Democrats quietly debate expanding impeachment articles beyond Ukraine


Shhhhhhhh, hush now…most of the sources are anonymous and Deep Background…  And yeah, it’s kinda a throw-away post, but it proved too irresistible to pass up…

The title’s from the Washington Post, via inquirer.com (not likely behind a paywall), Dec. 3, 2019, by Rachael Bade

“Members of the House Judiciary Committee and other more liberal-minded lawmakers and congressional aides have been privately discussing the possibility of drafting articles that include obstruction of justice or other “high crimes” they believe are clearly outlined in special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s report — or allegations that Trump has used his office to benefit his bottom line.

The idea, however, is running into resistance from some moderate Democrats wary of impeachment blowback in their GOP-leaning districts, as well as Democratic leaders who sought to keep impeachment narrowly focused on allegations that Trump pressured Ukraine to investigate his political rivals, according to officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity to talk freely.’

Bade writes that the discussion will play out this week in leadership and caucus meetings this week, given that the House Intelligence Committee is preparing to hand the Inquiry to the House Judiciary Committee, which will prepare that committee to work on writing articles of impeachment if they approve the former’s document.

“But the Judiciary Committee also has asked other investigative panels to send any findings of Trump-related misdeeds that they believe are impeachable. And many of the committee members are hoping articles will refer to and cite their own months-long investigation into the Mueller report, which described 10 possible instances of obstruction by the president.

The discussions heated up Monday as Trump lashed out at impeachment investigators as he left Washington for a NATO meeting in London, then aboard Air Force One promptly took to his favorite social media platform — Twitter — to declare “case over.” Trump inaccurately portrayed fresh comments by Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky as proof that impeachment was unnecessary. Although Zelensky denied being engaged in a “quid pro quo,” he also questioned the fairness of Trump’s decision to freeze nearly $400 million in congressionally appropriated military aid when his country was at war with Russia.

“[Y]ou have to understand. We’re at war,” Zelensky said. “If you’re our strategic partner, then you can’t go blocking anything for us. I think that’s just about fairness. It’s not about a quid pro quo. It just goes without saying.”

To whom did Zeenskkiy say that? I
Anhoo, it’s another nine yards of text demonstrating the major mind jockeying at play: bring four counts of impeachment, some approving just two (as with Bill Clinton) to cover their asses with their constituents while home over the holidays, which issues like emoluments and profiting by not divesting of his ma$$ive empire, expanding articles to include additional Trump controversies, such as his actions related to Mueller’s probe of Russian election interference in the 2016 election, etc.

“Some House Democrats worry that adding other charges could stretch out impeachment when many are desperate to finish before the holidays. The Intelligence Committee has spent the past two months articulating its case to the public in a series of blockbuster hearings in which more than a dozen current and former Trump officials testified and chided the president for his conduct on Ukraine. Democrats haven’t had a single hearing on the Mueller report since mid-September.

Democrats have a small window to decide on changing course. They still hope to draft articles of impeachment next week — and debate and vote in the full House the third week of December, leaving little time for deliberations.

On a slightly more serious note:

Dueling impeachment reports: Democrats claim ‘evidence’ of Trump misconduct, Republicans say there isn’t any (READ HERE), 3 Dec, 2019, RT.com

“Impeachment hearings have shown evidence that US President Donald Trump solicited election interference from Ukraine for personal gain, says a new report by the House Democrats. Republicans say that no such evidence was given.

House Intelligence Committee chair Adam Schiff (D-California) published a 300-page report on Tuesday, as part of the official impeachment inquiry authorized in October despite bipartisan opposition. The report claims that both the secret depositions and the public hearings held over the past month have shown evidence that Trump “solicited the interference of a foreign government, Ukraine, to benefit his reelection” by conditioning US aid to Kiev on “politically-motivated investigations” into Trump’s domestic political opponent Joe Biden.

“In doing so, the President placed his own personal and political interests above the national interests of the United States, sought to undermine the integrity of the US presidential election process, and endangered US national security, he Schiff report asserts.  [<that’s always been my favorite claim because: Russia!]

“Even though the Schiff report claims to represent the views of both Republicans and Democrats on the Intelligence, Foreign Affairs and Oversight committees, on Monday the GOP members of the Intelligence committee published their own minority report, dissenting from his assertions.

None of the evidence presented proves the Democrats’ allegations, nor have any witnesses testified to “bribery, extortion, or any high crime or misdemeanor,” says the 123-page Republican document.

