We were unable to load Disqus. If you are a moderator please see our troubleshooting guide.
Then the Dems are doing themselves a favor. Biden stands no chance against Trump, Warren does.
They would be, if it were Sanders to get the nomination. Warren's chances are, obviously, better than Biden's - anyone's, save for complete fringe wackos, are - but, if they really wanted to win, they would need Sanders. Or, even better, Gabbard. But Sanders is too independent, dangerously so, and Gabbard is an outright enemy of their totalitarian cult. Hence, they pick Warren, who might be vaaaaaaaaaaguely considered Sanders-lite. But lite is not enough against someone like Trump. Or, even worse for them, they resort to all possible and impossible machinations to still get Biden nominated. It'll be a screaming mistake, but it's not excluded at all, given how easily the've just been lured into a trap.
Happened to tune in to Rush Limbaugh yesterday just as he was saying that Pelosi's motivation to spin the wheels was at least in part to kill two birds with one stone--Trump AND Biden. Mehhh...maybe, but it's been clear from the beginning that the Movers and Shakers in the Democrat Party have wanted Warren as their standard bearer on the belief that Biden is "yesterday" and that the rest of the field is either too loony (O'Rourke), nondescript (Booker) or --potentially --too corrupt (Harris)..
Warren is the most pro-establishment candidate of all the non-establishment candidates, that is true. Incrowd-lite. Bernie of course is the big unknown. Will he prevail over Warren?
The big winner is democracy and freedom!
If this scandal sinks Biden and Trump together, the Dems will come out ahead because they are not committed to Biden as their nominee. I think Warren will be the biggest net winner. My prediction is that we see an impeachment with the Senate voting on party lines to acquit. That could still be very damaging to Trump's election chances, if the portion of the public who dislikes Trump decide that he abused his power.
Roughly 37% of Americans love Trump and will never change their mind. On the other side there are 38% who already supported impeachment based on previous investigations. That leaves 25% of Americans who are likely to be swayed one way or the other over this. In any case, those 25% are unlikely to be on this website.
The main question, other than whether there is something damning that shows up, is whether the majority of voters think a quid pro quo is necessary for corruption to be an impeachable offense. It is required in a criminal bribery conviction, but impeachment isn't a criminal trial. Is the president using a diplomatic call to pressure a foreign government to dig up dirt on his political rivals something the 25% will be okay with? If they believe the story of Biden's corruption, will they see that as justification for using a diplomatic talk to push for an investigation into it? Will moderate voters who have a high opinion of Biden from the his time as Vice President view this as an unfair attack on him or will they change their view of him to match Trump's narrative?
Biden is in a tough spot, because he will be smeared here whether he is guilty or not. Trump is very good as slinging mud to distract from his actions. And most Americans are very unlikely to parse through the information overload to figure out whether the fired prosecutor is corrupt, whether the decision to fire him came from Joe or the state department/UK/EU/local protest, whether Hunter Biden was qualified for the job with his ivy law degree/experience on corp boards/previous consulting experience, and whether the investigation into Burisma was actuall ongoing when Shokin was fired. Who has time to read through everything and figure out which side is manufacturing a controversy?
But if Biden decides to go down a Martyr, it wouldn't be difficult for him to take Trump with him.
It'll be interesting to see what the voter turnout will be in 2020. 2016 --one of the most pivotal and controversial elections in modern times--saw 42% of the electorate stay home. This was a shockingly high numbter, little noted in the press. If you tack on the 6% who voted for Gary Johnson or Jill Stein, that would mean that 48% of the electorate--nearly half--did NOT vote for either Trump or Clinton.
These numbers are ominous and do not bode well for the future of this thing of ours.
I predict an unusually high turnout, this election. Particularly if we end up with the president impeached but not removed from office. That will make both his base and his detractors very angry, and both will show up to vote.
We saw unusually high turnout in the midterms. Trump brings people to the voting booth from both sides.
Well, given that Trump has already released the transcript and Zelensky has already confirmed there were no pressure in their conversation plus said that Hunter's case is to be investigated by the AG, any impeachment hearings can only be damaging to those who decide to go further with them, because, as it turns out, there is no basis for such hearings and they were started a year before the election, showing what those who started them think regarding their own chances to win. If Democrats want to cut losses, they should stop it now and, using military terms, regroup immediately, nominating Gabbard who consistently opposed this stillborn impeachment stupidity. But something makes me think they won't. Their visceral hatred to an anti-war candidate like her is simply too strong.
Update: Tulsi Gabbard came out in favor of impeachment today.
