Tweets President Trump a little while ago (1, 2).
I like his mild tone there. It's refreshing. To me, it's more convincing than the harsher name-calling. I appreciate that you didn't call him, say, Bolton the Snake... but... by the way... You knew he was a snake.
ADDED: The next thing I read feels like an answer to Trump's "Who would do this?" — "The Method in John Bolton’s Madness" by Jonathan Stevenson, "a senior fellow at the International Institute for Strategic Studies and managing editor of Survival [who] was the National Security Council director for political-military affairs, Middle East and North Africa, from 2011 to 2013":
Don’t forget that Mr. Bolton harbors presidential dreams; he came close to a run in 2015, and he maintains a political action committee, through which he doles out money to Republican politicians. And even if Mr. Bolton has let that particular dream die, it’s unlikely that he has hung up his government spurs — instead, he may judge that the Trump ship is sinking and figure that Mr. Bolton might as well accelerate the process and try to position himself for a post in the next administration.
That short-term calculation of Mr. Trump’s political fortunes may not be sound, and Mr. Bolton may be a ruthless pragmatist. But if he does end up further exposing Mr. Trump’s duplicity, in the fullness of time Mr. Bolton will end up, however fortuitously, on the right side of history. That’s a better legacy than he might have secured merely as the third of Mr. Trump’s four (and counting) embattled national security advisers. If nothing else, this week’s revelations show Mr. Bolton, even after being unceremoniously fired by his president, is still one of the cagiest political fighters in town.
Posts
337 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 337 of 337Disinformation like “I am part Cherokee”?
Unfortunately, Drago's arguments about Chuck being a Democrat get stronger every time Chuck posts. I have mostly always accepted that Chuck's claims about being a Republican are authentic (and I have reason to believe that other than Chuck's assertions), but it get harder to believe I was right.
How many US troops are in Libya?
Well, Farmer, I don't think that addresses the assertions I made about policy. Sodomizing and killing leaders that make nuclear non-proliferation deals with the U.S. is really bad policy.
I am still behind the invasions to overthrow the Taliban and Baath Party. It's the misguided idealism of the occupations that made these wars disasters. But that is a different can of worms.
You want to see something brutal? Watch one of the democrat impeachment handlers try to explain what harm Ukraine suffered by delaying military aid by a few weeks. Its like watching someone in High school debate class that was caught sleeping in the back and made suddenly to present in front of the class. Too funny!
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/01/wow-how-embarrasing-democrat-val-demings-cant-explain-how-harm-done-to-ukraine-by-delaying-aid-video/
the former police chief (the one who had her service stole from her car) of a nearby city, it's like police academy come to life,
Yancey Ward: "Unfortunately, Drago's arguments about Chuck being a Democrat get stronger every time Chuck posts."
I have never claimed LLR-lefty Chuck was a Democrat.
What I have always said is LLR-lefty Chuck is an operational leftist, which means that every statement he makes, every link he provides, every policy position he takes, aligns perfectly with the democrats/left and often far far left.
Every single one.
How he labels himself and what his personal political history was years ago is completely irrelevant.
LLR-lefty Chuck is an operational leftist.
Period.
these were long distance strikes,
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-libya-strike/u-s-air-strikes-kill-17-islamic-state-militants-in-libya-u-s-military-idUSKCN1BZ0P5
Drago, fair enough.
Cuban bob:
What I love about the proceedings at this point is that the Senate can issue its own subpoenas. It could even, under Senate Rule XI, convene a special committee to collect evidence and report to the full body. And Trump might hate that idea. And go to court to stop it, for any number of reasons.
And the very rapid answer from the courts would be found in Nixon v U.S., 506 US 224 (1993). The answer would be, “Sorry, Mr. President; just like with Judge Walter Nixon, we as federal courts aren’t going to second guess how the Senate does impeachments.”
That is the beauty and power of the moment we’re in. A sufficiently large number of non-Trumpist Republican senators, listening to non-Trump Republicans like me, backed up by polls showing 75% of the public wanting trial witnesses, can run this show.
“No, Chuck, they issued requests, not subpoenae. You can keep it up citing left leaning news people, but the fact remains that these were no subpoenae- we know this because the House didn't try to enforce any of the requests.”
How is it possible for this person to be so ill informed?
Subpoenas for documents
Name Position Deadline date Status of compliance
Mike Pompeo United States Secretary of State October 4, 2019 Refused to provide documents[177]
Gordon Sondland United States Ambassador to the European Union October 14, 2019 Testified but stated that he is not authorized to provide documents[178]
Mike Pence Vice President of the United States October 15, 2019 Refused to provide documents[179]
Rudy Giuliani Personal attorney to President Trump October 15, 2019 Refused to provide documents[180]
Mark T. Esper United States Secretary of Defense October 15, 2019 Refused to provide documents[181]
Mick Mulvaney Acting White House Chief of Staff October 18, 2019 Refused to provide documents[182]
Rick Perry United States Secretary of Energy October 18, 2019 Refused to provide documents[183]
Requests and subpoenas to appear
Name Position Deadline date Status of compliance
Joseph Maguire Acting Director of National Intelligence — Testified on September 26, before the House Intelligence Committee[184]
Steve Linick State Department Inspector General — Met with Congress on October 2, and shared conspiracy-theory documents Giuliani had previously sent to the FBI[185]
Marie Yovanovitch Former United States Ambassador to Ukraine October 2, 2019 Deposed on October 11[186]
Kurt Volker Former U.S. Special Envoy to Ukraine October 3, 2019 Deposed on October 3; returned for additional questioning on October 16[187]
Michael Atkinson Intelligence Community Inspector General — Deposed on October 4[185]
George Kent Deputy Assistant Secretary October 7, 2019 Blocked from appearing on October 7;[185] deposed on October 15[188][189]
Lev Parnas Businessman, associate of Rudy Giuliani October 11, 2019 Arrested on October 9 at Dulles Airport and charged with alleged federal campaign finance-related crimes in New York[86]
Igor Fruman Businessman, associate of Rudy Giuliani October 11, 2019
Fiona Hill Former White House Russia adviser — Deposed on October 14[190]
Semyon Kislin Businessman, associate of Rudy Giuliani October 14, 2019 Reached "an understanding" with committees and is cooperating, according to his attorney[191]
Michael McKinley Senior adviser to Secretary Pompeo — Deposed on October 16, 2019[192]
Gordon Sondland United States Ambassador to the European Union October 16, 2019 First subpoenaed to appear by October 10; deposed on October 17[193]
Bill Taylor U.S. Chargé d'affaires to Ukraine — Deposed on October 22, 2019[194]