“The Democrats’ impeachment inquiry is not the organic outgrowth of serious misconduct; it is an orchestrated campaign to upend our political system,” the minority report says, adding that the House majority is “trying to impeach a duly elected president based on the accusations and assumptions of unelected bureaucrats who disagreed with President Trump’s policy initiatives and processes.” [snip]

“While the mainstream press has embraced Schiff’s report with the same zeal as they’ve promoted ‘Russiagate,’ many skeptics on both sides of the political spectrum remain unconvinced.

Progressive journalist Aaron Mate, for example, pointed out [on Twitter] that while Schiff’s report contains multiple mentions of Ambassador Gordon Sondland, not once does it reflect his testimony that he “presumed” the aid to Ukraine was conditioned on investigations.” [snip]

“Will Chamberlain, lawyer and publisher of the conservative journal Human Events, went a step further and argued that Schiff’s report actually exonerates Trump. By noting that the president’s view of Ukraine as corrupt was based on discussions with Hungarian PM Viktor Orban, the report actually gives evidence that Trump’s actions were based on policy concerns – which would make them perfectly in line with his authority as president, Chamberlain argued on Twitter.

Not that any of this matters for the further course of the impeachment inquiry. The publication of Schiff’s report was a mere formality, as House Judiciary Committee chair Jerry Nadler (D-New York) had scheduled the first of his own impeachment hearings for Wednesday.”

‘House Democrats begin next phase of impeachment drive’, By Patrick Martin, 3 December 2019, wsws.org

“The Democratic Party effort to impeach President Trump for withholding military aid to Ukraine moves into its next stage Wednesday [today], with the first formal hearing before the House Judiciary Committee, which is expected to draw up articles of impeachment for a vote by the full House before the end of the month.

White House Counsel Pat Cipollone, in a five-page letter sent Sunday to Judiciary Committee Chair Jerrold Nadler, denounced the hearing and said Trump would not send a legal representative or otherwise participate.

Wednesday’s hearing will review the legal and constitutional requirements for impeachment, without any testimony on the nature of the charges being brought against Trump. Late Monday, Nadler released the names of the four witnesses. All are law school professors, including three called by the Democrats—Noah Feldman of Harvard Law School, Pamela Karlan of Stanford Law School, and Michael Gerhardt of the University of North Carolina School of Law—and one called by the Republicans, Jonathan Turley of the George Washington University Law School.’ [snip]

“In order to compel new Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to make the announcement—thus boosting Trump politically at the expense of a major Democratic opponent—Trump offered both a carrot (a White House meeting for Zelensky) and a stick (the cutoff of $391 million in US military aid). Both were discussed in the July 25 phone call between Trump and Zelensky that remains the focal point of the impeachment inquiry.

It was the protracted delay in military aid, disrupting and potentially endangering one of the most important foreign operations of American imperialism—the build-up of Ukraine as a base of operations against Russia—that touched off the impeachment drive.

Democrats such as House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi had long opposed any effort to impeach Trump over crimes such as forced separation of immigrant parents and children or the illegal diversion of funds to build his wall along the US-Mexico border. But when a CIA “whistleblower” [not-Ciaramela] came forward with an official complaint to Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson, in what was clearly a provocation orchestrated by the military-intelligence apparatus over longstanding foreign policy differences with Trump, the Democratic leadership abruptly changed course.” [large snip]

“Republicans have demanded that at least three witnesses appear before the Judiciary Committee whose testimony was barred by Schiff in the two weeks of public hearings before the Intelligence Committee. These are the CIA “whistleblower,” Hunter Biden and Schiff himself, who would be asked about his role in directing the “whistleblower” to file a formal complaint with the inspector general for the intelligence agencies.

Judiciary Committee Chair Nadler is expected to rebuff demands for these witnesses, but if Trump is indeed impeached, they could be summoned to testify during a Senate trial, where the Republican majority in the Senate, not the Democrats, would control the proceedings.

Nadler has given the White House until 5 pm Friday, December 6 to say whether Trump plans to mount a defense against impeachment by calling witnesses and introducing evidence. Under the procedures laid down by the House Democratic leadership, however, Trump will be able to do so only if he agrees to lift his order against any executive branch cooperation with the impeachment inquiry. This has included a ban on testimony—largely ignored by State Department and other officials after they received congressional subpoenas—and a ban on supplying government documents, which has been far more effective.”

