authority, and runs completely counter to what they argued when Obama was President, which was that Congress had ceded its power to an authoritarian President and a “deep state”. It isn’t just “Trump versus The Deep State”. That’s incorrect.

  24. 24
    Jim, Foolish Literalist says:

    @MomSense: one thing I’m baffled about, re oversight, is why they allowed Hope Hicks to testify behind closed doors. I understand they had to negotiate to get her in, and she may have made that a condition, but… why give in?

    But Corallo offered one of the most damning pieces of testimony suggesting that Trump and his team, including then-communications staffer Hope Hicks, had worked directly to mislead the public about the genesis of the Trump Tower meeting. Corallo also suggested to ABC News that Hicks had offered a different story to Mueller’s investigators.
    The Times reached out to the White House in early July, while Trump was traveling back from Europe. The newspaper first reported that the meeting had taken place, later revealing the email chain in which Trump Jr. embraces the help of the Russian government.

    Get Mark Corallo in, under oath, on the record, then negotiate with Hicks. And I’m a lawyer with vast experience in deposing witnesses and conducting Congressional hearings, not just some dumb rando typing on the internet. Or maybe it’s the other way ’round

  25. 25
    Betty Cracker says:

    @germy: More tweet-screaming this morning:

    A poll should be done on which is the more dishonest and deceitful newspaper, the Failing New York Times or the Amazon (lobbyist) Washington Post! They are both a disgrace to our Country, the Enemy of the People, but I just can’t seem to figure out which is worse? The good…..

    …..news is that at the end of 6 years, after America has been made GREAT again and I leave the beautiful White House (do you think the people would demand that I stay longer? KEEP AMERICA GREAT), both of these horrible papers will quickly go out of business & be forever gone!

    Emphasis mine. What a fucking lunatic.

  26. 26
    bbleh says:

    @Baud: @Immanentize: @cynthia ackerman: Following comments of others elsewhere, I think there’s something more going on here. From what is made specific and what is not, this story seems very much like a deliberate plant from someone affiliated with the IC and is a shot across Trump’s bow. And yes it will provoke him, but it will also send him the message — via public media, to which he pays attention — that (1) they’re (probably) doing this, (2) they don’t trust him, and (3) the public now knows both these things.

    If he overreacts, well, so much the better. And I assume that, *IF* the program is real AND important, then if he tries to cancel it, they’ll make that public as well, which will paint him even more vividly as a Russian asset.

    This is a brushback, I think.

  27. 27
    SFAW says:

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist:

    I’m a lawyer with vast experience in deposing witnesses and conducting Congressional hearings, not just some dumb rando typing on the internet.

    You’re saying there’s a difference?

  28. 28
    Another Scott says:

    @Cheryl Rofer: I haven’t read your link yet, but did see Drum’s take yesterday.

    tl;dr – If you’re actually afraid of the President not keeping a secret, you don’t release said secret to the press.

    We have to be very careful about taking this story (and all the particulars) at face value. FTFNYT got their big story about Baltimore/NSA ransomware wrong.

    Finally, I’m reminded that Russia has had a continuing problem with called in fake bomb threats. Nobody knows who’s behind them, but it’s not inconceivable that certain 3-letter agencies have some sort of role. The US doesn’t need fancy software to cause problems for Russia if she wants to…

    My $0.02.

    Cheers,
    Scott.

  29. 29

    @Baud: If it’s not on his shows(aka, Fox), he’ll never hear about it.

  30. 30
    Jim, Foolish Literalist says:

    Niels Lesniewski @ nielslesniewski
    According to the White House pool, it appears the president is going to be spending Father’s Day golfing with Lindsey Graham.

    Rick Wilson @ TheRickWilson
    Unwrap THAT Freudian riddle, y’all.

    Occurs to me I don’t think I’ve ever seen either of the Large Fredos golfing with Daddy. I think in the interview when somebody asked Ivanka and The Beast what they had in common, she said “golf” at the same time he said “sex”. Don’t know if I’ve ever seen those on the golf course either.

  31. 31
    jeffreyw says:

    I would bet that the story is the result of a deliberate leak. The IC put a shot across the bow of the McTrumpy Boatface ship of state, daring him to try to stop the actions. If he tries to stop them, that story will leak as well.

  32. 32
    debbie says:

    @Betty Cracker:

    Whoa, he’s promising to leave the White House after 6 years?!!!

  33. 33
    low-tech cyclist says:

    I continue to be on the “Impeach the Mofo” side of the ledger. It’s hard for me to see how we’re worse off if we impeach (on a pace similar to that of Nixon’s impeachment) and the Senate acquits or ignores, than if we don’t. I’m done even arguing about it.

  34. 34
    MomSense says:

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist:

    I don’t know. They may be gathering evidence. They may want to keep quiet what she says from another witness for now. I guess I’m not seeing anyone on the impeach now side of things who has games out what will happen if we do impeach him now or even 6 months from now.

    I have to focus on the things I can do and put my faith in people like Schiff, Waters, Cummings, Pelosi, and Nadler. They are the best we’ve got.

    We only get one chance at this and contrary to what some of the senators running for president say, impeachment is political. Whatever course we take has to have the outcome of removing him from office and that will only happen if he is voted out. That also gets rid of Pence who will be equally as bad or worse than trump.

