The Trump Presidency

This one writes itself.

The setup:

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) occasionally gets into trouble for saying embarrassing things in private. A few years ago, for example, shortly before Donald Trump clinched the Republican Party's presidential nomination, McCarthy told his House GOP colleagues he thought Trump might be on Vladimir Putin's payroll.

But just as problematic for McCarthy is what he says in public. Exactly four years ago yesterday, for example, the California Republican appeared on Fox News and admitted that his party's Benghazi Committee was a political tool intended to hurt Hillary Clinton's presidential election.

Last night, the House Minority Leader appeared on CBS' 60 Minutes to defend the president against the Ukraine scandal, but McCarthy appeared lost when Scott Pelley presented him with basic factual information.

(Benen↱)​

And the punch line:

At the bottom of page two of the call summary, released by the White House, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is quoted talking about how eager his country is to receive additional military support from the United States. The very next words out of the American president's mouth, according to the document, are, "I would like you to do us a favor, though."

I don't understand why McCarthy didn't know that. In fact, when the House GOP leader was presented with the now-infamous quote, he reflexively assumed that the CBS News correspondent was engaged in a public deception, "adding another word."

To put this in some additional context, McCarthy knew he was going on 60 Minutes. He knew the topic. He and his staff had time to prepare for basic questions about obvious details—such as the single most controversial phrase in the rough transcript that created a political earthquake the moment it was released. It's only 10 words; it stands to reason McCarthy would've familiarized himself with it before his national television appearance.​

In a similarly confounding but unrelated issue, a friend once told me to take something at face value, but doing so was what led us to the moment of trying to figure out what seemed a complicated mess.

Taking Republicans at face value presents its own diverse conundra. When it was the most read nine pages in town, the number of Beltway Republicans who apparently couldn't find the time led the Wall Street Journal to headline, "Everyone In Washington Is Reading the Whistleblower Complaint—Except Senate Republicans"↱: Romney (UT; Foreign Relations, Homeland Security & Gov. Affairs) , McSally (AZ; Armed Services, Energy), Murkowski (AK; Energy, Appropriations), Crapo (ID; Finance [Energy Sub.]), Portman (OH-Homeland Security & Gov. Affairs [Perm. Sub. on Investigations, Sub. Regulatory Affairs & Fed. Management], Foreign Relations [Sub. Europe Regional Security Cooperation; Sub Multilateral Dev. Institutions & Policy, Sub. State Dept. & USAID Management IOBID]), Scott (SC), Young (IN; Foreign Relations), Inhofe (OK; Armed Services), Moore Capito (WV; Appropriations), Braun (IN; Budget).

And, sure, it's one thing to point out that Sen. Scott doesn't have any immediatly apparent relevant committee assignments, but he still gets an impeachment vote if the House sends articles. For every proverbial smoking gun and watergate comparison Republicans bawled about during Obama's presidency, when the White House releases its own damning records, well, maybe these Senators with directly relevant committee assignments learned from other times Trumps handed over the evidence of their own wrongdoing. Ducking out might be dishonest, and is certainly cheap, but for all they pretend there is no fire, it gets harder for Republicans to ignore the the conflagration.

Which is a notion easily reinforced by the fact of House members like Minority Leader McCarthy (R-CA23) and Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH04) burning themselves up pretending bizarre ignorance↗. Jordan was days behind when he hit the airwaves Sunday morning; McCarthy set some kind of standard Sunday evening. As Benen said of the latter, the most controversial phrase in the rough transcript is all of ten words: "It stands to reason McCarthy would’ve familiarized himself with it before his national television appearance."

Apparently not.

Mr. McCarthy either knew or did not. If he knew, his pretense was unacceptable; if he didn't know, what the hell was he doing on 60 Minutes? Some days, no telling speaks well of an outcome.

Taken at face value: The particular ignorance Trump defenders seem to require in order to make their cases ranges well beyond unbelievable.
____________________

Notes:

Benen, Steve. "Trying to defend Trump, GOP leader caught off guard by reality". msnbc. 30 September 2019. msnbc.com. 30 September 2019. https://on.msnbc.com/2mZTIWT

Wise, Lindsay. "Everyone In Washington Is Reading the Whistleblower Complaint—Except Senate Republicans". Wall Street Journal. 26 September 2019. WSJ.com. 30 September 2019. https://on.wsj.com/2mlbcwj

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

​

We come back to this, because, well, that's just how the cycle runs.

President Trump was repeatedly warned by his own staff that the Ukraine conspiracy theory that he and his lawyer were pursuing was "completely debunked" long before the president pressed Ukraine this summer to investigate his Democratic rivals, a former top adviser said on Sunday.