‘Adam Schiff’s Capacious Definition of Bribery Was Tried in 1787’, by jonathanturley.org, apparently Dec. 2 or 3, 2019

“In the push for a December impeachment vote, House Democrats appear poised to make history. It will be the shortest investigation producing the thinnest record of wrongdoing for the narrowest impeachment in history. There is, however, a precedent for the Democrats’ expansive interpretations of bribery and impeachment: the trial of Warren Hastings, 230 years ago in Britain. But Hastings’ tale is a cautionary one that nobody should aim to repeat.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says she has “corroborated evidence of bribery.” House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff agrees, explaining that, “As the founders understood bribery, it was not as we understand it in law today. It was much broader. It connoted the breach of the public trust in a way where you’re offering official acts for some personal or political reason, not in the nation’s interest.”

Mr. Schiff’s sudden transformation into an originalist may be short-lived. The Framers did not, in fact, view bribery as some overarching concept of corruption. At the Constitutional Convention, George Mason objected to listing only “treason” and “bribery” as impeachable offenses because they were too narrow and limited. He suggested a broader term, “maladministration,” citing the still-unfolding Hastings case, which was based on interpretations of bribery and corruption that would soon be exposed as dubious.” [snip]

“Since then, politicians have often sought to adopt expansive interpretations to make impeachment easier. When I served as lead defense counsel in the Senate impeachment trial of federal Judge Thomas Porteous, the lead House manager sought to convict my client on the novel theory that even conduct before taking office could be impeachable. That impeachment manager was Adam Schiff.

There is much that is worthy of investigation in the Ukraine scandal, and it is true that impeachment doesn’t require a crime. But the Framers expressly warned against lowering the impeachment standard to a mere discretionary option for any party that happens to control the Senate. That’s what interpreting bribery to include any action viewed as “offering public acts for some personal or political purposes” would do.

All politicians are self-dealers who use their offices to advance themselves politically. That doesn’t make their acts criminal or impeachable. Just ask Warren Hastings.”

‘TURLEY TESTIFIES AT TRUMP IMPEACHMENT HEARING’, Dec. 4, 2019, jonathanturley.org

“It has been roughly 20 years since I testified at the same hearing in the impeachment of President William J. Clinton and roughly 10 years since I was lead counsel at the last Senate impeachment trial (with my co-lead counsel Daniel Schwartz).” [snip]

Here is my testimony:

Turley.Testimony.Impeachment.Final_Download  (and a mere 53 pages, w/ fascinating comments like ‘Turley kisses Trump’s ass…)

The House Will Not Vote On Impeachment. It Will Censure Trump, b at moonofalabama.org Nov. 26, 2019:

“Nadler will write up articles of impeachment which will be referred to the whole House to vote on them. No Republican is likely to vote for impeaching Trump. It would be political suicide to do so. The Democrats have 233 Representatives and need 218 votes for a majority decision. They can afford a few abstentions but not too many.

At least one House Democrat, Brenda Lawrence from the swing state Michigan, has said that she will no longer support impeachment but that she prefers to censure the president instead of impeaching him. A censure is a formal reprimand by a majority vote that has no further consequences.

More are likely to follow that path as several recent polls show that impeachment is no longer en vogue:

The latest national poll from Emerson College finds 45 percent oppose impeaching President Trump, against 43 percent who support it. That’s a 6-point swing in support from October, when 48 percent of voters supported impeachment and only 44 percent opposed.

More importantly, the poll shows more independents now oppose impeachment than support it, a significant change from Emerson’s polling in October. The new poll found 49 percent oppose impeachment compared to 34 percent who support it. In October, 48 percent of independents polled supported impeachment, against 39 percent who opposed.

Since October, Emerson has found Trump’s job approval rating jump by 5 points, from 43 percent to 48 percent.

This is the second poll this week to show voters are increasingly likely to oppose impeachment.

Even Democrats are losing interest in the issue  There is also this curious issue:

Josh Jordan @NumbersMuncher – 13:32 UTC · Nov 26, 2019

CNN Poll: There is a *forty* point gender gap with regards to impeaching and removing Trump.
Men oppose impeachment 40-53 while women favor it 61-34.
That’s a pretty stunning contrast.”

Pollsters rarely ask ‘why’, but could that gender gap reflect the Pink Pussy Hat factor?  Also, given that the blockbuster televised hearings haven’t moved to dial toward Impeachment part of what’s driving the ‘debate expanding impeachment articles beyond Ukraine?