  35. 35
    Leto says:

    @germy:

    a marginalized person like herself

    Sorry, there is a plethora of horrible fucking people in the administration. Of course it’s an audition tweet so /shrug

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist:

    but… why give in?

    I guess they figure getting a little bit of information is better than none. I’m continually irritated how the people being subpoenaed are dictating the terms of what they’ll talk about, rather than Congress/Dems bringing the full power/weight of their office to bear. The Trumpov tactic of delay, delay, delay and obstruct, obstruct, obstruct is working too well.

    Another example: chairman of the House Ways and Means says we’re probably not going to see Trumpov’s tax returns until 2021. Kewl.

  36. 36
    germy says:

    @Leto:

    Sorry, there is a plethora of horrible fucking people in the administration. Of course it’s an audition tweet so /shrug

    It’s a parody account, parodying greenwald.

  37. 37
    Immanentize says:

    @Leto:

    Congress/Dems bringing the full power/weight of their office to bear.

    They are doing just that. The reality of the situation is that Congress only has the power that a Court will support. And courts take Time. Lots of time. Congress — particularly the House alone — has no army.

  38. 38
    opiejeanne says:

    @Betty Cracker: What is this “6 years” bullshit? Does he think that’s how long two terms last? or is he saying that a single term should be that long? He makes no sense, but his repeatedly calling the press “the enemy of the people” is alarming.

  39. 39
    opiejeanne says:

    @bbleh: A brushback when we need a bean ball.

  40. 40
    Betty Cracker says:

    @Another Scott: Here’s Drum’s conclusion:

    My amateur guess is a little different: this is really a way of making sure the American public knows about the cyberwar program. Trump could still stop it, but he now knows that his cancellation would be leaked and he’d look like a Putin stooge—not something he can afford more of right now. This is not a subtle form of bureaucratic battle, it’s hardball of the most explicit kind. The intelligence community—including Trump’s own NSC—pretty obviously wants to make sure there’s no chance of Trump not getting the message.

    I have no way of knowing how accurate The Times report is, but if the bare facts of it are true, it’s not as illogical as you implied in your tl;dr summary of Drum’s reaction.

  41. 41
    Cacti says:

    Good to see there are still some patriots working on the inside.

    I wish I could say I was exaggerating, but the life of our constitutional republic literally depends on the outcome of 2020.

  42. 42
    germy says:

    @Cacti: I’m old enough to remember “slow news days”

  43. 43
    oldgold says:

    You can’t make this stuff up!

    Here is the Short-Fingered Vulgarian’s Father’s Day message to the nation:

    Donald J. Trump
    @realDonaldTrump
    Happy Father’s Day to all, including my worst and most vicious critics, of which there are fewer and fewer. This is a FANTASTIC time to be an American! KEEP AMERICA GREAT

  44. 44
    Immanentize says:

    @MomSense:
    I agree with you.

    In the absence of access to the full investigative files of the Mueller investigation (and side investigations) the smart investigation play is to gain as much information from the outside circles and work inward.
    A public display of Hope Hicks would have been a disaster for the investigation. Why do witnesses demand that House members and not counsel ask questions? Because House members suck at questioning — particularly on camera. Behind closed doors, counsel ask the questions of witnesses before a usually reduced number of House members who don’t care if they aren’t on TV.

    If you want clown show, by all means take all witnesses to a public shitshow. I prefer finding stuff out.

  45. 45
    Immanentize says:

    @opiejeanne:
    I took it to mean — two more years in his current term, plus four years of a second term. Six years from now after his second term….

  46. 46
    germy says:

    @Immanentize:

    I took it to mean — two more years in his current term, plus four years of a second term. Six years from now after his second term…

    And he hints he might stay longer if his fans insist.

  47. 47
    TS (the original) says:

    @Betty Cracker:

    Emphasis mine. What a fucking lunatic.

    And he will have to be dragged out screaming when he loses in 2020

  48. 48
    JPL says:

    @Betty Cracker: As a friend just told me, imagine if you will trump being a patient in a mental health facility ranting like that. They’d probably be tempted to increase his medication.

  49. 49
    Jim, Foolish Literalist says:

    @Immanentize: A public display of Hope Hicks would have been a disaster for the investigation. Why do witnesses demand that House members and not counsel ask questions? Because House members suck at questioning — particularly on camera. Behind closed doors, counsel ask the questions of witnesses before a usually reduced number of House members who don’t care if they aren’t on TV.

    Ah. I’ve heard that a lot. I guess not even Pelosi and her chairs can make the likes of Swalwell give up on TV time
    ETA: I did see one report that they were going to release a transcript of Hicks’ testimony

  50. 50
    opiejeanne says:

    @Immanentize: Thanks. Maybe I’m still sleepy but it really didn’t seem clear to me what he was saying there.

  51. 51
    Immanentize says:

    @germy: Yes, that is the crazy part. This isn’t a show that gets cancelled or renewed.

    He is 73 right now. I am pretty sure even the Republicans who support him today would pull the plug on him when he is 79 or they would never get their chance.

    I’m much more worried about what he will do when he loses next November.

  52. 52
    Immanentize says:

    @opiejeanne:
    When is Trump ever clear?? It was confusing and I had to noodle it out.

  53. 53
    opiejeanne says:

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist: He is a pretty thing.

    And a total disappointment as a candidate. We do not need to reach across the aisle right now, dammit.