Laura Cooper Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense — Was initially expected to appear on October 18, 2019;[194] deposed on October 23[195][196]
Philip T. Reeker Acting Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs — Deposed on October 26, 2019[197]
Charles Kupperman Former Deputy National Security Advisor October 28, 2019 Was expected to appear on October 28, 2019; refused, pending court ruling;[198] subpoena withdrawn on November 6[199]
Alexander Vindman National Security Council Director for European Affairs — Deposed on October 29, 2019[200][126][201]
Catherine Croft National Security Council staff — Deposed on October 30, 2019[202]
Kathryn L. Wheelbarger Acting Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs — Was expected to appear on October 30, 2019[201]
Tim Morrison National Security Council Senior Director for Europe and Russia — Deposed on October 31, 2019[203]
John Eisenberg Deputy Counsel to the President for National Security Affairs — Subpoenaed on November 1 for appearance; refused to appear through counsel[204][205]
Michael Duffey Associate Director for National Security Programs November 5, 2019 Did not appear voluntarily on October 23, 2019; given a subpoena on October 25, 2019[206][207]
Ulrich Brechbuhl Counselor of the State Department November 6, 2019 Did not appear voluntarily on October 8, 2019; given a subpoena on October 25, 2019[206]
Russell Vought Acting Director of the Office of Management and Budget November 6, 2019 Did not appear voluntarily on October 25, 2019; given a subpoena that day[206]
David Hale Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs — Deposed on November 6, 2019[208]
Jennifer Williams Foreign Service Officer — Deposed on November 7, 2019[209]
David Holmes Counselor for Political Affairs, Ukraine — Deposed on November 15, 2019[210][211]
Mark Sandy Office of Management and Budget Deputy Assoc. Director for National Security Programs — Deposed on November 16, 2019[212][213]
John Bolton Former National Security Advisor — Declined invitation to testify, and stated he would legally challenge any subpoena[214]
Wiki
Admiral Inga: "Requests and subpoenas to appear"
LOLOLOLOLOLOL
Not a single valid subpoena. Not a single one. Period.
So, turning down a congressional "request" is grounds for removal from office for a duly elected President of the United States!!
Yeah, that's really "constitutional" alright.....
From The Hill today:
"GOP senators believe they have the votes to block witnesses"
Cue Sad Trombone!!
So, after this sham pack of lies by the dems/LLR's is dispensed with on Friday or Saturday, what do you think the next sham impeachment will be over?
We should start a pool on that.
“Not a single valid subpoena. Not a single one. Period.”
Wrong. That is the Trumpist argument. It’s not the truth. It’s not based in law.
Another possibility for Bolton's silence here is he is baiting the Dems. After the deal is made - Bolton for whistleblower, IG, Schiff and aides, Bolton testifies Trump did nothing wrong. Too delicious. Reality is closer to YW's scenario, but a guy can dream.
Blogger Gk1 said...
You want to see something brutal? Watch one of the democrat impeachment handlers try to explain what harm Ukraine suffered by delaying military aid by a few weeks. Its like watching someone in High school debate class that was caught sleeping in the back and made suddenly to present in front of the class. Too funny!
Why is “harm to Ukraine” an element of... anything?
If I grab your dog and put a gun to its head and tell you to give me $100 “or the dog gets it,” but instead you call the police and I run away, what harm has been caused to you?
I’m not worried about “harm to Ukraine” in the context of this impeachment. I’m concerned about Trump’s corruption in office. Using foreign military aid to advance his own personal political advantage. That doesn’t depend on any harm to Ukraine.
If one had to offer a guess as to what the next Sham-Wow-Peachment would be about, first we must look to see where the dedicated leftist/LLR-leftist obama holdovers are stationed within the White House complex.
That would invariably provide the necessary clue that we need.
For instance, did you know that the fake Ukraine non-whistleblower "whistleblower" Eric Ciaramella is at the center of the Ukraine call hoax, the russia hoax AND worked directly with the Ukrainians IN the White House to help cover up the Biden's corruption?
Think of Ciaramella, the cat who was booted out of the White House for illegally leaking (not charged nor prosecuted by the obama holdovers in the DOJ) as a Peter Strzok-like character who was then re-inserted into the White House by Brennan's CIA pals.
So, for the next Sham-Wow-Peachment basis, we just need to identify the members of the Resistance who self-identified when Trump was elected and figure out what lies they could construct with the help of the congressional dems, media and LLR-lefty Chuck's beloved marxist Lawfare heroes.
Admiral and Chief Barrister Inga: "Wrong. That is the Trumpist argument. It’s not the truth. It’s not based in law."
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
It's the absolute truth and the very reason your democrat pals yanked their Sham-Wow-Peachment hoax "subpoena" from the Kupperman case at the very moment the Judge was about to rule on the validity of the hoax "subpoena"!!
At the very moment!!
Too funny.
And Kupperman was Bolton's assistant!! Bolton's assistant! You know, the guy you say you so desperately want to interview!!
A desperation so very desperate that at the very moment the judge was going to rule on the hoax "subpoena" the democrats/LLR's............withdrew.
Admiral Inga is going to have to engage in some serious and widespread mind-reading to get to the bottom of that!!!
Before a few months ago, every utterance from the Left on Bolton was extremely negative, often defamatory.
Now, he may be nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize, or have a votive candle cottage industry spring up around him.
People are often quite amusing.
me, I’m waiting for the John Bolton Action Figure...
Iman: "Now, he may be nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize, or have a votive candle cottage industry spring up around him."
Are you kidding me?
At this point he could win the democrat nomination for President!!
It sure isn't going to be LLR-lefty Chuck's hero Slow Joe Biden who just today couldn't remember when he had last been elected!!!
trade for the mueller candles, that are on discount. there is some dark humor involved here, now for three years, the Obama administration repeatedly refused to provide heavy weapons to Ukraine, against Russian proxy forces,
I can't wait for the inevitable collapse of the sham LLR-lefty Chuck fake "support" of McConnell that Chuck coughed up in the aftermath of the 2016 election when it was clear the republican senators were working directly with the deep state and democrats to stop the Trump agenda.
As soon as McConnell and Graham and the rest figured out the deep state and democrats had played them for suckers they came around rather quickly in Trump's defense.
That coincides with LLR-lefty Chuck abandoning his hoax I Love McConnell schtick and went even harder in his pro-dem spin.
Just the other day, LLR-lefty Chuck threw the Heritage Foundation under the bus. Wanna know why?
Because the Heritage Foundation dared to notice Trump is the most conservative President of the last 80 years. Even MORE conservative than Reagan!!
