Summations Only

The amount of detail Trump included in his description of Baghdadi's last moments defies belief, and it turns out Trump's own staff doesn't believe it either: Trump Officials Had No Clue Where He Got ‘Whimpering’ Detail in His Baghdadi Raid Account.The video feed Trump watched had no audio, and he'd had no known contact with those conducting the raid. The article describes the officials as confused and trying to think of scenarios where Trump might have gained such information, but they're avoiding the obvious answer: Trump made it up, just like he makes everything up. He's a successful television personality, and much of what he does is based on how he thinks it will look in the media. He just couldn't help himself describing Baghdadi as cowering and whimpering like a dog, specifically, "whimpering and crying and screaming all the way...He died like a dog. He died like a coward."The Daily Beast relates two Trump officials describing how this is just the way Trump is, what he likes to do, truth be damned:

quote:

---

Two people close to the president say that when they heard about his comments on the crying late ISIS leader, it reminded them of how Trump privately, as well as publicly, enjoys reflexively insulting his enemies in situations much less weighty than an anti-Islamic State raid. Whether they’re actually crying or not, [Trump] will very often accuse some person he’s in a fight with, like a celebrity or a politician, of being weak and just crying all over the place, one of the sources said. It’s a favorite insult of his.

---

What's most sad is the gullibility of Trump supporters. Trump said it, they believe it, and you can't talk them out of it.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Typo.

Emoluments aren't just profits. They're payments, profits, benefits, services, advantages, etc. Any emolument is prohibited by the Constitution, unless Congress consents:

quote:

---

And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

---

--Percy

Yeah, I keep running into that, too. When replying the cursor is placed in the Subtitle box, but that doesn't seem to help the problem much. I think many people just hit TAB and skip forward to the Message box.Another possibility to the ones you mention is a popup asking if you want to RE the subtitle. If you click yes it fills in the RE subtitle and places the cursor in the message box. If you click no it positions the cursor in an empty subtitle box.--Percy

I'd never heard this quote before, and it didn't sound to me like something Bismarck would say. I suspected an unknown origin but tried to look it up. It's not in Bartlett's under Otto von Bismarck, and it isn't in the Bartlett's index, but I did find a webpage about it: Laws are Like Sausages. Better Not to See Them Being Made. Though the quote is widely attributed to Bismarck, it concludes John Godfrey Saxe as the more likely author.--Percy

If one is to win at trial, such as might take place before the Senate, then it helps to frame events in the proper terms. Representative Jim Himes (D-CT) made several things absolutely clear yesterday on Meet the Press, among them that quid pro quo is the incorrect term for what took place. A quid pro quo is a mutually agreed upon exchange, and there was absolutely no quid pro quo. Trump has been right about this all along.What Trump did is more accurately described as extortion, which is using threats to force some action, often paying money, but it could be anything of value. Trump held the threat of withholding military aid over Ukraine's head in order to force them into a publicly announced investigation of his political rival for his own political advantage in the 2020 election.--Percy

Earlier today I added my thoughts to the comments section of the NYT article you linked to. The article isn't very clear about what it means to make the raw data available. If it means making public the actual names of people along with their information then that would have a chilling effect and this is awful.But if anonymity is maintained (e.g., by referring to "patient 237" and such) then I'm in favor of it. Science is very complicated and involved today, and the more the raw data is reviewed and analyzed the more accurate the science should be.Part of the article said that the law would require the EPA to expend a great deal of effort on redactions, but it wasn't specific about what was being redacted. If the redacted material includes people's identities, meaning personal identification data is being passed around, then that greatly increases the possibility that the information could become public and this is, again, awful. It's also inconsistent with the right's paranoid attitudes about maintaining privacy and keeping the government out of their business.Speaking of scientific transparency, I watched a NYT video last night titled Guilty by Machine about breathalyzers. It was one episode of a weekly program called Weekly produced by the NYT that airs on Sunday nights on FX and is also available on Hulu. The companies who make breathalyzers don't want to reveal much about their technology for competitive reasons, and they're SLAPP happy. The programmers who analyzed one of the machine's code were legally not allowed to talk about their results or conclusions, and when the reporter produced a copy of their report one of the programmers said that he was legally required to request that they destroy it. The reporter said she wasn't going to destroy it, and that was followed by a segment where she described the report's content. Which was, of course, damning.Making matters worse, the police don't maintain the machines very well or provide adequate training. When pressed the companies say that their machines offer an approximation that can be affected by a host of variables, but the police and legal system have transformed breathalyzer results into gospel.I only offer this as an example of a scientific area that should have a lot more transparency.--Percy