  54. 54
    Leto says:

    @germy: Oh! Did not know, danke.

    @Immanentize: The courts have shown that they take impeachment inquiry subpoenas/hearings more seriously and respond to them more quickly (because of their nature). Most subpoenas are taking at least 2 months for the first round of hearings. And they’re appealed after that. Which is more delay. MomSense asked how this games out: they’ll delay till the beginning of the year knowing that they’ll be able to slow walk all of this shit through the courts, then we’ll be in an election year where everyone will throw it to the voters to “decide”.

    Congress has the power to move this along more quickly but apparently ten proven criminal acts isn’t enough. Okay.

  55. 55
    opiejeanne says:

    @Immanentize: He hasn’t defaced the portrait of Hillary Clinton yet but it’s only a matter of time.

  56. 56
    BC in Illinois says:

    @opiejeanne:
    @Betty Cracker:
    @debbie:

    I think he’s saying that he has two years down, six years to go. {He’s taking for granted that the people will “re-elect” their favorite president.)

    Oh, and that’s assuming that the people don’t “demand” that he stay longer. (That thought seems to be always on his mind. It’s his image of the future.)

    Our image of the future?
    (1) Investigate / impeach / remove / indict / imprison / impoverish.
    . . . or at least . . .
    (2) “Re-Defeat Trump!”

  57. 57
    germy says:

    @Immanentize:

    I’m much more worried about what he will do when he loses next November.

    If he loses, he won’t accept the results. And he’ll tell his base not to believe it, either. He’ll blame the dishonest media and the “corrupt democrat party”

  58. 58
    Mandarama says:

    @Immanentize: As God is my witness, we can’t possibly bear 6 more years of this. I won’t have a scrap of decency left—I feel like I’m becoming a worse person every day; I hate these people and their entire vision for the world so much. 😔

  59. 59
    Another Scott says:

    @Betty Cracker: My tl;dr was from here:

    I appreciate the sentiment here, but it makes no sense. If the intelligence community is willing to talk to the Times, they obviously aren’t concerned about Trump’s blabbing.

    The Times has a history of getting the important facts in shocking stories wrong. Maybe they’re right here – as you say, we have no way of knowing yet.

    The point about the IC not trusting Donnie and being worried about him blabbing to Mother Russia is believable (and sort of a Well DUH!! revelation). This story would have been just as shocking (if we were in normal times with a normal President who took his oath seriously) without the details. (E.g. “The IC has several secret IT capabilities in Russia that could be used to retaliate…”) Why include them? Or, more specifically, why reveal this particular capability (if it does exist)?

    I assume the GOP will follow Donnie’s lead and tut-tut and attack the FTFNYT and then the story will be gone in a day or so and some new shiny object will be the new meme of the day. It might have legs if the House or Senate decide to have sensible hearings about it (but at this point I would be surprised).

    Anyway, just my $0.02.

    We’ll see.

    Thanks.

    Cheers,
    Scott.

  60. 60
    Immanentize says:

    @Leto:
    If I had any control of the calendar of the Dems, I would spend the summer getting as much info as possible on everything — finances, emoluments, Russia, Mar-a-Lago “advisors,” Barr, the census, etc. — then start formal impeachment in September when everyone is back from the beach.

  61. 61
    JPL says:

    @germy: He will blame the illegals and at that point we might have a race war.

  62. 62
    Immanentize says:

    @Mandarama:
    I am right there with you. He is, as the Catholics say, “a sin against charity.” He makes all worse. He is the King of the gutter and he needs us all down there to rule us.

    I can barely take what has happened and I am living in actual fear of the end of this Supreme Court term and the still-coming cases. Gerrymandering and census particularly.

  63. 63
    MomSense says:

    @Leto:

    But the voters are going to decide! This is not Nixon’s Republican Party. None of those fuckers would vote to remove Trump from office no matter what is revealed by impeachment hearings.

  64. 64
    Baud says:

    @TS (the original):

    And he will have to be dragged out screaming in handcuffs when he loses in 2020

    Preferably.

  65. 65
    Leto says:

    @Immanentize: Then you need to say this to everyone who wants Nixon style televised hearings. You need to be the first one to say this every time public hearings are brought up. Beside the fact that this isn’t 1972 and there are more than 4 channels (when’s the last time you saw a public hearing on the three major broadcasts? They won’t interrupt the Price is Right, or talk shows, to help inform the public), all our lawyers need to say that our Congress people suck and everything should be behind closed doors. If it’s all a farce/clown show, keep all of it behind closed doors and we’ll hopefully learn what was said from… someone.

    A bit of that is hyperbole, but not much.

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist:

    ETA: I did see one report that they were going to release a transcript of Hicks’ testimony

    They released Mueller’s transcript of his testimony. It was called the Mueller Report. Yet Congress still wants him to testify. Why? Like he stated, he already did. Is there a benefit to public hearings if, as Imm stated, they’re a clown show? We’re shifting, collectively, on what we want. First it was public hearings. Now it’s, our Congress people (who include a lot of lawyers) suck at questioning, so it needs to be closed door and hopefully we get a transcript.

    What do we want? Public transparency or hope that people read a transcript?