Chuck did not like that. Not one bit.
The corksoaking Left knows no limits...
"the same voters that are not allowed to know ciaramella's name, (what is that like Beetlejuice)"
Another fable by the left that has become the truth through endless repetition:
Whistle blowers are due anonymity.
Nonsense. The whistle blower statutes are to prevent retaliation by the government for the act of whistle blowing. They do NOT provide a guarantee the name won't be public.
1/29/20, 2:21 PM
Blogger Yancey Ward said...
Unfortunately, Drago's arguments about Chuck being a Democrat get stronger every time Chuck posts. I have mostly always accepted that Chuck's claims about being a Republican are authentic (and I have reason to believe that other than Chuck's assertions), but it get harder to believe I was right.
Every one of my comments at the Althouse blog could just as easily have come from Republicans or former-Republicans-and-not-Democrats like George Conway, Bill Kristol, Charlie Sykes, Jonah Goldberg, etc., etc.
Jeff Flake had, and Justin Amash has, a voting record in their respective legislative bodies that are among the top ten “most conservative.” I don’t hate Republicans. I hate Trump.
I'm a bit of a neocon myself, but I come by it honestly-- my mother was a neo and my father was a con badum-sch.
I admired Bolton mainly because he was a fighter. I thought he was a conservative, but apparently his main loyalty is to John Bolton, and screw the cause. What a disappointment he is, Christine Blasey Ford with a mustache.
That said, I have yet to hear any verbatim representation of what's in the book. My perception is a lot of people running around like Chicken Little panicking at a rumor.
LLR-lefty Chuck: "Jeff Flake had, and Justin Amash has, a voting record in their respective legislative bodies that are among the top ten “most conservative.” I don’t hate Republicans. I hate Trump."
There is not a single conservative republican who fights against the dems that LLR-lefty Chuck has not attacked viciously.
There is not a single leftist/liberal democrat in office or in the media who viciously attacks republicans that LLR-lefty Chuck has not defended and praised.
Of course, LLR-lefty Chuck's position is that no lessons can be drawn from such a fact pattern.
Inga, you ignorant slut- just post the text of one subpoena for any of the witnesses for me- just one.
I will clue you in- subpoenae carry enforcement mechanisms and penalties for non-compliance. Subpoenae explicitly state these mechanisms and penalties. None of the witnesses that appeared or didn't appear before the committees last Fall received such documents. If a document doesn't explicitly describe the penalty for noncompliance, then it isn't a subpoena. None of the letters issued to the witnesses or non-witnesses in this case described those penalties- even the ones to the White House directly for documents.
Just imagine you receive one of these letter asking you to appear or turn over documents, or even demanding such. Now imagine the letter doesn't describe any consequences of your refusal to appear. Are you legally liable for non-compliance? I will answer that for you- you aren't legally liable, and any good judge will simply toss out any attempted enforcement or penalty for non-compliance. The reason is fucking simple- you have to be informed of the consequences of non-compliance- a subpoena has to outline explicitly those consequences to be enforceable or to even be called a subpoena.
You would know this if you knew any Latin at all- you could just figure it out from the term itself.
Hey dummy "I’m not worried about “harm to Ukraine” in the context of this impeachment. I’m concerned about Trump’s corruption in office. Using foreign military aid to advance his own personal political advantage. That doesn’t depend on any harm to Ukraine."
Talk to the House this was their idea of High Crimes and Misdemeanors. Take it up with them. If its "corruption" why isn't it listed in their impeachment articles? Christ, and you call yourself a lawyer?
This is rather obvious, but here you go:
Katie Pavlich ✔
@KatiePavlich
Very obvious Senate Democrats coordinated with Democrat impeachment managers on what questions would be asked. They have video responses ready to go and their managers are reading from sheets of paper. Remember when the outrage was over McConnell coordinating with the WH?
All of those things you listed in documents, the White House refused rightly so. It is the executive's privilege and must be litigated. If they were refusing subpoenae, the House would have gone to court to defend those "subpoenae", but they didn't go to court because they wouldn't have been trying to enforce a subpoena at all, and they knew it.
@Milwaukie guy:
Well, Farmer, I don't think that addresses the assertions I made about policy. Sodomizing and killing leaders that make nuclear non-proliferation deals with the U.S. is really bad policy.
If you ever heard me argue it was really good policy, you will have to point it out. Yes, Libya was really bad policy. Iraq was even worse policy.
I am still behind the invasions to overthrow the Taliban and Baath Party. It's the misguided idealism of the occupations that made these wars disasters. But that is a different can of worms.
We didn't occupy Libya, and yet that regime change operation was also a disaster. And how would Iraq have been stabilized after the Baath Party was overthrown?
Val Demings just scored a monumental own-goal. She said 15,000 Ukrainians died from Russian attacks. Unfortunately for Val, those were during Obama’s reign of error. I guess those blankets and MREs provided by The Lightbringer didn’t stop bullets or destroy tanks.
100% Agree.
This was one of the worst US Policy Mistakes.
Nobody will trust the US President, especially for non proliferation, for they know the next President may break the deal. The only proven way to deter a US attack is by having your own nukes.
Milwaukie guy said...
>Sodomizing and killing leaders that make nuclear non-proliferation deals with the U.S.
>is really bad policy.
@Aunty Trump:
After you have done all that, tell me that Libya wasn’t stupider. Plus include the part about why would Kim make a deal with us after what we did to Khadaffy after his deal?
Libya wasn't stupider. That doesn't make it not stupid. It just wasn't as stupid as Iraq. As far as North Korea, how did not have a nuclear weapon deterrent work out for Iraq? How many trillions of dollars did we spend in Libya? How many thousands of US troops died in Libya? How many thousands of US troops are in Libya right now trying to stabilize the place?
"Val Demings just scored a monumental own-goal" That's the understatement of the century. Even with questions provided to the handlers in advance, they still look like amateurs at a high school debating club.
The only times that I sided with Democrats like Blumenthal, Durbin and Schiff was when they had specific, credible stories about Trump’s lying and malfeasance.
And the only times I criticized Republicans like Tom Cotton or David Perdue is when they were lying for Trump.
sub ‘under’, poena ‘penalty’. Not penalty, no subpoena.
A proper House impeachment inquiry would have had to be authorized by the House, and that body's subpoenae to the executive branch would have had to be litigated on any claims of executive privilege. The Democrats didn't want to go this route for two reasons- they didn't want the impeachment investigation dragging out through all this coming Spring and Summer. It might have gotten expeditited hearings at the DC Appeals and SCOTUS, but that isn't certain- and even expedited, it would have pushed the trial well into the Spring. The argument for impeachment gets weaker the closer the election gets- why impeach a President when you can vote him out of office just 5 months later, or even in less time?