I hope you’ll understand that while the actual lyrics don’t really fit, when I read the WaPo’s title piece, I kept hearing Blondie’s ‘One way or another…I’m gonna getcha getcha…one way or another..

(cross-posted from Café Babylon)

Share
up
0 users have voted.

Comments

snoopydawg's picture

“In the push for a December impeachment vote, House Democrats appear poised to make history. It will be the shortest investigation producing the thinnest record of wrongdoing for the narrowest impeachment in history.

There are lots of other things Trump could be impeached for, but we know democrats are complicit in them and so as Nancy once said of impeaching Bush for war crimes and crimes against humanity, "It's just not worth it."

This is from one of the attorneys testifying today:

But everything I read on those occasions tells me that when President Trump invited, indeed, demanded, foreign involvement in our upcoming election, he struck at the very heart of what makes this a republic to which we pledge allegiance. That demand as professor Feldman just explained, constituted an abuse of power. Indeed, as I want to explain in my testimony, drawing a foreign government into our elections is an especially serious abuse of power because it undermines democracy itself.

First off during cross examinations of the witnesses I heard every one of them back track on their saying that Trump did as for QPQ. Sodland admitted that it was just his interpretation of what he thought Trump wanted from Zelensky. I posted videos of them doing that in my essay on the impeachment farce.

I want Trump out of office ASAP because of the damage he is doing to the country and the world, but that won't stop what's happening because the rot is too entrenched and both parties want the things Trump is doing so changing who is driving the Titanic is not going to change a damn thing. So if democrats ever succeed in getting Trump out of office we will be left with Pence who would be much worse. Trump isn't picking the right wind judges that McConnell with the help from Schumer is placing on the courts. The PTB that work behind the scenes are doing that.

Last year the donors told Ryan that if he doesn't cut taxes on them that they would withhold donations. "Do it now or the cat gets the knife." Democrats could have stopped them from passing that, but as one democrat told Ryan, "You should have asked us to vote on it because you would have had more votes." Who doesn't think that Manchin would not have voted for it? Anyone? Bueller?

But if you want to do something about Trump you can sign this petition:

Dear World, we recognize what a monumental embarrassment Donald Trump is.

Sigh

up
0 users have voted.

America is a pathetic nation; a fascist state fueled by the greed, malice, and stupidity of her own people.
- strife delivery

wendy davis's picture

@snoopydawg

was jonathan turley. my ears had pricked up w/ the announcement he'd be testifying on the legalities, etc. because when i'd coverered day one at the café, i'd gone hunting for opinions from him. he was very nuanced, as he should have been, and i think it even earlier than 'how democrats can build a stronger case for impeachment, nov. 27, 2019.

ha! i'd clicked into RT.com to get my eyes used to reading again, and found the self-same feldman quoted as saying:

"Stanford law professor Pamela Karlan raised eyebrows online for suggesting during congressional impeachment hearings that the US must keep Ukraine strong “so they fight the Russians there and we don't have to fight them here.”

Yes, you read that right. It seems in Karlan’s mind, all that’s stopping “the Russians” from invading the US is the Ukrainian army, which must be kept strong to stave off the ultimate disaster. The law professor made the baffling comment during the House Judiciary Committee impeachment hearing on Wednesday."

the small bit i'd read from sondland indicated he was quite a shape-shifter, so thanks for that direct observation.

yes, pelosi: look forward not backward, knowing obomba would do much the same...and did worse in so many respects, opening the door to a Trump. and i woud have added a lot more to patrick martin's list of impeachable crimes, or referrals to the hague, as with obomba. but...pelosi and her pals chose this, because: russia, for another reason.

dinnae know this:

Trump isn't picking the right wind judges that McConnell with the help from Schumer is placing on the courts.

but even if there were a Trump trial in the senate, there's no way in hell there would be 67 votes to remove him from office, imo. and pence? brrrrr. hella lot of evangelicals in this blighted nation..

up
0 users have voted.
ppnortney's picture

@wendy davis

hella lot of evangelicals in this blighted nation..

Dominionists.

up
0 users have voted.

The smaller the mind the greater the conceit. --Aesop

wendy davis's picture

@ppnortney

but yes. to say the truth, i'd been pinging 'evangelicals' as being part of CUFI: chrisitianists united for israel (john hagee). 'when israel stands alone', etc. trump and pompeo have spurred that doctrine along to an abjectly hideous level, normalizing land grabs in gaza and the west bank, and of course this:

bibi under indictment is even more dangerous. son-in-law kushner's 'peace and prosperity plan' for palestine? oy...and veh; may bibi not survive to enact it.

up
0 users have voted.