  66. 66
    jonas says:

    So Trump says leaked claims that the US has the ability to mess with Russia’s electrical grid is “NOT TRUE!!”? So either 1. he’s an utter moron who doesn’t know shit, even though he’s president or 2. he’s admitting that basically we have no plans to counter Russia’s well-documented capability to sabotage the US electrical grid. Oh, and of course 3. he’s embarrassed after kissing Putin’s ass so much that his own defense agencies continue to defend us against Russian interference. Of all the gall!

  67. 67
    Another Scott says:

    @TS (the original): I doubt it.

    I think it’s much more likely that he wouldn’t stick around for the inauguration and instead would hop on a plane for a last official trip to Elbonia (which doesn’t have an extradition treaty) and decides to stay longer for “important talks”, or something. He doesn’t care that he’d miss the traditional hand-over – he doesn’t care about norms and traditions.

    But I think that is very unlikely as well.

    Donnie thinks he can BS everyone in legal proceedings. He’s not worried about what happens on January 20 when he has to leave. He’s trying to rile up the rubes so that they turn out to vote for him – just like he did in 2016.

    He’ll go on January 20, because nobody who takes their oath seriously is going to break it (and risk arrest and jail) so he can try to stick around.

    (Remember, there’s a process. The people vote, the states certify the counts, Electoral College “meets” and “votes”, the Congress ratifies the results. All of that takes time. There isn’t some process for Donnie to say “NOPE NOT GOING!” on January 20 once all the preliminaries are completed.)

    FWIW.

    Cheers,
    Scott.

  68. 68
    JPL says:

    @Immanentize: Roberts doesn’t care about his legacy, does he. It’s expected that next term they will decide the fate of DACA.

  69. 69
    germy says:

    @Another Scott:

    Elbonia is underwater, unfortunately.

  70. 70

    @Another Scott: I think Kevin’s take is exactly right. I would add that whoever leaked is probably trying to shut down the operation.

  71. 71
    Leto says:

    @Immanentize: They’re not getting his tax returns until Jan 2021 per the chairman of the House Ways and Means. And that is direct black letter law. Subpoena has already been issued and ignored. They’re slow walking all of this through knowing that it works. As you stated, the courts are slow. September is a very optimistic goal.

    @MomSense: The voters decided when they elected their representatives to Congress. This is the same line of thinking that resulted in the Brexit vote. They elected their officials to make the hard decisions, not to punt the decision back to the voters. Same thing will happen here.

  72. 72
    Betty Cracker says:

    @Another Scott: Or, as Drum’s conclusion implies, the leak is a shot across the bow so the Trump admin won’t meddle with cyber programs rather than hearings bait. We’ll probably never know, which is frustrating as hell.

    @MomSense: I don’t think anyone (at least here) is deluded enough to believe the Senate Republicans would remove Trump — no matter what is revealed — and you’re right that a fake “exoneration” in the Senate would be a disaster. But if Laurence Tribe is correct (link in OP to prior post on that topic), Democrats can hold impeachment hearings without being obligated to refer the matter to the Senate.

  73. 73
    bbleh says:

    @🐾BillinGlendaleCA: I think he will. (Indeed it appears he has.) This is a PUBLIC thumb in his eye, and he is VERY sensitive to that sort of thing. I expect that, in addition to tweet-screaming, he’ll trot out Bill Barr to scowl furiously and shake his jowls menacingly and growl all sorts of things about chasing down the leakers.

    Might help if he hadn’t so systematically alienated the FBI, which happens to be the, y’know, agency that would investigate this sort of thing …

  74. 74
    Dr Ronnie James DO says:

    Trump wants impeachment bc impeachment puts the ball in Mitch’s cour, and doesn2 positive things for Trump:

    1) Let’s him crow “Exoneration!” even though it’s not

    2) Let’s him turn the page and devote more attention / airtime to the campaign agenda

    As long as investigations are continuing to make him look worse by the day, he’s losing, and he can’t do a blessed thing about it. And as long as McConnell is in charge, impeachment means changing the story from “investigations reveal deeper Trump corruption” to “Trump exonerated, vows to turn page and focus on agenda.” Continuing to torture the man and keep making him look bad during eection season seems like a good strategy for now.

  75. 75
    MomSense says:

    @Leto:

    Can’t we do both public and private hearings? Until someone can show me some realistic path to a good outcome by doing impeachment hearings now, I’m going to continue to think that we do have time to gather evidence and bring the public along. I just do not see people in the real world, who are not politics junkies like us, following this stuff at all. I keep thinking about all the people who called their local tv station to complain that the Bachelorette was being interrupted by tornado warnings. Those were people for whom the tornados were in their area!

    I’m pretty fucking cynical about the American electorate.

  76. 76
    Leto says:

    @Another Scott:

    because nobody who takes their oath seriously is going to break it

    If you can show me once instance of him taking his oath seriously, I’ll believe it. As it stands, there is more than a likely possibility that he won’t leave voluntarily. I 1000% understand how batshit crazy that sounds but what timeline do we live in? What from the previous three years would make you think that’s not a distinct possibility. How many Republicans would actually do something to uphold the rule of law? All current and past evidence points to zero.

  77. 77
    JPL says:

    @Dr Ronnie James DO: There are a few republicans up for reelection that might have a difficult choice to make.

  78. 78
    MomSense says:

    @Betty Cracker:

    In that Tribe scenario it’s really easy for the GOP and media to characterize impeachment as a partisan exercise. And it still doesn’t lead to a removal outcome! Maybe we will follow that path but I’d hope we time it to happen when it helps us more which I think is following the July 4th holiday in 2020.