I understand the House's logic in trying to get the articles out in December even if I think the articles themselves are a joke. I also understand their other concern about trying litigation on actual subpoenae- SCOTUS isn't a lock to give them the rulings they want any longer (though I think they would be misjudging their chances at SCOTUS with a legitimately authorized impeachment investigation).
This why they didn't issue subpoenae- they would have felt bound to defend such documents against non-compliance. In other words, you should never make empty threats if you want your future threats to carry any weight at all. So, instead of subpoenae, the House issued requests for testimony and documents, and when they were ignored, they didn't go to court.
Why is “harm to Ukraine” an element of... anything?
Because that is central to the Democrats argument that Trump's actions have caused harm to our allies and he must be removed ASAP. Schiff and others have blathered that endlessly.
It is also part of the Russia hoax that you have prominently supported, Lil' Chuckie.
It was interesting to see the House manager have no idea about how to respond. That's because bullshit is a lot easier when you are bloviating on CNN or MSNBC. Sort of like you here.
*No* penalty, no subpoena.
There are lots more examples than just the ines you cite Chuckie. You arent fooling anyone.
You cant just wish away 5 years of posts though your current tasking probably requires you to try and reestablish your FakeCon bona fides in order to effectively support the dems 2020 effort.
Too late amigo. Far, far too late.
Embrace your latest failure.
Another tell that Chuck is a time wasting troll. He forgets every argument he made minutes ago and then seamlessly latches on to another DNC talking point.
I usually don't bother to respond but the video was priceless watching Val stammer and try to bullshit her way out of this glaring problem for impeachment. If there was no material harm what are the grounds for impeachment? Sophistry is always a lot tougher when you have to explain this outside of a kangaroo court in the house. Can you imagine what cross examination would look like for Atkinson and the "whistleblower"? Must see t.v! :-)
J. Farmer,
Several others here have already field in a large part of what would have been my answer; thanks, guys! I will just add a few things.
Saddam really did need to go. There was no way we could or should have allowed his invasion of Kuwait--our ally or nearly so-- to stand, and we should have done more about him at that time. Colin Powell bears a fair amount of the blame for that, for squeamishness and/or for allowing the press to get too close to the action. Anyone on that "highway of death" who wasn't clearly trying to surrender was a legitimate military target.
Next, the initial campaign against Iraq in 2003 went well enough; it was the disastrous idea of turning over what came next to our State Department, along with purging far too many levels down in the Iraqi military and government, where things went astray. A quick decapitation of the government consisting of Saddam in his closest associates, followed by something modeled on what Jay Garner accomplished Kurdistan following GWI, was what was called for.
Finally, the egregious stupidity of whacking Gaddafi should be obvious to everyone with even a quarter of a brain. Gaddafi's response to Gulf War II was one of the few unqualified successes of that event: he gave up his anti-western stance, abandoned his attempt at a nuclear program, and reveal to the world just how extensive Pakistan's "nuclear supermarket" was. He should have been untouchable as long as he stayed in his lane, as an example to other questionable leaders of what happens if you come over to our side. Instead, we betrayed him -- or rather, I should say, Obama and Clinton betrayed all of us in the West.
... the Obama administration repeatedly refused to provide heavy weapons to Ukraine, against Russian proxy forces,...
but - R House majority with Paul Ryan??!! - did they authorize, appropriate?
This Q&A is being done incorrectly. If I were king of the trial, I would have mandated that only Democrats get to ask questions of the Trump defense, and the Republicans only get to question the House managers. It is clear both sides are colluding with their own team, which is why the questions are so self-serving and answered with on-point documentation, notes, and videos the instant they are asked.
On balance, the questions from the Republicans seem more on point, but not by much.
Even better, though, would have been for the two teams to question each other, and keep the Senators out of it altogether. However, it would be completely unthinkable to have cameras in the room and the Senators unable to use them narcissistically.
I don't get the Bacevich hate some express (I'm open to learning), but that aside Farmer is correct about Libya--we had a hand in the clusterfuck but we're not there now serving as fat and expensive targets.
The US has pushed itself into two extremes of the decay of the postWWII scheme in the GME--places like Afghanistan and Libya which are territories where order, if possible, can only come with brutality, and places like Iraq which have some amount of cultural-historical cohesion and a tradition of statehood, however half-assed. And in neither case are we particularly welcome.
Narr
But most of the swamp-creatures of Imperial DC couldn't find Libya on a map of Libya
Saddam Hussein should not have been overthrown in an invasion. We should have offered no assistance to the rebels in Libya or Syria. Think about the numbers of people who have died because of these actions the US government took- it is probably in the hundreds of thousands by this point. Without the destabilization of Iraq, it is all but certain that there would have been no Syrian or Libyan civil war. Sure, both governments might have committed atrocities in putting down a much smaller rebellion, but the countries wouldn't be urban wastelands these days throwing off millions of refugees. It is quite likely there would be no civil war in Yemen on the scale of today.
Just tell me one good thing that came out of all of that? I can't think of a single one.
This Q&A is being done incorrectly. If I were king of the trial, I would have mandated that only Democrats get to ask questions of the Trump defense, and the Republicans only get to question the House managers. It is clear both sides are colluding with their own team, which is why the questions are so self-serving and answered with on-point documentation, notes, and videos the instant they are asked.
I definitely agree with your opinion, Yancy.
However, even with those inherent limitations, it is entirely clear that the Democrats are focusing not on the House record but on what is not in the impeachment hearings record - namely Bolton and Parnas. Trump's counsel, particularly Philbin is extremely circumspect about stating what the record shows and what it doesn't show.
A fair take away is that the Democrats are making up their "rules" and "evidence" as they go along. It reminds me of the Kavanaugh hearings, but without the hysteria.
I watched a little Q&A. Seemed dems asked Schiff, What terrible things will happen if we do not impeach Trump?.
Phrased it different, but same old thing.
Sorry, Katie Pavelich; sorry Yancey Ward; Lyin’ Ted Cruz (TM-the Trump Organization) just asked the House Managers a question. And Schiff had slides ready in response.
A fair take away is that the Democrats are making up their "rules" and "evidence" as they go along.
Yep, and they will keep on doing it. Bolton would just be the beginning.
LLR-lefty Chuck now on record that he believes, passionately, fervently, there has been ZERO coordination between democrat Senators and House Managers on all questions submitted by those democrat Senators to the House Managers.