@ppnortney

His findings reveal that the actual rate of church attendance from head counts is less than half of the 40 percent the pollsters report. Numbers from actual counts of people in Orthodox Christian churches (Catholic, mainline and evangelical) show that in 2004, 17.7 percent of the population attended a Christian church on any given weekend.

Another study published in 2005 in The Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion by sociologists C. Kirk Hadaway and Penny Long Marler—known for their scholarly research on the church—backs up his findings. Their report reveals that the actual number of people worshiping each week is closer to Olson’s 17.7 percent figure—52 million people instead of the pollster-reported 132 million (40 percent)

https://churchleaders.com/pastors/pastor-articles/139575-7-startling-fac...

And the trend has continued unabated since then. Churches don't have the clout people claim.

up
0 users have voted.
wendy davis's picture

@davidgmillsatty

likely bears little resemblance to 'believers', imo.

up
0 users have voted.

@wendy davis And then the numbers get rally small.

up
0 users have voted.
snoopydawg's picture

'What Cruelty Looks Like': Trump Finalizes Plan to Strip Food Aid From 750,000 Low-Income People by 2020

"When it came to tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy, Trump felt the nation's finances were firm enough to give up more than $1,500,000,000,000. When it's time to spend a fraction of that to help poor people eat, that's when the well has supposedly run dry."

The Trump administration announced Wednesday that it has finalized a plan to tighten punitive work requirements for food stamp recipients, a move that would strip nutrition assistance from an estimated 750,000 low-income people by mid-2020.

This is just the start of stripping people from SNAP. Trump isn't done yet.

According to an Urban Institute study published last week, the Trump administration's three proposed SNAP changes combined would strip federal food aid from 3.7 million people.

How much money is this going to save? Peanuts compared to the tax cuts that don't expire for the rich and peanuts compared to the military budget and foreign aid just to name two things that could and should be cut. So Trump is going after able bodied people first. Think he is going to stop there? "First they came for...." I am speaking up, but just like Trump ignored the comments from people on this bill, he is going to ignore me and the rest of us. Of course this isn't just Trump. Of course not.

How about we collect the trillions of dollars of hidden income and assets in offshore accounts, corporate fraud, illegal yet unprosecuted corporate actions, and all that other rich person stuff before we start picking on the poor who are need food. Once we’ve collected all that, if there’s still a food and homeless problem, which there won’t be, we can go after the poor.

up
0 users have voted.

America is a pathetic nation; a fascist state fueled by the greed, malice, and stupidity of her own people.
- strife delivery

boriscleto's picture

@snoopydawg Just another way he's screwing the farmers who voted for him.

up
0 users have voted.

" In the beginning, the universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry, and is generally considered to have been a bad move. -- Douglas Adams, The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy "

snoopydawg's picture

@boriscleto

but the big ones are making out like bandits. I recently posted a link about how SNAP needs to be removed from the farm bill because of how many people who aren't actually farmers are getting lots of the bailout money. The bill should have had restrictions on it so that the money only went to farmers who were hurting. The article said that second and third cousins are able to get money because of the loopholes. There are so many farmers declaring bankruptcy this year because of his stupid trade war. Guess who is buying those farms up?

up
0 users have voted.

America is a pathetic nation; a fascist state fueled by the greed, malice, and stupidity of her own people.
- strife delivery

boriscleto's picture

@snoopydawg Screwed themselves even before Trump started his trade war with Canada.

A lot of farmers increased the size of their herds to supply milk for the greek yogurt boom. Chobani started in Madison County so new yogurt manufacturers were opening new plants. The market plateaued and demand dried up. Now they are dumping milk in their fields...China has increasing demand for dairy, and a decreasing dairy herd. But there is a 25% tariff on US dairy thanks to Trump.

up
0 users have voted.

" In the beginning, the universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry, and is generally considered to have been a bad move. -- Douglas Adams, The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy "

wendy davis's picture

@snoopydawg

humanity, even US humanity. but obomba billing out the banks, screwing the citizenry? that wealth disparity is continuing apace today. the 90% never, ever recovered yet.

i've forgotten, but aren't there states that can not join the SNAP program and other social safety net programs?

up
0 users have voted.
snoopydawg's picture

@wendy davis

aren't there states that can not join the SNAP program and other social safety net programs?