Thomas P. Bossert, who served as Mr. Trump's first homeland security adviser, said he told the president there was no basis to the theory that Ukraine, not Russia, intervened in the 2016 election and did so on behalf of the Democrats. Speaking out for the first time, Mr. Bossert said he was "deeply disturbed" that Mr. Trump nonetheless tried to get Ukraine's president to produce damaging information about Democrats.

Mr. Bossert's comments, on the ABC program "This Week" and in a subsequent telephone interview, underscored the danger to the president as the House moves ahead with an inquiry into whether he abused his power for political gain. Other former aides to Mr. Trump said on Sunday that he refused to accept reassurances about Ukraine no matter how many times it was explained to him, instead subscribing to an unsubstantiated narrative that has now brought him to the brink of impeachment.

(Stolberg, Haberman, and Baker↱)​

And that from a former official still struggling to defend President Trump.

Schmelzer, for all the criticism the U.S. government takes from diverse vectors and myriad aspects of wiser-than-thou holy-rolling, and all the fervent buzz and belief in "deep state" conspiracies, the idea that there are ways Washington runs sometimes seems incredibly unexpected.

That is to say, of course President Trump had been told there was nothing to the tinfoil. It's one thing to consider the volatility of Trump administration senior staff, but even still it would be nigh on impossible to believe the president could make it this far into his term without being told no on this count. He already knew he was pushing bullshit; that's why Giuliani. Toward such, the idea of Secretary Perry being caught up in this is nearly funny.

But one lesson rightist advocates never seem to figure out is that most days, the whole pretense of innocence according to an old crime-drama trope about how, there I was just mindin' my own business when all of a sudden out of nowhere, is an old, overworn trope.

And, sure, maybe. But Republicans in general ran out of that credit no later than starting a war in Iraq in order to pursue justice against dead terrorists from other countries, and have been running on the vapor of cheap equivocation ever since. Like Bush botched up once upon a time, can't get fooled again; we must consider those who seem to do nothing but get fooled, over and over and over again.
____________________

Notes:

Stolberg, Sheryl Gay, Maggie Haberman, and Peter Baker. "Trump Was Repeatedly Warned That Ukraine Conspiracy Theory Was 'Completely Debunked'". The New York Times. 29 September 2019. NYTimes.com. 30 September 2019. https://nyti.ms/2o1Pdef

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

"[A] seven-page Nancy Drew novel."
-- WH senior adviser Steven Miller on whistleblower complaint
"Liddle Adam Schiff."
-- Trump on chairman of House Intelligence Committee
"Nancy Pelosi finally capitulated to her angry mob. She does the worst thing a woman in power can do, which is she just changes her mind because the men around her said 'Change your mind.'"
-- WH counselor Kellyanne Conway

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If Trump is indeed innocent then he above all people would know that to release the audio copy of the phone calls would destroy the Democrats chance at the next election.
It really takes little imagination to realise this.
Trump may be a fool but he is not a stupid fool.

He only has to prove that the Democrats are desperately conspiring to destroy his credibility and he has more or less won his second term.

So... if he is innocent and provably so he would be keen to release the information that would clear his name and destroy the Democrats at the same time.

The fact that he hasn't and intends to go after the whistle blower only adds to the case against him.

Now the Dems know this, the Repubs know this as they are pretty clever little monkeys ( not to mention the educated public knows this as well) so it is going to be very interesting to see what doesn't happen more than what does happen.

 

The opinion of a former (means, fired) "top adviser" (LOL, if somebody is named "top adviser" of Putin in Western propaganda then he had probably never had any function in government at all. Maybe "top adviser" of US presidents have in reality at least some status, whatever) may be interesting for some people. But I have not made any claims about the Ukrainian intervention in the 2016 elections theory, and what you have quoted does not even make such a suggestion. So what is the connection with what I wrote?

 

The part about, "telling the law enforcement of the country where the crime has possibly happened is nothing morally wrong". I already went through the basics↑, but there is also the point of telling law enforcement in another country about a make-believe crime according to a debunked conspiracy theory one has already been told is debunked.

Really? You can't figure out that connection?

 

Again, the crime I'm talking about is the corruption Biden has been paid for by giving his son a lot of money for nothing. Unfortunately, there is no way to debunk this in the eyes of the people. The theory that Biden is corrupt will remain plausible, and various repetitions of "debunking" it will not change this at all.

Given this context, it is clear that in the eyes of the same people what Trump has done was "telling the law enforcement of the country where the crime has possibly happened" and not "telling law enforcement in another country about a make-believe crime according to a debunked conspiracy theory". To name this common scheme of bribe payments a "conspiracy theory" is nothing but fun. Based on common sense, people will believe that Biden was with high probability bribed, and, consistently, that Trump has informed the Ukrainian law enforcement about this suspicion.