  79. 79
    Baud says:

    @MomSense:

    I predicted the fall. After Labor Day.

  80. 80
    MomSense says:

    @Leto:

    This is going to the voters. It goes to the voters in 2020. That’s my point. Everything we do has to help Democrats in 2020.

  81. 81
    MomSense says:

    @Baud:

    I’m thinking hearings start in July and we get to the good stuff after Labor Day. Hopefully they time some really bad shit for the GOP convention.

  82. 82
    Immanentize says:

    @JPL: Roberts does care about his legacy. Very much so. I really don’t know if they will take up DACA next year, or abortion, but they could. If the Court is not pro-Trump, but pro-Republican power bases, then we might not see as many contentious issues next year because the most powerful decisions would drop in June or July of ’20 — right before the conventions

    That said, it only takes four votes to grant cert. and Thomas and Alito are too ideological not to take politically sensitive cases and Gorsuch and Kavenaugh might be too green to understand the consequences. We will see….

  83. 83
    Leto says:

    @MomSense: I’m super cynical about our dumbass population too.

    Until someone can show me some realistic path to a good outcome by doing impeachment hearings now, I’m going to continue to think that we do have time to gather evidence and bring the public along.

    I’ve stated this before, and linked to so many articles stating this that I feel like I’m shouting into the void, but an impeachment inquiry has 1) no set time length and 2) carries more weight under law, via the courts, than normal oversight.

    @Betty Cracker:

    Democrats can hold impeachment hearings without being obligated to refer the matter to the Senate

    It’s their constitutional duty to do so. They took a fucking oath of allegiance:

    “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.”

    There’s nothing there about if it’s politically feasible. If it brings good tv ratings. If it will help you win re-election. It’s about upholding our goddamned democracy and protecting our country from lawless and corrupt people.

    This is another instance where I see a clear military/civilian divide. Military members are expected to uphold their oaths, regardless of personal feelings. It doesn’t matter if you don’t like it. It doesn’t matter if it might cost you personally/professionally. You uphold your oath. Members of Congress take almost the exact same oath that enlisted members take. Personally, I expect them to uphold it.

    It doesn’t matter that the Senate won’t take it up (although I don’t think it will be Mitch’s call. If the House votes impeachment proceedings through, John Roberts will take possession of that trial. Idk, maybe someone here can find us a definitive answer on that), the House members took an oath of office. They need to uphold their oath.

  84. 84
    Michael Cain says:

    Are we practicing in South America? 48 million people, mostly in Argentina and Uruguay, lost power due to some sort of grid failure.

  85. 85

    @MomSense: Keep in mind, DC shuts down in August. Also there’s a budget to pass by Sept. 30.

  86. 86
    Leto says:

    @Betty Cracker: @Leto: Betty: can’t edit last comment but just wanted to say that I’m not yelling at you. Sorry if it comes across that way. I realize I’m getting all shouty.

  87. 87
    Leto says:

    @MomSense: Then Pelosi needs to tell her members that and have them shut the fuck up about Impeachment, period. Also we truly need to be ready for the long term implications of that action. We already have 240 years of historical precedent on our side of just punting the issue down the road. I’m sure there will be no negative blow back to ignoring it.

  88. 88
    Another Scott says:

    @Betty Cracker: The “shot across the bow” thing doesn’t make much sense to me, either, personally.

    E.g. Remember Total Information Awareness? The horrible, horrible program that was going to kill us all in our beds according to Snowden? The program that was “shut down” because of all the backlash? The program that was actually quietly renamed and continued as designed?

    Talking publicly about some classified program doesn’t protect (or kill) it. Lots and lots of considerations go into those decisions, and program managers have ways of working around obstacles if they (and their bosses) feel the need to do so.

    My $0.02. (I have no inside information.)

    Cheers,
    Scott.

  89. 89
    Immanentize says:

    @Leto:

    the House members took an oath of office. They need to uphold their oath.

    Too bad the U.S. is not Rohan!

  90. 90
    Another Scott says:

    @Leto: I meant the people who do the actual work in the transfer of power, not Donnie. Roberts will swear-in the next President at noon. The movers will move Donnie’s stuff out of the White House. Etc.

    Cheers,
    Scott.

  91. 91
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @Leto: Remind me where the military oath requires an immediate frontal assault with fixed bayonets on said enemies.

  92. 92
    Leto says:

    @Omnes Omnibus: When your dipshit army officer says “fix bayonets”. Next.

  93. 93
    Leto says:

    @Immanentize: Idk, maybe if we have Viggo making the speech? :p

    @Another Scott: Trumpov and his administration have ignored so many shots across the bow it’s time to sink the ship. We’re wasting ammo at this point.

  94. 94
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @Leto: IOW the oath itself doesn’t require it.

  95. 95
    Jim, Foolish Literalist says:

    We often assume that Dems who don’t push for impeachment are cowards, they agree with us, they’re just scared to say so out loud. I don’t think Jeff Van Drew is a coward. I think he’s dumb. But I’d bet that he thinks he’s smart

    But what I am done with, barring any new evidence, is any talk of impeachment, investigations, or divisive, unproductive politics,” Van Drew said in a written statement. “It is time to move forward.”…
    He reiterated his concerns on “Sunday Morning Futures with Maria Bartiromo” on Fox News.
    “I have spent the past few days in my district speaking to a lot of people. They are worn out. … They have had enough and want to see results,” Van Drew said. “We should be getting something done.”