LOL
It just keeps getting better and better by the day, doesn't it? ALL masks are off now and there is no going back.
And in a free nation that is a very healthy development.
Another Trump win.
Aunty Trump did you read the Nixon case that I cited?
A senior GOP senate aide tells me that Justice Roberts is screening questions and that's why Rand Paul's question — which contained names of people and questions about their interactions with Schiff and his staff — was disallowed. Odd bc Lee's question was basically same. https://t.co/wxxNQu5q4U
— Jon Ward (@jonward11) January 29, 2020
Per senior Senate GOP staffer, Roberts is "screening the questions" and "the question contains names of people who worked with Schiff and Schiff staff to start this whole mess in the House." https://t.co/orzTyfjttD
— Ben Jacobs (@Bencjacobs) January 29, 2020
“During a break in the trial, Sen. Rand Paul could be seen on the Senate floor seeking assurances that he will not be blocked from asking a question. The Kentucky Republican appeared less than pleased with Secretary of the Majority Laura Dove. “I don’t want to have to stand up to try and fight for recognition,” Paul said loud enough to be audible from the galleries above the chamber. “If I have to fight for recognition, I will.“
-Roll Call
The NSC blocked the release of the book due to top secret info in it three days before it leaked to the NYT. The Amazon pre order site was set up one day after the leak.
@Kirk Parker:
Saddam really did need to go. There was no way we could or should have allowed his invasion of Kuwait--our ally or nearly so-- to stand, and we should have done more about him at that time. Colin Powell bears a fair amount of the blame for that, for squeamishness and/or for allowing the press to get too close to the action. Anyone on that "highway of death" who wasn't clearly trying to surrender was a legitimate military target.
Dick Cheney, the Secretary of Defense during the first Gulf War, was asked during a C-Span interview in 1994, "Do you think the US or UN forces should have moved into Baghdad?" This was his answer, and he was absolutely right.
A quick decapitation of the government consisting of Saddam in his closest associates, followed by something modeled on what Jay Garner accomplished Kurdistan following GWI, was what was called for.
I am not sure what model you are referring to, but who would have run Iraq following Hussein's ouster, how would that person have obtained power, how would they have obtained legitimacy, how would they have maintained power, and what would we have done if they were overthrow by a rival faction?
Finally, the egregious stupidity of whacking Gaddafi should be obvious to everyone with even a quarter of a brain.
Yes, I said so at the time.
My only question is who at the National Security Council leaked the book to the Times? That's the only interesting issue.
Douglas: "My only question is who at the National Security Council leaked the book to the Times? That's the only interesting issue."
Gee, Vindman's identical twin who, unbelievably, has review responsibility, is where I would start and work outward thru his acquaintances.
J. Farmer: Anybody who thinks that Bush's Iraq adventure wasn't orders of magnitude stupider than Libya is simply not worth paying attention to.
Change my mind.
As opposed to what, exactly?
Nothing was not an option. (I wrote it; argument too long to post here.)
@Hey Skipper:
As opposed to what, exactly?
Nothing was not an option. (I wrote it; argument too long to post here.)
Was "nothing" what we had been doing with Iraq for the 10 years prior to the Iraq War?
"Gee, Vindman's identical twin who, unbelievably, has review responsibility, is where I would start and work outward thru his acquaintances."
-- That's ... wait, that's a real thing? I... I kind of thought I was being punked on this one.
"Wrong. That is the Trumpist argument. It’s not the truth. It’s not based in law."
-- The House Democrats had the option to challenge Trump's assertion that the subpoenas were not valid in court. They demurred. As far as that means, there is no legal reason to follow them. They had the chance to make their case it was valid and chose, instead, to agree with Trump that they did not need those documents to impeach him.
Blogger Chuck said...
The only times that I sided with Democrats like Blumenthal, Durbin and Schiff was when they had specific, credible stories about Trump’s lying and malfeasance.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Sablan: "-- That's ... wait, that's a real thing? I... I kind of thought I was being punked on this one."
Nope.
That POS Vindman's identical twin brother currently occupies the post in the White House with responsibility for review of the Bolton manuscript.
It's just one big Deep State/Corrupt Dem/LLR-lefty party everywhere in DC everyday.
Sodomizing and killing leaders that make nuclear non-proliferation deals with the U.S. is really bad policy.
Repent, reform, contribute intelligence on terrorists and activities... get sodomized, aborted, and force a refugee crisis, trails of tears, etc.
the democrat impeachment handlers try to explain what harm Ukraine suffered by delaying military aid by a few weeks
The Ukrainians deposed in the Western-backed coup, and their Russian allies, were not on a progressive path. If anything, they stood their ground, and mitigated a repeat of Obama's adventures in the greater Middle East, Africa, and even Central America (e.g. gun running).
"Wrong. That is the Trumpist argument. It’s not the truth. It’s not based in law."
So says our resident dullard cut and paster and bed pan collector. With a law degree where? I'd go with that!
I have never used the term "dumb cunt", but.....
My main point, J Farmer, was that there had been two decisive national elections, 2006, and 2008 that rejected wars of regime change. Just because we didn’t put our own soldiers at risk in Libya doesn’t mean that Obama was not violating the mandate for an end to these kinds of actions (I still don’t know what we were doing there.) Plus I think that while maybe our geostrategic position in “The Great Game” has maybe weakened, I think Iraq is now a better place than it was. We shouldn’t be telling these people how to live.
J. Farmer: Was "nothing" what we had been doing with Iraq for the 10 years prior to the Iraq War?
Did you read what I linked to?
It's just one big Deep State/Corrupt Dem/LLR-lefty party everywhere in DC everyday.
I just hope they steal all they can while they can. Jesus is coming and boy is he Pissed !
That Trump rally last night in NJ had 100,000 requesting tickets and 25% of those attending were Democrats.
According to Trump campaign manager Brad Parscale, over a quarter of registered attendees were democrats. Another significant portion of people have never voted before.
According to Rush Limbaugh last week, the campaign interviews all those attending, even those outside, and records their data for the election.
BTW, Chuck. I don’t think that the Nixon case applies to anything I have said. I say call them all! Whistleblower, Schiff, the Bidens, the DNC operative who was said to be over in Ukraine digging for dirt in their intelligence files, Bolton. The whole mess of them. Right now the Democrats have had 17 witnesses, so after the Republicans have had 17, as has been noted upthread, then we can start trading them one for one. What are the Democrats trying to hide, trying to limit this to Bolton and Sondland?