And how does it change the fact that a) given the transcript, Democrats merrily fell into a trap b) they hate her because of her anti-war positions?
What has she specifically said, by the way?
Well, I don't think it necessarily changes much of anything. I was just pointing out that the statement that she has "consistently opposed this stillborn impeachment stupidity is no longer true. She does remain the only Democrat in the race with a consistent anti-war stance, and I don't think her position on the impeachment issue materially affects the wisdom (or lack thereof) of the Democrats' position on it.
I should correct what I said however. She has not come out in favor of impeachment, but she has come out in favor of having an impeachment inquiry. I cannot find a link that goes directly to her statement, only to excerpts of it, quoted with commentary, in various news media. Here, for example, is the NY Times story on it:https: //www.nytimes.com/2019/09/27/.... All the major mainstream media sites have something similar.
Well, if she supports the inquiry, it's quite an obvious decision. At this point it won't factually be about Trump. It will be about Biden, which may also lead to an investigation against those other people who hijacked Obama's foreign policy. And it will clear a considerable chunk of her own way to the top. Basically, she's just letting morons do her job.
Here is a link to a statement regarding her support for an impeachment inquiry on her own web site...
Thank you very much.
The transcripts are an interesting thing. I've talked to people about them, and it seems like 1/3 of people view it as completely exonerating him: he didn't explicitly pressure the foreign president to investigate his political rival, he just asked nicely. Everything is AOK. You seem to fit into that third. You view the statement of Zelensky that there wasn't pressure as 100% trustworthy, and that closes the whole deal for you. Everything else is a witch hunt. The real scandal is what Trump was getting Zelensky to investigate: Hunter Biden getting a cushy job for doing nothing and Joe Biden firing a prosecutor when it definitely wasn't warranted. This 1/3 is never going to be okay with him being impeached no matter what evidence might come out.
Another 1/3 view it as clearly impeachable: the president asked a foreign leader to investigate a political rival to influence our election and help get him elected. These people seem to be used to a country where the president asking his DOJ to investigate the family of his political rival is unthinkable, much less asking a foreign leader to get his DOJ to do the same. The key issue for these people is that Trump isn't just asking for random Americans with suspicious ties to Ukrainian oligarchs to be investigated: he is asking specifically for investigations which will help him win the next election. To these people, the situation stinks of a slippery slope that leads to a situation like Russia where every politician who opposes Putin is branded corrupt and put in jail.
I'm curious how the other 1/3 will respond. I suspect it depends on what new information comes to light. But it could go either way. If Trump has done this sort of thing multiple times and those transcripts are successfully subpoenaed, he could easily end up getting impeached. And if he is impeached with strong evidence but the Republican senate acquits him, that is going to look really bad to everyone who isn't already a die-hard Trump supporter. On the other hand, if all the things the whistle blower says turn out to be untrue and there isn't anything more nefarious than that going on, this will blow over or blow up in the Dem's faces. Pelosi has shown so much caution that I suspect that she will refuse to allow a vote to draft articles of impeachment if it doesn't look like a very strong case.
Well put. The statute which President Trump violated in this call is clear. Here's the relevant statute:52 U.S. Code § 30121. Contributions and donations by foreign nationals(a) Prohibition It shall be unlawful for—(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make—(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;(B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or(C) an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 30104(f)(3) of this title); or(2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.(b) “Foreign national” defined As used in this section, the term “foreign national” means—(1) a foreign principal, as such term is defined by section 611(b) of title 22, except that the term “foreign national” shall not include any individual who is a citizen of the United States; or(2) an individual who is not a citizen of the United States or a national of the United States (as defined in section 1101(a)(22) of title 8) and who is not lawfully admitted for permanent residence, as defined by section 1101(a)(20) of title 8.(Pub. L. 92–225, title III, § 319, formerly § 324, as added Pub. L. 94–283, title I, § 112(2), May 11, 1976, 90 Stat. 493; renumbered § 319, Pub. L. 96–187, title I, § 105(5), Jan. 8, 1980, 93 Stat. 1354; amended Pub. L. 107–155, title III, §§ 303, 317, Mar. 27, 2002, 116 Stat. 96, 109.)