    The headline in the article trots out one of the oldest Broderist platitudes, “partisan bickering”.

  96. 96
    Avalune says:

    I demand a moratorium on Leto posting – I can hear the angry typing from across the room and it’s messing with my knitting tension.

  97. 97
    Leto says:

    @Omnes Omnibus: Yes it does. I know you were an officer so you’re probably not familiar with the enlisted oath, but go read it. It’s there.

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist: They’re scared because of the specter of Clinton’s impeachment debacle. But I don’t think they’re taking away the proper lesson. Republicans haven’t paid any political price for that stunt. They were immediately rewarded with two term Shrub, almost 8 years of House rule, currently holding the Senate, how many judiciary appointments, as well as the attendant legislative/tax legislation passed?

  98. 98
    Leto says:

    @Avalune: Bah! It’s time for the women’s game anyways so kk.

  99. 99
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @Leto: I think you missed the point of my last comment. Taking action against an enemy does not require an immediate bayonet charge. I am taking issue with your implication that only way in which members of the House can uphold their oath is through immediate and formal steps into the impeachment process.

  100. 100
    Immanentize says:

    @Avalune: @Leto:
    Ha!
    I truly love you both.

  101. 101
    SFAW says:

    @Leto:

    When your dipshit army officer says “fix bayonets”. Next.

    Maybe I missed it, but which “officer” has said (figuratively speaking) “fix bayonets”?

    And quit harshing Avalune’s mellow.

  102. 102
    MomSense says:

    @Avalune:
    Ha!!!

  103. 103
    J R in WV says:

    @germy:

    True.

    But Trump has a State Dept, which could recommend a nice place with no extradition agreement. A nice right-wing place, like Hungary, for example!

    Where Trump could live high on the hog in a guarded penthouse, after paying the current high poobah in advance, with USAian monies for a permanent resident passport. I bet Sebastian Gorka could fix that for him!

  104. 104
    Leto says:

    @Omnes Omnibus: No, I didn’t. You made a bad analogy. We’ve had a two year investigation return ten criminal offenses. But that’s not good enough. We supposedly require more. I’m taking issue with that. That outright, out in plain sight lawlessness/criminality/corruption isn’t enough to proceed with a step that will result in better/quicker evidence collection.

    So far all the “now is not the time” people have yet to explain why an oversight function on steroids, that the courts view more favorably/will move quicker on, is the wrong course of action to take so that we can discover all the extra shady shit. You can’t slow walk an inquiry subpoena. The courts move faster on those.

    We’ve essentially run out of time (based on how long prior oversight/impeachment inquiry processes have taken). We can slow drip the information out but we’ve also hit voter fatigue with just the sheer amount of criminality that’s occurred in two years.

    @SFAW: The officers in this case would be the American public. Omes needs to explain why that order is unlawful (with respect to the enlisted oath/only reason to disobey it and there’s literally no shades of grey involved) or pick a better analogy.

    @Immanentize: =) Gotta go. Happy Father’s Day! US up 1-0 and doing really good!

  105. 105
    J R in WV says:

    @Avalune:

    @Leto:

    I dunno which of you is funnier!!!

    I’m hoping formal impeachment stuff starts early next year, and runs right up to the election, so that Traitor Turtle doesn’t have even 24 hours to tinker with it.

    If Roberts has anything to do with pacing, maybe he could keep Turtle from holding an overnight session to declare Trump not-Impeached. Hahaa — sometimes I crack me up~!!~

  106. 106
    SFAW says:

    @Leto:

    The officers in this case would be the American public.

    Right. Because the “American public” has a clear command structure, and always gives clear, unambiguous, legal orders.

    I don’t think taking back the House in the 2018 midterms — while losing ground in the Senate — quite translates to “fix bayonets.” I don’t think the current polling re: impeachment is a “fix bayonets” order, either.

    But, never having served, WTF do I know, right?

  107. 107
    Betty Cracker says:

    @Leto: No worries; the whole thing is making me shouty too.

  108. 108
    dww44 says:

    @MomSense: I disagree a bit. There are no guarantees in this life and sometimes waiting for the perfect time results in nothing. I agree with Warren that having impeachment is the RIGHT thing to do to protect our democracy and our Constitution and if that results in the Senate not voting for, then they have been forced to take a vote that they will have to live with for the rest of their lives, and not just their political lives. I, for one, look forward to seeing McConnell taking a NO vote in the face of overwhelming evidence of the ongoing treasonous and obstructive behavior of the President.
    BTW, Warren’s stepping up to the plate so soon after the release of the Mueller Report confirmed for me personally that she would be a great President.

  109. 109
    Leto says:

    @SFAW: It was bad analogy on his part. He needs to pick a better one. Past that, they have a responsibility to carry out regardless of polling/perception/job security. You can’t talk about this, constantly, as being a constitutional crisis/criminal president and then not proceed with the process for holding him accountable. Again, the “not now” people need to make a convincing case of why an impeachment inquiry isn’t warranted. So far that hasn’t happened.

  110. 110
    mrmoshpotato says:

    @Betty Cracker: What happened to the fat, orange fascist, Soviet shitpile declaring himself tremendous bigly Presidential for life?