Yancey Ward said... How hard is this for you to understand? You claim to be a lawyer, and I verified that claim once a couple of years ago when I figured out who you really are, so I don't get it- are you just a bad lawyer, or just dishonest?
--
T effin' DS!
"No joke!"
So who was Chuck!'s 1st love?
Ted Cruz?
What say Cruz of late, Chuck!?
Do you listen to Verdict?
Yancey Ward I was puzzling over how to express to these readers that contrary to your very strange denials that the House ever issued any subpoenas in the impeachment inquiry, indeed they were real subpoenas and they were really isssued.
I thought that perhaps the case of Dr. Charles Kupperman might settle it. Dr. Kupperman was an assistant to John Bolton at the NSC. The House served him with a subpoena. The House called it a subpoena in their cover letter to Dr. Kupperman. Dr. Kupperman thought it was a subpoena when he got it. So much so, that Dr. Kupperman sued the U.S. House of Representatives and the President for a declaratory judgment on whether he should comply. In receiving and ultimately ruling on the lawsuit, the U.S. District Court Judge said a subpoena had been issued, as did all of the parties.
No one in the actually-litigated case with Dr. Kupperman said that there had been “no subpoena.” And while I certainly haven’t reviewed all of the House subpoenas, I presume that they all followed the form of the Kupperman subpoena. Which, according to all of the involved legal authorities, was a subpoena.
Here is an Opinion and Order from the case:
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6594379-Kupperman-Opinion.html#document/p1
I can readily understand legal disputes about the force and effect of the subpoena. I can understand legal disputes about House proceedings in the issuance of the subpoenas.
What I cannot understand is someone saying that there never were any subpoenas.
Trump’s impeachment defense team understood that subpoenas were issued. They claim that the House issuance was defective because of technicalities that we don’t need to replay now. Your point was that there were never even any documents that could be regarded as subpoenas. But in fact that is what the President’s own lawyers called them:
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6662418-Trial-Memorandum-of-President-Donald-J-Trump.html#document/p16
trying to limit this to Bolton and Sondland?
Because history shows republicans will roll over and let them.
When is a so-called subpoena an actual subpoena?
That might be the question.
And what of House exclusion of R witnesses?
Chuck!'s flail is that of omission.
Chuck said...
Aunty Trump did you read the Nixon case that I cited?
Aunty Trump - not a reader, like her cousin.
I especially enjoyed hearing Schitt! suggest tit for more tit re witnesses.
Very generous and transparent.
I have a troll infatuate. How sweet.
Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY), chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, alleges that former White House National Security Advisor John Bolton hinted to him in September to look into the removal of former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch. In a Wednesday statement, Engel said Bolton called him on September 19, roughly one week after he was fired from his post, and inferred wrongdoing was involved in the ambassador’s ouster.
What a tool this Bolton is.
Does it really matter for sock puppets?
I love how Schiff-ty Fan Club President and Treasurer LLR-lefty Chuck keeps trying to litigate the issues of subpoenas after Philbin has blown Chuck's lefty/marxist Lawfare position clean out of the water about 10 times over now.
Just wait till Fridays or Saturdays vote.
You thought Chuck and his pals have been screaming for 3+ years? Just you wait!
Btw, here's a fun video: Jay Sekulow's cover band.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=om-oM-gXPEs
Another fun event today: LLR-lefty Chuck's heroine Washington Post FakeCon contributor Jen Rubin, whom Chuck has linked to many times and is on record as supporting every single left and far left dem policy (cuz "True Conservative" LOL).
She claimed Trump's legal team has never argued cases in front of a real judge!!
Yeah. That google thing, how does it work?!
Shit, ARM.
Finally an admission.
I await Chuck!'s lambasting of Cruz.
Go!
Blogger Drago said...
Btw, here's a fun video: Jay Sekulow's cover band.
That was sweet.
Romney is allowing the Dems to deflect him from the straight line winning argument that the Dems said they had an overwhelming case without Bolton. This is Candy Crawley all over again. The bottom line is that the House Dems said they had an overwhelming case when they voted for impeachment. They asked for Bolton, he didn't come, they then said they had an overwhelming case. That's what all their speeches said. Now they say they want more. They say they need Bolton. And Romney starts saying, "Well, I'll have to consider that." And tries to bring others into his dithering, wanders about the impeachment stage like a kitten following a laser light, thinking about whether if the Dems want something they've said they don't need, he should try to get it for them. No, don't. And don't imagine John Bolton is in some way a Presidential contender some day. He just wiped himself out. No one is going to vote for famous backstabber (unless they're named Clinton, of course, and she won't win.)
Sekalow... staring directly at Schiffy, poignantly funny stuff: I’ll paraphrase... Mgr.Schiff has stated 31 or now 32 times that they’ve proven their case. And they need more witnesses?!?!
He's even talking to Chuck!:
Ted Cruz Retweeted
Washington Examiner
@dcexaminer
·
37m
"Let me tell you, Chuck's wrong on that...If we call John Bolton, I promise you we're calling Hunter Biden too."
@TedCruz
says if additional witnesses happen in the trial, then Hunter Biden will be called to testify.
Chuck, I read the actual "subpoena"- it wasn't a subpoena despite what the Democrats were calling it in the cover letter- it requested Kupperman's appearance, but it didn't define any penalties or procedures for what happens on non-compliance. Have you ever seen an actual subpoena in your life, Chuck? Subpoenae outline the consequences of non-compliance so that you can't claim you weren't informed that there would consequences.
Why hasn't the House tried to enforce any of the these documents in court? Do you have an answer for that? The answer is easy- they haven't tried because all they have issued are toothless requests. They have had multiple opportunities to fix this problem and litigate it out, but every time they are challenged, they retreat. In Kupperman's case, they literally rescinded the "request letter" because the judge offerred to adjudicate the case like a subpoena.
Every single one of these documents fails to outline the consequences of non-compliance- I haven't seen a single one out of the dozens I have examined that are properly formatted for judicial enforcement. No competent judge would try to enforce one or even issue penalty for non-compliance- the defense would simply be that the recipient didn't know there were consequences.
wildswan: "Romney is allowing the Dems to deflect him from the straight line winning argument that the Dems said they had an overwhelming case without Bolton. This is Candy Crawley all over again."
One caveat: this time Romney, just like LLR-lefty Chuck approved Paul Ryan and Kasich, is even MORE ANXIOUS AND ENTHUSIASTIC to serve the needs of his democrat allies.
It if funny how Romney has replaced Jeff Flake in intellectual content and personality, he just doesn't have that perfect last name.