Yeah, that was pretty weak. That wasn’t the regular Hardtalk host - I forget his name, but I have a feeling he would have challenged the fallacies and lies better.Percy

On one of these occasions Trump is lying. This is from the White House transcript of the Trump/Zelensky phone call where Trump tells Zelensky he wants him to talk to Giuliani about initiating some investigations Trump wants:

quote:

---

"Mr. Giuliani is a highly respected man. He was the mayor of New York City, a great mayor, and I would like him to call you. I will ask him to call you...Rudy very much knows what's happening and he is a very capable guy. If you could speak to him that would be great.
...
"I will have Mr. Giuliani give you a call...
...
"I will tell Rudy...to call."

---

And this is Trump in an interview last night. In response to a direct question about whether he directed Giuliani to work with the Ukraine on investigations Trump denied telling Giuliani to do anything:

quote:

---

"No, I didn't direct him, but he's a warrior, Rudy's a warrior. Rudy went, he possibly saw something. But you have to understand, Rudy (has) other people that he represents..."

---

Testimony from diplomats before Congress repeatedly stressed the involvement of Giuliani. Mick Mulvaney, the president's chief of staff, defended the president's directing Giuliani to get involved in Ukrainian affairs at a press conference last month. US Ambassador to the EU, Gordon Sondland, testified that Trump ordered him to work with Giuliani on extracting a commitment to investigations from the Ukraine.The president is lying. Again.--Percy

It’s disappointing to read this from the Washington Post article https://www.washingtonpost.com/...81-ebe89f477d1e_story.html:

quote:

---

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.

---

Democrats have to do what’s right for the nation instead of what’s right for their re-election, otherwise they just become the same as those who have lost their moral compass while caught in Trump’s apparently mesmerizing glare.Percy

Politically, sure. Morally, no. Yes, the obstructions of justice from the Mueller report should be considered for inclusion as articles of impeachment. Yes, that's a good list. I would like to see the Republican members of the Senate have to weigh in on every offense of these types. In addition to witness intimidation I would add witness tampering. Yes. The other kind of witness tampering I was thinking of was holding out the possibility of a pardon. Again, yes.--Percy

I agree with this. What I can't accede to is any type of "your immoral act justifies my immoral act" reasoning. I don't believe "the ends justify the means."--Percy

The House Intelligence Committee just released its report on the findings of its investigation: The Trump-Ukraine Impeachment Inquiry ReportSignificant excerpts from the introduction:Pages 7-8:

quote:

---

In his farewell address, President George Washington warned of a moment when cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.

​

The Framers of the Constitution well understood that an individual could one day occupy the Office of the President who would place his personal or political interests above those of the nation. Having just won hard-fought independence from a King with unbridled authority, they were attuned to the dangers of an executive who lacked fealty to the law and the Constitution.

---

Page 8:

quote:

---

Rather than a mechanism to overturn an election, impeachment was explicitly contemplated as a remedy of last resort for a president who fails to faithfully execute his oath of office to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
...
While the Constitutional standard for removal from office is justly a high one, it is nonetheless an essential check and balance on the authority of the occupant of the Office of the President, particularly when that occupant represents a continuing threat to our fundamental democratic norms, values, and laws.

---

Pages 8-9:

quote:

---

As this report details, the impeachment inquiry has found that President Trump, personally and acting through agents within and outside of the U.S. government, solicited the interference of a foreign government, Ukraine, to benefit his reelection. In furtherance of this scheme, President Trump conditioned official acts on a public announcement by the new Ukrainian President, Volodymyr Zelensky, of politically-motivated investigations, including one into President Trump’s domestic political opponent. In pressuring President Zelensky to carry out his demand, President Trump withheld a White House meeting desperately sought by the Ukrainian President, and critical U.S. military assistance to fight Russian aggression in eastern Ukraine.

​

The President engaged in this course of conduct for the benefit of his own presidential reelection, to harm the election prospects of a political rival, and to influence our nation’s upcoming presidential election to his advantage. 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 U.S. presidential election process, and endangered U.S. national security.

---

Pages 9-10:

quote:

---

Our investigation determined that this telephone call was neither the start nor the end of President Trump’s efforts to bend U.S. foreign policy for his personal gain. Rather, it was a dramatic crescendo within a months-long campaign driven by President Trump in which senior U.S. officials, including the Vice President, the Secretary of State, the Acting Chief of Staff, the Secretary of Energy, and others were either knowledgeable of or active participants in an effort to extract from a foreign nation the personal political benefits sought by the President.