    I’m so confused.

  111. 111
    randal m sexton says:

    Has anyone thought about what it would be like if the timing of impeachment went something like this:
    1) Information gathering 5/2019 to start of 2020 – this is where various committees would be attempting to gather information
    2) Single special committee to do an Impeachment Inquiry – 1/2020 to 6/2020 . This committee would presumably have stronger ability go subpoena
    3) Drafting of articles of impeachment – This phase going to very close to election
    4) Impeachment happening at about the election

    5) Then a trump impeachment trial after the election, maybe while he is a lame duck, and there are many lame duck senators.

    Trump, having no bottom, and having lost the election and thinking he is looking at indictments after he loses office would be at his most dangerous. If this timing happened, a lame duck senate impeachment trial could be quite a wild affair.

  112. 112
    SFAW says:

    @Leto:

    Whether Omnes’s analogy is bad is immaterial. You seem to be saying that, unless the House starts impeachment proceedings RIGHT NOW!, they’re not honoring their oath of office, and thus they need to prove that they’re not neoliberal shills (or whatever term of disapprobation you want to use).

    That’s an argument not-that-far removed from “If they don’t support Single Payer NOW!, they’re no better than the Rethugs.” It’s only a matter of degree. And, no, I’m not saying UHC and impeaching the Traitor-in-Chief are the same thing — only that it now seems to be a purity test.

  113. 113
    mrmoshpotato says:

    @Another Scott:

    The movers will move Donnie’s stuff out of the White House. Etc.

    Will there be time to burn the place to the ground, disinfect the dirt, and build a new one before President Harris or President Warren move in?

  114. 114
    Uncle Cosmo says:

    @Leto:

    If you can show me once instance of him taking his oath seriously, I’ll believe it.

    I think you missed the point. It doesn’t matter whether Agolf Twitler takes his oath seriously. Presuming the Democratic candidates for POTUS & VPOTUS have been certified as the winners of the 2020 election by the Electoral College, then as of noon on January 20, 2021, Cheetoh Benito will legally no longer be POTUS, & it will be the job of the cognizant authorities** to remove him from the White House & any other Presidential facilities or transport he attempts to commandeer – by force if necessary. Those authorities are the people whose adherence to their oaths of office would be significant, because their duty (to remove him) would be clear & unambiguous.

    ——
    ** Not clear to me who exactly that is, anyone know?.

  115. 115
    SFAW says:

    @mrmoshpotato:

    Will there be time to burn the place to the ground,

    Can I suggest they try that on the Southern Gold White House first? Then perfect their art on Traitor Tower in NYC?

    ETA: Who “they” is/are is an exercise for the advanced student, by the way. I have no idea who it might be.

  116. 116
    joel hanes says:

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist:

    why they allowed Hope Hicks to testify behind closed doors

    To protect her from Trump, and so free her to tell the truth without immediate retaliation?

  117. 117
    Bill Arnold says:

    @Another Scott:

    (Remember, there’s a process. The people vote, the states certify the counts, Electoral College “meets” and “votes”, the Congress ratifies the results. All of that takes time. There isn’t some process for Donnie to say “NOPE NOT GOING!” on January 20 once all the preliminaries are completed.)

    And what if that process is disrupted, e.g. Florida declares that the Russians have hacked their state’s electoral apparatus and that they can’t certify counts? Writ across a few more states perhaps.
    This is why we need to be much more suspicious about the unwillingness of the Rs to improve (real[1]) election security; if an attempt is made and detected, whether or not it was intended to be real and whether or not it worked, it is a way for Rs to declare that an election that they lost definitively is nullified. If necessary, Democrats need to talk about funding monitoring of elections at a tech level, and including making any monitoring tech resistant to false-flag (false) positives. Ugh.
    McConnell in particular is behaving treasonously with his blocking of improved election security and should be called out it.
    [1] While reducing Democratic votes with disenfranchisement, and diluting the remaining Democratic votes with gerrymandering, to hold onto minoritarian rule as long as the citizenry allow it.

  118. 118
    Leto says:

    @SFAW: If you can name the constitutional duty to pass single payer, then sure. It’s not a matter of degrees, it’s miles. This isn’t a purity test. This is protecting our nation. It’s ensuring the rule of law. How do you remove a lawless president? How do you remove a president who continues to commit crimes?

    I guess I need to disengage with these threads in totality because we’ve separated into two camps: wait for the election and do something now. We’re entrenched and not moving. I’ll see everyone at the Somme.

  119. 119
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @Leto: A couple of observations:

    What I am arguing against is your suggestion that anything less than an all out and immediate impeachment push constitutes a violation of a MoC’s oath of office.

    Your interpretation of the 2018 election result as a demand for impeachment is simply that, your interpretation.

  120. 120
    joel hanes says:

    @JPL:

    Roberts doesn’t care about his legacy, does he

    His true position on legacy and the law vs. partisan advantage for the GOP was made perfectly clear in Shelby County (if Citizens United hadn’t already been a big enough tell).

  121. 121
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @Leto: Actually, you are wrong about a separation into to camps. There, I would posit, a number of people who are not opposed to impeachment but are not, at the same time, convinced that that the formal process should have begun last Tuesday at the very latest.