Except a) if Trump hadn't pressured Zelensky - and there is no such pressure in the transcript, even without Zelensky's words confirming that - he did nothing violating the law, independently of whether someone loves him or hates him; b) unless you can indicate "every politician" purportedly put in jail for opposing Putin by their names so that it were possible to check whether they are really in jail or even exist (though, as to the question of existence, I'm more interested in verifying the realness of it in the case of that so-called "whistleblower", which had informed Democrats as to Trump's threats that turned out not to be threats at all), there might not be a slope to slip on it at all; and c) trying to impeach a president, whom, according to Democrats' yelling on every corner, they are supposed to beat in a year, makes one seriously doubt as to the veracity of what's being yelled; and I'm inclined to believe that was the real purpose of the whole situation around Zelensky. Trump is unlikely to give a hoot about whether Biden is indicted. He's one of the weakest among his possible opponents. While exposing the weaknes of the entire opposing party at once right before the game is a much worthier cause politically. And Trump achieved this goal fairly and squarely.
A) Asking a foreign leader to start an on investigation into your presumed political opponent is almost certainly a violation of campaign finance law §30121 section A.2 . It is soliciting something of value for your campaign from a foreign national. Any use of government resources to help do so, or to create leverage for the request, just makes it worse. At that point it moved beyond criminal law, into an abuse of power which van only be restrained via impeachment.
B) I'm sorry, listing every opposition politician Putin had prosecuted its beyond my ability and time. But the key figure I'm referring to is Alexei Navalny:
And 1000 people arrested during an opposition protest recently: https://www.reuters.com/art...
C) I think you need to consider the possibility that you are caught in an echo chamber and have a seriously distorted view of what is happening. Trump's actions forced this impeachment. He wasn't going to be impeached over the Mueller report or any other wrongdoing: Pelosi was intent to restrain the house caucus until things were decided in the election. But, if the president is using his presidential power to sway the 2020 election, then he gives the opposition party no choice but to deal with this before the election happens. Can't have a fair election when the incumbent is using the state department to get foreign governments to go after his opponents (Biden would just be the first), and misusing classified systems to hide his behavior.
I fear that Trump may be causing extreme harm to the entire Republican party with his action, here. The fact that so many people believe as you do is likely to result in a massive schism in the party which will leave the Democrats without serious opposition for years to come. Especially if he continues to respond by attacking the whistle blower (whose report is only starting the investigation, not the basis of any impeachment charges), and insinuating that impeaching him should lead to violence.
A) Asking a foreign president to investigate a shady behavior of a former veep is not only no violation of any law, it's a duty of any responsible president. The fact that the said veep is that president's yet-not-even-an-opponent is only the said ex-veep's problem. Unsless you know a law which makes yet-not-even-candidates juridically immune, of course, as I've already said somewhere.
B) If the key figure is that guy, it's laughable. Last I checked either Russian or international press in regards to him, he and his fellow protesters got averagely ten days in jail for brawling with cops. Looks like some real gulag stuff. And, by the way, if you ever bother to speak with Russian oppositioners, you'll find out that there are quite a few people among them who think that this feller is actually a ploy to make them look like street ruffians akin to soccer hooligans rather than a serious political force. Which, if true, makes Putin rather akin to the cunning Richelieu than to some tyrant.
C) I'm caught only in the transcript's contents, in which there's nothing remotely illegal, unless, as said above, you know a law that grants a juridical immunity to yet-not-even-candidates. Hence, given that these contents were the sole purported basis for the impeachment, there was no actual basis for such. Thus, Trump has all reasons to attack the "whistleblower" (if he even exists, of course), since the said "whistleblower" explicitly lied as to the aforementioned contents, and the only ones who are already causing the damage to themselves are Democrats, by keeping on insisting on a baseless impeachment a year before the election thus perfectly exposing their electoral weakness.
"Zelensky has already confirmed there were no pressure in their conversation...".He is a comedian stuck with a job that he has no idea how to do, and caught with his pants down exposing corruption in his administration - something he talked about in his shows before being thrown into the pit. Then Trump showed up and ate his lunch.
He might well have been a shop assistant from your nearest grocery who had gotten a Ukrainian citizenship and then become their president. There was still no pressure from Trump on him, thus Trump still did nothing illegal, and Democrats have still exposed their electoral weakness right before the election.
I feel sorry for the guy. He was almost certainly coached by his state department that they desperately need Trump's support to get aid for their civil war. They would have told him that Trump responds best to extreme flattery and mirroring his speech patterns. That he needs to say he will do whatever favors Trump asks for. His side of the transcript was impressively good diplomacy from a comedian.
He did a good job of getting on Trump's good side, and then Trump releases the transcript for everyone to see. And this scandal started up, where it is implied that he gave in to pressure to corrupt justice for Trump's gain.
thanks for making sense. I just tuned into this blog and it will be my last. What a bunch of uneducated anti trump supporters. Im out of here
Has an actual transcript been released? I understood not.