​

The investigation revealed the nature and extent of the President’s misconduct, notwithstanding an unprecedented campaign of obstruction by the President and his Administration to prevent the Committees from obtaining documentary evidence and testimony. A dozen witnesses followed President Trump’s orders, defying voluntary requests and lawful subpoenas, and refusing to testify. The White House, Department of State, Department of Defense, Office of Management and Budget, and Department of Energy refused to produce a single document in response to our subpoenas.
...
The evidence of the President’s misconduct is overwhelming, and so too is the evidence of his obstruction of Congress. Indeed, it would be hard to imagine a stronger or more complete case of obstruction than that demonstrated by the President since the inquiry began.
...
But the damage to our system of checks and balances, and to the balance of power within our three branches of government, will be long-lasting and potentially irrevocable if the President’s ability to stonewall Congress goes unchecked. Any future President will feel empowered to resist an investigation into their own wrongdoing, malfeasance, or corruption, and the result will be a nation at far greater risk of all three.

---

Page 11:

quote:

---

But perhaps even more corrosive to our democratic system of governance, the President and his allies are making a comprehensive attack on the very idea of fact and truth.

---

--Percy

The aforementioned report, The Trump-Ukraine Impeachment Inquiry Report, Page 257, details Trump's intimidation of witnesses (the link is prepositioned at the right page):Page 257:

quote:

---

President Trump engaged in a brazen effort to publicly attack and intimidate witnesses who came forward to comply with duly authorized subpoenas and testify about his conduct, raising grave concerns about potential violations of the federal obstruction statute and other criminal laws intended to protect witnesses appearing before Congressional proceedings. President Trump issued threats, openly discussed possible retaliation, made insinuations about witnesses’ character and patriotism, and subjected them to mockery and derision. The President’s attacks were broadcast to millions of Americansincluding witnesses’ families, friends, and coworkersand his actions drew criticism from across the political spectrum, including from his own Republican supporters.

​

It is a federal crime to intimidate or seek to intimidate any witness appearing before Congress. This statute applies to all citizens, including federal officials. Violations of this law can carry a criminal sentence of up to 20 years in prison.

---

Detailed accounts of each incident follow.I'm a bit surprised that Trump's holding out the possibility of pardons didn't receive any attention. The word "pardon" appears only once in the report, in Section II Endnotes (this link is positioned to that page):

quote:

---

In 1833, Justice Joseph Story reasonedwhile explaining why pardons cannot confer immunity from impeachmentthat, The power of impeachment will generally be applied to persons holding high office under the government; and it is of great consequence that the President should not have the power of preventing a thorough investigation of their conduct, or of securing them against the disgrace of a public conviction by impeachment, should they deserve it. The constitution has, therefore, wisely interposed this check upon his power.

---

--Percy

Today the Judiciary Committee will begin hearing the testimony of four witnesses, all lawyers from academia, three called by Democrats, one called by Republicans. Each has filed an opening statement, and Democrats would do well to heed the advice of the Republican witness, Jonathan Turley of George Washington University:

quote:

---

Will a slipshod impeachment make us less mad or will it only give an invitation for the madness to follow in every future administration?

​

That is why this is wrong. [The] House Intelligence Committee declared that it would not subpoena a host of witnesses who have direct knowledge of any quid pro quo. Instead, it will proceed on a record composed of a relatively small number of witnesses with largely second-hand knowledge of the position...However, this does not change the fact that it is moving forward based on conjecture, assuming what the evidence would show if there existed the time or inclination to establish it...The House testimony is replete with references to witnesses like John Bolton, Rudy Giuliani, and Mike Mulvaney who clearly hold material information. To impeach a president on such a record would be to expose every future president to the same type of inchoate impeachment.

​

Principle often takes us to a place where we would prefer not to be.

---

More directly, we must have the testimony of Bolton, Giuliani and Mulvaney (and I would add Perry and McGahn and others), no matter how long it takes for subpoena challenges to wend their way all the way up to the Supreme Court. Trump has chosen a path of maximum delay and resistance as well as a scorched earth policy of insult, attack, impugnment, obfuscation and misrepresentation. There is no way to change that. But as Turley reminds us, principle demands we follow an honorable course no matter the obstacles.Turley's opening statement: Written Statement, Jonathan Turley, Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law, The George Washington University Law School--PercyEdited by Percy, : Fix typo in message title.

I'd never heard of him before, but there's no hint of right-wing nonsense on his Wikipedia page (Jonathan Turley - Wikipedia) and I liked what I read in his opening statement. I think the Democrats are making a mistake by not pursuing subpoenas for all persons who should testify all the way up to the Supreme Court.--Percy