Lots of states put income restrictions on social programs, but I don't know of any that don't have some type of program. I read that Florida just drastically cut the amount for people there, but I don't remember the details. Lots of people are getting less than $20/month even though they have kids who need them. Other states have work requirements and some others, but the real damage to the social programs came from Clinton's welfare reform. $17 billion was cut and $19 billion was given to the prison industrial complex. Obama cut $5 billion and hey wasn't that the amount Nuland spent on the Ukraine coup? Always plenty of money for killingry as Buckminster Fuller says in Warbound.

up
0 users have voted.

America is a pathetic nation; a fascist state fueled by the greed, malice, and stupidity of her own people.
- strife delivery

wendy davis's picture

@snoopydawg

'if i only had a memory!' i may rememember (dang these fonts are tiny) when i'm either close to sleep or near water: both are subconscious prompts for me, but i'm 'seeing' scott walkerstan in my mind, for instance..

up
0 users have voted.
wendy davis's picture

@snoopydawg

about it. some states opt out (or did) of both (then foodstamps) and medicaid as opting in meant paying in such negligible amount to opt in. only found state by state data, too long....

up
0 users have voted.

is that while the impeachment hearings are benefiting Trump he and his enablers are stealthily laying the groundwork for an authoritarian dictatorship. I still do not believe that Trump has the vision or the public support to make himself dictator, and I also do not believe that any racist/christofascist will, but I also believe that a pseudoliberal idpol Democrat might be self deluded enough to try, and either would cause years of social chaos.

The most likely outcome of a continuation of the impeachment fiasco is the reelection of Trump, and like I said he doesn't have the vision or the public support to attempt to declare himself dictator. But what about 2024? Pence? Torquemada? Albert Speer? (actually an American Speer is the most likely) Also possible is that Trump's sudden burst in approval could be illusionary and this time Hillary! steals another nomination and this time steals the Presidency. Sounds like a bad movie - a political thriller starring a martial artist and a supermodel, but it's not that unbelievable - Homeland Security (the CIA) controls the voting machines now.

up
0 users have voted.

A PROUD Hillary hater since 1993

wendy davis's picture

@doh1304

comment and quasi-prediction, doh1334; i'll need time to digest it. but what i'll go grab is this tweet that's related to his being a dictator , also at RT (hope i did this right):

up
0 users have voted.

They really ought to add one for contempt or obstruction of Congress for not complying with Congressional subpoenas. Ignoring a president who blatantly blows off Congress is not good for the checks and balances, such as they are.

up
0 users have voted.
wendy davis's picture

@MinuteMan

in the wapo title piece, although as i'd said i used the philadelphia inquirer version. guess we'll see what they decide, but they're sure runnin' out of time because: christmas holidays. ; )

up
0 users have voted.

@MinuteMan @MinuteMan Nobody ever asked any of us whether we wanted to give $300 million worth of missiles and armoured vehicles to Ukraine. Neither Congress nor this Administration has any right to turn this into a referendum on getting into a "hot war" with Russia.

This is the worst sort of self-interested partisan politics and factional bureaucratic power grab creeping into a full-blown war. Nobody represents me in this fight, and nobody is serving the national interest. Remove them all before they blow us all up.

up
0 users have voted.
wendy davis's picture

@leveymg

of war in the name of Democracy™, no less. no, nor did anyone ask most of us, as we (the useless eater class) don't matter. slightly different era, but similar horrors and war crimes caused bruce cockburn to commit thought crimes.

up
0 users have voted.

@leveymg To somebody.

up
0 users have voted.

@MinuteMan A subpoena when everyone else does? Of course it takes going to court. Sometimes you prevail on the challenge and sometimes you don't. But you still have the right.

up
0 users have voted.
wendy davis's picture

'A Warning: A manifesto of the pro-war “Resistance” in the American state’ Andre Damon, 4 December 2019, wsws.org

On September 5, 2018, the New York Times published an op-ed by a “senior official” in the White House, entitled “I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration.”

The anonymous author of the piece revealed that “many of the senior officials in [Trump’s] own administration are working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations.” The “adults in the room,” he claimed, are leading a “two-track presidency.”