But the main question again: What I have said was about Biden and his son. This has nothing to do with the Ukrainian 2016 election intervention theory. Maybe that theory is indeed debunked bs, I have not evaluated it, thus, I will not make statements about this. So, what is the connection between my claims and that theory?

 

You mean the false accusation instead of crime surely?
Sure it is understandable that if you throw enough mud ....blah blah blah...but please be careful with the choice of words. Alleged crime or suspicion of a crime would have been much more accurate. It is easy to accuse people of anything as you well know. The troll factory's specialty is such, is it not?

 

Let's try it this way:

Again, the make-believe you're promoting will, indeed, continue as long as there is someone to promote it. Unfortunately, there is no way to debunk make-believe for those who absolutely require it. The conspiracy theory will remain plausible to the dishonest or deluded, so debunking doesn't change anything.

Given this context, it is clear people given to such viewpoints believing there is no difference between what they want and the reality they so disdain will continue to believe whatever their fancy requires. To name capitalism bribery and a conspiracy theory raising an execptional standard in one case, as if it is somehow different, is an obvious, clumsy, amateurish sleight. Based on conspiracism according to the long habit of conspiracists calling their make-believe "common sense", these conspiracists will believe whatever they want about Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, or anybody else they want, and manufacturing what they want happens to be the favor Donald Trump needs from a foreign government in exchange for fulfilling his duties.

The main question, again, is why you make shit up like this. What you have said about Biden and his son is false, and has been debunked. And while the conspiracy theory is debunked, the pretense that one hasn't evaluated what they promote eventually becomes a confession of trolling.

Your insistence on promoting a false narrative is the connection.

For all your puffery, Schmelzer, some might expect you should be smarter than this.

Such is life, eh?

False descriptions of a circumstance are an improper basis for assessing it. I would think even a mathematician could figure that out, but, hey, you're Schmelzer, and such is life, right?

It's true, though: You should probably try making sense from time to time.

 

Also note that he always rants about wanting a "multipolar" world centered on Russia, which has been an official Russian foreign policy objective since roughly 1996. It's known as the "Primakov Doctrine".

And yeah, he calls Putin a "genius" because apparently it takes a genius to steal land and oil from defenseless peasants and then sell it to greedy Europeans.

 

This will probably need its own thread, over the long run, but Eugene Rumer, formerly NIO for Russia and Eurasia, considered the Primakov Doctrine earlier this year↱, for the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace:

Since 2014, Russian "hybrid warfare" has been at the center of attention of Western security analysts. The Kremlin's reliance on proxies, disinformation, and measures short of war has created the impression that its hybrid capabilities are distinct and separate from its military and can serve as a substitute for hard power. That impression is incorrect. Russian military and hybrid activities and tools are inextricably linked.

Hybrid warfare has been associated with Russian Chief of the General Staff General Valery Gerasimov, the author of the so-called Gerasimov doctrine—a whole-of-government concept that fuses hard and soft power across many domains and transcends boundaries between peace- and wartime. Rather than a driver of Russian foreign policy, the Gerasimov doctrine is an effort to develop an operational concept for Russia's confrontation with the West in support of the actual doctrine that has guided Russian policy for over two decades: the Primakov doctrine.

Named after former foreign and prime minister Yevgeny Primakov, the Primakov doctrine posits that a unipolar world dominated by the United States is unacceptable to Russia and offers the following principles for Russian foreign policy:

• Russia should strive toward a multipolar world managed by a concert of major powers that can counterbalance U.S. unilateral power.
• Russia should insist on its primacy in the post-Soviet space and lead integration in that region.
• Russia should oppose NATO expansion.​

The record of the past two decades reveals several key themes about the role of hard power in Russia's foreign and military policy ....​

____________________

Notes:

Rumer, Eugene. "The Primakov (Not Gerasimov) Doctrine in Action". Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. 5 June 2019. CarnegieEndowment.org. 1 October 2019. http://bit.ly/2ogGUf2

 

No. I have based my claim on the following facts:

1.) After the coup in Ukraine, the son of Biden has taken a top-level position in a Ukrainian firm where he has received a lot of money for doing essentially nothing. Is this false? Has it been debunked?

2.) Biden himself has extorted Poroshenko to fire the general prosecutor. Is this false? Has it been debunked?

3.) Given that the prosecutor had the power to investigate the firm where his son had that top-level position, there was an obvious possibility of a conflict of interest, and so Biden should have refused to become involved in this even if such pressure would have been in the interest of the US, and he should have left such actions to other US diplomats. Anything wrong with this? Was it debunked?

If what you name "debunking" is simply cheap support of the justification of Biden (most plausible) or a real debunking is irrelevant for my points. And therefore I don't have to consider this. My points remain valid. What follows from my points is that Biden is, and remains, sufficiently suspect.