When you issue a subpoena and someone challenges it in court, your first response isn't going to be to withdraw it. When you issue a subpoena and people ignore them, your first response isn't going to be to forget it- you go to court, or you use the enforcement power the House itself has.
In each case, the Democrats in the House have behaved exactly as they would if these weren't subpoenae at all. The only thing to credit them with here is that, at least, they haven't tried to jail someone for refusing non-binding request, just impeach someone.
Folks are asking way too much detail per Chuck!.
If he properly addresses those questions, he has a hard time not revealing his ultimate desired path..which he studiously avoids.
“ followed by something modeled on what Jay Garner accomplished ”
Jay Garner garnered?
Undercover Huber
@JohnWHuber
Ex. Special Counsel prosecutor in Flynn case in major climbdown and now agrees that Flynn should NOT go to jail and get probation instead. Sounds like they want this case to be over and are giving the Judge and Flynn an off ramp on the same day Flynn says he’s innocent.
So Chuck is confused about what subpoenas are.
Inga knows fuck-all.
Farmer believes the slave markets in Libya > troops in Iraq.
On to Page 2 of comments!
Actually, asking for jail time for Flynn altered the plea deal, giving Flynn grounds to withdraw his guilty plea.
Corrupt prosecutors now backtracking to original sentencing recommendation so the judge will not allow Flynn to withdraw.
“Yancey Ward I was puzzling over how to express to these readers that contrary to your very strange denials that the House ever issued any subpoenas in the impeachment inquiry, indeed they were real subpoenas and they were really issued.”
Indeed and when they assert such idiotic notions it really does negate anything else they assert, IMO.
Blogger walter said...
I await Chuck!'s lambasting of Cruz.
Go!
I voted for Kasich in the 2016 Michigan Republican primary. Cruz would have been my second choice.
Trump invented “Lyin’ Ted!” Not me.
Trump tossed out the reckless allegations about Cruz’s father and wife. Not me.
But whoever needs to take responsibility for the filthy personal attacks-by-name against Schiff’s staff and the whistleblower; shame on all of them. What a lot of filthiness. Hateful. I hope I get a chance to tell Rand Paul what I thought of that. Someday, in person. Do it the way he would. Cold. Not excited. But vicious language.
Ah yes..Msnbc lemon sucking Kasich!
Dad was STILL a USPS worker.
Yet, you still don't address Cruz's stances and Verdict podcast.
Why would that be?
(After being pummeled by his neighbor, I bet being scolded by a washed up, gin soaked Michigan "lawyer" would really set him straight.
"if he does end up further exposing Mr. Trump’s duplicity"
Yancey covered this upthread, as did yours truly in another thread, but --
Of course, the only "duplicity" the Dems can claim is that Trump said he didn't think something that he did think. Which assumes that they knew, or Bolton knew, what he thought. Since the Ukraine aid was released, and there was no quid pro quo, and no Ukrainian was threatened, that reduces to attempting an impeachment for a thought crime.
Even by prog standards, that is pathetic.
I am not surprised Bolton turned on Trump or that Dems started loving him after hating him forever. That I predicted, as I am sure all esteemed readers of this blog recall. I am a little surprised they grasped the Bolton straw with such fervor--though the obvious weakness of the thought-crime case explains much--and that Bolton seems so eager to give aid and comfort to people who have been, and are, his actual enemies.
Let me summarize the Democrats' day to this point:
Democrats now claiming their previous "slam dunk case for conviction" can't be properly judged without additional testimony.
Schiff claims that even a smidgen of personal interest in a presidential decision makes it impeachable.
House Democrats claim that they didn't enforce "subpoenae" because it would have taken too long, asks Senate issue real subpoenae now.
Garcia just insulted Murkowski for asking a relevant question about the topic I have beat Chuck over the head with all afternoon- why didn't the Democrats fix the subpoeanae problem rather than dumping it on the Senate.
Schiff and others are now trying to claim the case is about bribery and extortion, even though their own fucking articles are silent about such charges. I wrote just yesterday that the Democrats didn't put these in the articles because they were afraid of the defense. Good thing for the Democrats this isn't a criminal trial- such out order remarks would result in an immediate mistrial. These people are just unethical.
Yancey Ward, I’ve signed more subpoenas than I can ever count. It’s usually just boilerplate, except I am very careful about what it is I am asking for. We even have copy services; third party businesses who subpoena, receive and photocopy business and medical records. Under the auspices of trial counsel in pending litigation.
For the life of me, I don’t understand what you are trying to tell us. Why don’t you link to what you’re talking about? I am presuming that whatever document it is, it will say, “SUBPOENA” on it. And an accompanying cover letter will explain the attached “subpoena.”
But you’re saying it isn’t a subpoena?
"That I predicted, as I am sure all esteemed readers of this blog recall."
You did indeed- I came across that comment this morning when I clicked on the John Bolton tag at Chuck's suggestion. I almost wrote a comment about it for this thread, but it was a bit off topic. There were a couple of other commenters who predicted the same thing.
What do you desire, Chuck!?
President (D)__?
Do tell.
It would be pointless Chuck to link you to anything- that much is clear.
Yes, subpoenae are mostly boilerplate- the boilerplate (if you are truly familiar with it then I don't have to provide a link, do I) outlines the the recipient's responsibilities on receiving it. The letters given to the recipients in this case did not outline those responsibilities- they were non-binding requests for testimony and/or documents.
I asked you earlier- why did the House Democrats not try to enforce any of these "subpoeanae"? If they had done so, they might well have had a SCOTUS ruling in hand by this point in time rather than be begging the Senate to start the same process, now, 6 weeks after voting out the articles.
They didn't enforce the subpoenae because no competent judge would have treated them as subpoenae- a competent judge would have sent the case back to the House for a properly issued subpoena. You just aren't listening to me or the White House defense on this issue, and I am done trying.
Just one last thing- I alluded to it earlier, but here is is:
Definition of subpoena- Under penalty. A writ issued by a court commanding a person to appear, with penalties that attach for failure to comply
Every single letter the House sent out from the House intelligence committee lacked exactly a description of those penalties- every single one of them, including the one given to Kupperman. If I received one of these letters, I would trash it like it was spam since there are no penalties for doing so. In short, there is no compulsion, and no attempt to do so on the House's part, thus they weren't subpoenae.
One judge offered to help the House fix the issue- the one that Kupperman went to- and adjudicate the result. Instead of accepting this offer, the House rescinded the non-subpoena.
That should tell you everything you need to know about the matter, Chuck, but fine with me it you continue to play stupid.
Farmer,
We're getting somewhere. However:
* Where did I say "move on to Baghdad"? My specifically cited objection was to our cutting short our highly effective destruction of the Iraqi forces withdrawing from Kuwait.