In that op-ed, he revealed that “there were early whispers within the cabinet of invoking the 25th Amendment, which would start a complex process for removing the president.”
..........................................
One year later, the same unnamed official, whose identity is known to the Times, has published a book elaborating on themes elucidated in the editorial. A Warning is currently #1 on the New York Times ’ nonfiction bestseller list.

The author, “Anonymous,” has been publicly identified as Guy Snodgrass, the US Navy commander who served as the communications secretary for the Department of Defense under Gen. James Mattis. Posting a report of his alleged authorship on Twitter, Snodgrass cryptically mused, “the swirl continues.”

If the allegation is true, it would have ominous implications. It would mean that the New York Times gave the military an opportunity to denounce a president as “amoral,” “impetuous,” “petty” and “ineffective,” and to all but advocate his removal via unconstitutional means.
Notably, Snodgrass claims to be the author of perhaps the most important military document produced under the Trump administration, the unclassified summary of the 2018 National Defense Strategy, which declared that “Inter-state strategic competition, not terrorism, is now the primary concern in US national security.”

We do not know whether Snodgrass is the author of A Warning, but the themes of the National Defense Strategy document are consistent with the emphasis of the book.
A Warning makes one thing abundantly clear: the “Resistance” to Trump’s policies within the state, which is the basis of the Democrats’ opposition to him, centers on claims that Trump is insufficiently aggressive in defending and expanding America’s imperial interests against Russia and China.”
.......................................................
The Democrats, who have upheld this man and people like him as the “adults in the room” and the antipode to Trump, are infected with the same poison.
The struggle to remove Trump and to hold him to account for his real crimes will have nothing to do with people such as “Anonymous,” or the Democratic impeachment campaign that is totally aligned with his pro-war agenda.”

and another 20 inches of text. you'll also remember that the NYT published a whispered rumor last year that 'military insiders' were saying privately that DT really meant to leave NATO, which was nonsense. that rumor led to the infamous 'defense of NATO act', which every senator vote for, and almost all of the house (3 didn't vote, conveniently.)

up
0 users have voted.
wendy davis's picture

but this just came in on the BAR newsletter:

Ukrainian Roulette: The “Ukrainegate” Gamble’ , Enzo Calandra, 04 Dec 2019, blackagendareport, dec. 4, 2019

“Liberals have enlisted the CIA to repudiate a clearly obscene and grotesque president because they themselves are obscene and grotesque in many of the same ways.
“Trump’s more serious violations are not pursued as crimes because they are common practice by both the liberal and conservative parties.”

By allying with the intelligence community, national security state, and corporate media to engineer a soft coup against Donald Trump, liberal democrats have signaled allegiance to our nation’s most antidemocratic and unaccountable forces. “Ukrainegate” is not a progressive push for justice and equality under the law, but an expression of a divide amongst our ruling class between a neoconservative foreign policy wing (to which establishment Democrats and Republicans belong) and an “America First” xenophobic isolationism represented by Donald Trump and his supporters in Washington.

Trump’s advocacy for détente with Russia during his campaign represented a break from the neoconservatism which dominates US foreign policy and led him to be perceived as an uncontrollable threat by establishment elites. Trump’s isolationist foreign policy made him an enemy of the intelligence community and national security state leading to 2016’s “Russiagate,” what Professor Stephen Cohen deemed “the worst and (considering the lack of actual evidence) most fraudulent political scandal in American history.” This Russiagate narrative, concocted by intelligence agencies and proliferated by corporate media, was intended “to damage, if not destroy, first the candidacy and then the presidency of Donald Trump.” Throughout his term, insiders loyal to former CIA director John Brennan have been leaking confidential information to the press.

Ukrainegate is not a progressive push for justice and equality under the law, but an expression of a divide amongst our ruling class.”

Corporate media and the intelligence community have a shared financial interest in permanent war and have found a political ally in the scorned Democrats. Crucial to understanding this interrelation between the state, intelligence agencies, media, and the military industrial complex is the recognition of state monopoly capitalism , in which “private and state monopolies are interwoven;… both but separate links in the imperialist struggle … for the division of the world.” The “threat of Russia” gives the multitrillion dollar defense complex, an interwoven private and state monopoly, a reason to exist.”

the (lengthy) rest is here.

up
0 users have voted.
wendy davis's picture

so i'm closing down to go watch a bit on season 5 of Gotham in bed; yanno, fictional evil bad guys and gals?

mr.wd was listening to this earlier, a brilliant song with gentle, healthy, mind-pictures (for me, anyway). g' night.

up
0 users have voted.