And yet another attempt to confuse what I have claimed with completely different things. Namely "the conspiracy theory" (which probably refers to the 2016 Ukrainian meddling into the US elections), and a completely mysterious accusation of some "pretense that one hasn't evaluated what they promote". Such a "pretense" would not even make sense, because it does not matter at all. What matters is only if the claims I made are correct. They are.

That means, your fantasy is the connection. The claims which are the base of my argumentation you can see above, correct them if they are false. If you think I have made other false claims, quote them and correct them. But don't use your fantasies to invent "narratives" which I "promote".

The question is not at all if Biden is really corrupt (even if I believe this, this is my personal belief and irrelevant, because I do not claim to have a proof for this). He may be completely innocent, say, simply a little bit stupid, not recognizing that the job of his son, and, even more, his action of firing the prosecutor makes him vulnerable to such attacks. Even in this case, my argument remains valid. Because he will remain suspect of corruption for the common man, and there is nothing he can do against this. And because this gives Trump a nice plausible and good excuse for suggesting Zelensky start an investigation. And such an investigation would be also in the US interest. Either it would find out that Biden is really corrupt, preventing the US from becoming ruled by a corrupt criminal, or it would show, as far as that is possible, that he is innocent, which would minimize the danger that he will be blackmailed while president.

Trump's video which I have posted will remain powerful. And even if the impeachment will be successful, this would be a Pyrrhic victory. All that is necessary to show this is not even questioned.

You should probably consider what I really claim, and find errors in these real claims, instead of inventing narratives.

 

Do you seriously think that the Democrats haven't learned anything from the "Lock her up " campaign against Hillary?
Do you think that they are not aware of and are prepared for the Trump and troll farm attacks on Biden?

So Trump in his wisdom reaches out to Ukraine exactly as expected he would do.
Now he has reached out to Scott Morrison, Prime minister of Australia, for help in discrediting the Mueller inquiry which was about the same thing; Trump requesting foreign help to support his election.

Do you honestly think that the Dems are not waiting for further evidence of Trumps treasonous attack on USA democracy and therefore the constitution?

I guess only the Russians and you would be stupid enough to fall for it again...

 

It is more of a theoretical possibility. Given that I have no proof that Biden is really corrupt, I have to consider the possibility that he is not. In this case, was Biden has done would have been simply stupid. Can you exclude this possibility completely? I don't, but I don't have to care about this much, my main argument does not depend on this. If Biden is corrupt, then the problem does not exist. Accepting a large bribe you have no choice but to make you vulnerable, and your main concern will be personal safety, not the political interest of the Dems. He seems to have cared about his personal safety sufficiently, that everybody can guess that his son's wages are bribes to his father is unfortunate but not that dangerous for him personally, many Western politicians do such things like getting such well-paid positions after the end of their political jobs, or getting millions of dollars for books or speeches written by ghostwriters.

The Dems as a group are quite obviously unable to learn anything from history. In the past, this may have been different, but the actual politicians seem completely unable to learn something.

Why do you connect what Trump is doing with the Russians or with me? Even if that implausible conspiracy theory would be true, why would the Russians care about Trump's fate, given that an impeachment of Trump would harm the US even more by strengthening the internal conflict? For me, that impeachment is nothing but cinema, of type Beavis and Butt-Head, where the fun comes from both sides doing stupid things.

The Russians are those who have learned in the 90s about what mean "Western values" for Russia: Oligarchy, mafia rule, poverty, civil war. They will prevent repetition.

 

The issue for Trump is not really impeachment, the issue is about 2020 election for 2nd term.
Biden could be a fall guy to expose Russian and Trump attempts to interfere with the election. So far much has been exposed and no doubt more will follow...

To that end, I can almost guarantee you that any foreign interference, potential or actual, is being very, very closely monitored and noted by the various intelligence organizations in the USA and around the world.

Trump has already placed our own government (Australian) and agencies in a vexatious state, not only with his trade war disaster but also with his vanity driven outreach for "Who done it" conspiracy theories.
The fallout could be enormous as our government attempts to play both edges of a silly, stupid and unnecessary sword.

 

In my opinion, every reasonable person in the establishment has to know that the foreign interference conspiracy theory is a Dem propaganda fake. Unfortunately (because completely stupid politicians are dangerous) I cannot exclude that some of the Dem politicians even believe their own propaganda. Whatever, nobody will really monitor something except for propaganda games.

The best choice for Australia would be to accept the multipolar world, to improve its relations with China, and to decrease its vulnerability to insane US politics.

 

"I'm the real whistleblower."
-- Trump personal attorney Rudy Giuliani

"The president of the United States is the whistleblower."
-- WH senior policy adviser Stephen Miller

 

No, I’m the whistleblower!

 

Combined with your avatar, that presents an ugly picture.....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!