  122. 122
    SFAW says:

    @Leto:
    Amazingly enough, it’s not an either/or — “impeach NOW!” or “don’t impeach” — situation, so I would appreciate it if you would stop with the straw man/men arguments. And I don’t think that, were Speaker Pelosi to say the words “I will NEVER begin impeachment proceedings against the Traitor-in-Chief” — which she hasn’t, but let’s not let reality get in the way — that she would be thrown into jail (so to speak) were she to revise her statement on that.

    I’m not a Constitutional scholar, but I don’t think that the Constitution mandates that impeachment proceedings MUST begin when some number of well-meaning persons believe that an official has committed impeachable offenses; nor that, if they DON’T begin at that point, then they can never be initiated.

  123. 123
    Brachiator says:

    Pentagon and intelligence officials are taking action independently because everyone’s afraid if they clue Trump in, he’ll blurt out details to a hostile foreign power’s officials or quash the effort altogether

    Jesus H Christmas. I don’t know which is worse. Having Trump as president, or the soft coup that the intelligence agencies have committed. Who is in charge of the government if agencies treat him as an unreliable figurehead?

    And Trump is even more of an idiot for whining about enemies of the people.

    Impeach the muthafucka already. Or invoke the 25th Amendment. Whatever is necessary to boot his ass out of office.

  124. 124
    Betty Cracker says:

    @Brachiator: We don’t have a president; we have a petulant baby in the White House. Remember that anonymous op-ed in the NYT last year that claimed “patriots” were basically running things behind Trump’s back? My guess is there are soft coups operating like that throughout the federal government as people take it upon themselves to do different pieces of Trump’s job since neither he nor any of the low quality hires he brought on board have a fucking clue how to run the world’s last super power. So far, we’ve been extraordinarily lucky to have avoided a genuine national emergency. Dog help us if there’s a crisis because we have no goddamned idea who will respond.

  125. 125
    Ruckus says:

    @Baud:

    Fair enough. It’s a crap shoot trying to game how all this will play out.

    I think this is the crux of the issue. Nancy P has to get this right, and in a representative democracy we hired her to to exactly that. I think we have to trust that she knows more about this than almost all of us do. She was there for the impeachment of Clinton, saw it up close. Wasn’t in office in Nixon’s days on the block but 6 yrs later was the chair of the California Democratic Party. She’s been around the block on our side for a very long time and she’s been good at it. Trusting her is the best we’ve got.

  126. 126
    Ruckus says:

    @debbie:
    Well that’s quite likely to be 2 yrs longer than the next election allows.
    But I don’t really see him boarding up the windows and turning the place into a treehouse that only he’s allowed into. I suspect that the secret service might just escort him out. Yelling and screaming like the 5 yr old his mind works like.
    Handcuffs may be involved.
    OK a boy can wish……

  127. 127
    Ruckus says:

    @JPL:
    A very important point.
    If there are public hearings about impeachment in say 6 months to one year, that could sway the election wildly. And I doubt that would make drumpf’s side stronger. And as you suggest it could cause several republicans to really, really worry about their jobs and careers. Which long term may be far better for the country.

  128. 128
    J R in WV says:

    @Ruckus:

    Yeah, I’m hoping for handcuffs and a pop-up indictment, so they take him directly to DC city jail from the back door of the White House.

    Perp walk would also be good for the soul~! And they can let him knock himself silly on the car as they push him into the back seat. It’s what he would want!

  129. 129
    Ruckus says:

    @Leto:
    As an ex enlisted man who has carried a loaded weapon in foreign harbors, with orders to shoot to kill if I thought it necessary to effect my duty I see this a bit differently. The rest of the order was to protect the ship and it’s crew, in that order. There was a fair amount of open ended concept in that order. It wasn’t shoot whenever there is doubt or whenever I had the gun, it was on me, based upon my understanding of the situation at the time it happened. And that is exactly what Nancy and the house is doing. There has been an assault upon our government, by one of our own and their order is to investigate and legally deal with it. Impeachment is the process of bringing the charges, investigation can happen without that. And is. Would it be better with the process? The person with the loaded weapon is the one who has to make that decision and that’s Nancy Pelosi. She’s the one on duty, on watch. I’m going to trust her to make the best decision. May not be the right one, but she’s the person on duty, the one with the responsibility to shoot or not, at this moment.

  130. 130
    Chris Johnson says:

    One side-effect here is that, in getting information about cyberwar out, you get the result of ‘look, the US is a warlike loose cannon fucking with everybody’. And there’s more than a grain of truth to that but it’s not in a vacuum: ‘whataboutism’ can point right back at Russia, look at the shit they’ve been up to.

    Same with trying to get US hotheads to attack Iran: opportunity to do damage to the US Navy in ‘self-defense’ that really is a form of self-defense, opportunity to have what amounts to an unprovoked attack displayed to the world, and isolating the US as bad actors on the world stage. It’s actually a pretty smart angle as we’ve been all too willing to be exactly that, often at the behest of the same rightwingers now being played as patsies.

    Bottom line is, to Russia (in any sane analysis) the end game is not the warlike US right wingers WINNING, or getting all the power. It’s undermining every position the US has, simply to undermine. The US ‘attacking Iran’ or ‘attacking Russian civilians with cyber-attacks’ is the intended take-away. I see it’s the New York Times, that I keep on accusing of being owned by Russia, which is bringing out this ‘US can attack Russia with cyber-attacks’ narrative.

Comments are closed.