* If you aren't instantly familiar with the Kurdish situation between GWI and GWII, then maybe you've got some homework.
Admiral Inga: "Indeed and when they assert such idiotic notions it really does negate anything else they assert, IMO."
LOL
The lunatic who still believes Carter Page is a russian spy, Kavanaugh id a gang rapist and Trump colluded with russia speaks!!
About credibility no less!
And LLR-lefty Chuck goes ALL IN on defending Schiff-ty and his hack lying staff because of course he did!
What a grand lefty pair Chuck and Inga make.
Perfect really.
Perfect.
If the Senate does call Bolton and Mulvaney, I strongly suspect the White House won't claim privilege- at least not a blanket claim. They could have claimed privilege on all the witnesses that did show up, especially those attached to the NSC, but they didn't do so, and I don't think they will do so here. What they might do, though, is given Bolton and Mulvaney a narrow scope that addresses on those issues that touch on the Ukraine business.
Bolton because Dems want. Mulvaney because Dems want.
Tit for tit.
"Fair"!
Yancey Ward; the President’s attorneys called them the House’s “subpoenas.” The House thinks they were subpoenas. The judge in Kupperman’s case called it a subpoena. Everyone in the press has called them subpoenas.
I am gathering that perhaps you think that they were deficient in one or more particulars. I confess that after reading a few thousand subpoenas in civil litigation and a (very) few criminal case subpoenas, I’ve never much thought about the specifics of a congressional subpoena.
But absolutely everyone except you, it seems, has called these documents “subpoenas.” What do you call them? You seem to be thinking that they are “defective subpoenas.” What else?
LLR-lefty Chuck defends the worst of the far left hack democrats in the same way that a mother lion defends her cubs.
It's adorable.
@ Yancey
Schiff and others are now trying to claim the case is about bribery and extortion, even though their own fucking articles are silent about such charges. I wrote just yesterday that the Democrats didn't put these in the articles because they were afraid of the defense. Good thing for the Democrats this isn't a criminal trial- such out order remarks would result in an immediate mistrial. These people are just unethical.
worth a repeat.
They should be called request thingies.
Elise Stefanik
@EliseStefanik
"What a stunning turn of events today to hear Adam Schiff declare from the well of the United States Senate that it is impeachable for a sitting President to allow the Department of Justice to investigate a political rival’s campaign "
🤔
2016. Crossfire Hurricane.
Meanwhile - Show us, liar Schitt-hole, where in the Constitution it says the Bidens are above the law?
Why won't the DOJ start an investigation into Democrat international money whoring?
Note: Chuck still not disclosing his desired final destination for US.
Can we just start typing "subpenises" and get it over with?
Narr
Defective subpenises
walter: "Note: Chuck still not disclosing his desired final destination for US."
His heroes have already disclosed it for him.
Kristol, Will, Deadbeat Dad Sykes, Egg McMuffin, all of them have explicitly endorsed electing democrats at all levels for 1 to 2 generations to purge the US of any and all conservatives.
Every single one of these horrific FakeCon liars wants dems to win everything.
And that, according to them, is how you "conserve conservatism".......(yeah, they actually believe that will "sell")
"Why won't the DOJ start an investigation into Democrat international money whoring?"
Good question. It's almost like having another Obama administration in place. WTF does it take for the DOJ to get off its ass and look into it? So are we back to the republican scam of "Yeah, we would sure like to repeal Obamacare, just give us the House...and now give us the Senate...and oh, yeah the Presidency too and we will get right on it!
Of course, Chuck! doesn't engage here substantively, despite trolling much.
So sit yer melon into that shat pillow and dream on.
Everyone in the press has called them subpoenas.
Oh well then, the issue is settled.
(An unnecessary /sarc)
Why is hearing from a NEW witness more important than having access to the 17th deposition? If we can’t hear what Atkinson ALREADY testified to the HIPSCI under oath and is being withheld by Schiff, then why even consider an 18th witness? What is Schiff hiding?
Fopdoodle arguments:
If everybody refers to a person as a "whistleblower" despite the fact that Eric Ciaramella is a CIA plant on an op, that makes Eric Ciaramella a "whistleblower" and even mentioning his name is taboo.
ALSO
If everybody calls a little hung a "subpoena" despite its legal deficiencies, that makes it a subpoena.
CONCLUSION
Fopdoodles play in Wonderland with Alice.
P.S.
People still live on Indian Reservations in America despite the fact Columbus never sailed to India. It's a thinker.
I don't give a shit what people called them, Chuck- they weren't enforceable, and not being enforceable, they aren't subpoenae. It really is that simple. I suspect everyone calls them that because they are just as fucking confused as you are, but they aren't, at least, confused enough to think they are enforceable pieces of paper. You are just a fucking moron.
To make this point one last time- no one but Kupperman took any of these to court- they either complied with the request, or they ignored the "subpoena" (see, I can use the language loosely, too). Kupperman wanted an answer as to whether he had to comply- he didn't, but he asked anyway, and the judge agreed to take the case, but then the Democrats said, "Never mind," and retracted the request.
Sorry I missed the discussion about Libya and Iraq. It was nerd night and we played a Lewis and Clark game.
Yancey: Thanks for your time. It isn’t clear if Chuck learned anything about subpoenas, but I sure did.
J. Farmer, I see where I might have helped lead the discussion astray.
I should have clarified that I was talking about it from the ex ante perspective. A careful after-action review is a fine thing to conduct, but it's a completely different thing and the useful ones tend to focus on lessons learned rather than blaming language like "which was stupider".
Additionally, I am not judging ex ante stupidity here on the basis of which decision had the larger consequences, but on the much more reasonable basis of which was more clearly unreasonable from the outset. By that measure, I stand by my assertion that it was much, much stupider to assist in whacking a guy whom we had told "Come over to our side and we'll take care of you--look what happens to those who don't" than to take out someone whom we hadn't even really wound up the last war we had with him.
Additionally, I am not judging ex ante stupidity here on the basis of which decision had the larger consequences, but on the much more reasonable basis of which was more clearly unreasonable from the outset. By that measure, I stand by my assertion that it was much, much stupider to assist in whacking a guy whom we had told "Come over to our side and we'll take care of you--look what happens to those who don't" than to take out someone whom we hadn't even really wound up the last war we had with him.
Exactly. The question is not which cost us more.
Iraq demonstrated the awful consequences for a dictator of not doing what we say.
Libya demonstrated the awful consequences of doing what we say.
Which is stupider?
Post a Comment