Unless you've got some evidence as to the falseness of what has been realesed, it would be a pure conspiracy theory to claim otherwise.
I think you are missing that Trump's lawyers can subpoena people and drag up a lot of dirt on the Democrats too. I think it can go both ways.
Still Warren can be tough for Trump. She is not tainted by Clinton. She is a chameleon; will sound sufficiently WASP in New England and sufficiently woke in California and new York. If Buttgig becomes her sidekick he can get all the gays on-board.
You're missing one thing about Warren: she's a wonk. And she actually has some good ideas alongside the more crazy ones. Even Tucker Carlson praised her book.
But Warren is an absolute stiff. Zero charisma. Like Kerry or Gore on their very worst day. And in this day and age, where the only thing that counts for the overwhelming majority of low information voters are soundbites and how telegenic you come off in a debate, someone like Trump will chew her up and spit her out for breakfast.
Hmm...must say I haven't actually seen her talk. Guess I'm just not a big fan of video media. Will have to take some time to check her out.
I read the plans on her website, which are an interesting read. Haven't seen a politician ever go into so much detail about what they plan to do in office. Feels refreshing compared to the grandiose yet meaningless statements I'm used to hearing.
Of course, perception of charisma can vary widely from person to person. And Trump was 50k votes in 2 states away from losing to one of the least charismatic women I've ever seen. And that was in an election when all the people who really disliked him thought they could stay home to protest Clinton getting the nomination and he'd still lose.
You are right that Trump is an election machine, but I don't think there is an leading candidate that is stronger. I think Warren has a chameleon ability that the non-whites lack.
I think she has wonderful charisma. It comes through loud and clear in the photo at the top of the article. It is certainly a quieter, wonkier kind of charisma than, say Obama's, but I have always found her both compelling and likeable, and SO so admirable.
I hope you're right, of course. But I was trying to play devil's advocate here. Because I am very afraid this Diabolical-Bastard-in-The-White House may just pull out of all this unscathed.
In other words, like Hillary Clinton, who was out of her depth as a campaigner, Warren may be better suited to a cabinet post or perhaps an ambassadorship. Nevertheless, I agree that she should not be underestimated. She does exhibit a great deal of enthusiasm and seems a bit more "real" than Clinton, who was the worst campaigner I've ever seen.
all Trump has to do is play the video showing Warren raising her hand to support decriminalizing illegal immigration, giving illegals free medical care, and eliminating private health insurance. Play it over and over and over. That undecided 25% will realise the Democrats want to bankrupt the white middle and working classes - and Trump will win both the popular vote and the electoral college.
That was just her way of getting ahead. She will come out with a bit conservative proposal when nominated.
Warren? OK. I don't see how she could be any worse than Trump. Plus, we might not feel like we were snorkeling in a cesspool all the time, like we do now.
Sigh. It would be so nice to not feel I was snorkeling in a cesspool all of the time. Remember that?
She's not only crackers, but Du-cackers.
"Warren already appears to have emerged victorious in her battle with Bernie Sanders to become the progressives’ first choice in 2020."
Buchanan evidently knows few progressives.
Literally every progressive I know save one is team Warren. I think there might be an age divide. Progressives under thirty are more likely to be for Sanders, and over thirty for Warren.
Warren is a progressive of convenience. Her record speak otherwise.
She claim to back M4A insinuating support for Bernies plan by using that term yet has failed to explain her plan which is more baby steps or buy in.
You evidently know few progressives.
You're looking at age. Look at class. If you know so many Warren fans, you yourself are probably a privileged person.
I wasn't forgetting about class. Class is absolutely the biggest predictor of Sanders support. But at risk of looking ignorant on the internet, I think of progressivism, as a political identity, as a class-based thing. Am I wrong about that? I may be. I'm not sure what I would call blue collar leftists to be honest. Looking for genuine info here, would appreciate a non-snarky answer if you have one.
I have no idea why you would say I know few progressives though, that is a silly assertion.
She has foreclosed bipartisan compromise on gun control, the cost of prescription drugs, and infrastructure.
There was never going to be any compromise on any of these issues, so what is the loss?
The Senate can get back on the bipartisan compromise train any time they want. They've had this bill sitting in committtee for the last 6 months:
I have no idea what will happen with the election. But if Trump wins it after the Dems have done nothing for four years except impeach him - every day is going to be like Christmas.
notice how it's all womyn @ Fauxcahontas's speeches,how she gonna win with such a focused group??
Hey, did anybody inquire as to whether Biden cleared all this stuff with his boss first? Haven't heard that question posed to date.