It is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and UNJUST

[PavlovianModel146]

just a few things -

1) I was addressing Carleas, not asking for you to go look up evidence. There was far too much evidence to sort and present for me to prove my point to you.

Well, let me know if you change your mind.

2) Can't you identify fact from opinion? When you see a video of a speech, for example and forgiving the possibility of fake videos or out of context clips, the video montage, you are witnessing an event. What you see is fact. When someone tells you that someone said something, that is opinion. The subject of concern was repeated exact words and phrases. Tucker showed a montage of video. He showed the fact, He was not giving opinion even though he agrees with you completely on the issue of separation of opinion from news. He and Hannity frequently remind their audience that they are only opinion hosts, not news anchors. They both have had shows explaining why that is important. They both also very quickly apologize when they get something wrong (without having to be sued, unlike the mainstream).

The repeated words and phrases did not support your opinion of the Leftist media outlets to the extent that not a single person in the montage (that I could tell) was a member of the media. I'm pretty sure they were all politicians of one ilk or the other. How does that montage demonstrate anything about the media?

There was no reminder in that video, but assuming what you say about Tucker and Hannity is true, I very much appreciate the fact that they say they are opinion hosts. I care not whether or not they apologize every individual time they get something wrong if they are presenting themselves as opinion hosts and nothing else. Opinions exist and can only result in three possibilities, one of which is to be proven wrong, so I imagine it happens a lot.

3) I imagine that Tucker says "the Democrats" for the same reason the Iranians say "the Americans" killed Soleimani. By the way, Tucker is a Democrat.

Yeah, messaging. I am an American, I did not kill Soleimani, so to say all of us did it would be false and clearly absurd. To say, "The Americans," without all just implies that more than one American was complicit.

I know that he used to be a host for MSNBC, but the messaging of that station moved too far to the left for him and they couldn't really find a use for him. I find the fact that such happened (at least, in my oversimplified version) a great credit to Tucker. Certainly he could have, "Seen the light," if I may, and moved to the left as the station did. If he lost his job for that, that is admirably intellectually honest. I appreciate you pointing that out.

My understanding is that Tucker is a Democrat for the purpose of voting in local primaries. I used to live in Ohio. In Ohio, you don't per se register as one party or the other, but when you go to the Primary to vote you ask for a particular primary ballot. Whatever ballot you ask for is what you are (according to Ohio) until the next Primary. In this case, one might register other than how one identifies for reasons of a local Primary interest. Perhaps more frequently, to vote for the (non-incumbent) Presidential Primary because it is assumed the incumbent will win and asking for the other ticket is the only way to have a say in that.

4) "They speak with one voice to show solidarity and control the message. They want those who agree with them to speak, basically, with that same voice." By what means did they agree to do that? That is what defines a cabal. Don't ask me to explain why they didn't send you the memo. It wasn't my idea.

No, no, they want those who agree with them (in the media) to speak with that same voice. They don't have to agree to do that. The (left) media simply hears what they are saying and repeats that. No secret handshake or smoky backroom in a seedy dive bar needed. Not even the back table at an Italian restaurant, unfortunately, even though Italian food kicks ass.

So, it''s not an agreement by the media, it's something that those media outlets choose to do of their own volition. Fox News chooses not to parrot the Leftist politicians. I could turn on MSNBC and they could theoretically have stopped parroting them and never parrot them again, but I don't think that will happen. I could also turn on MSNBC and they theoretically could decide to start broadcasting a documentary on the different recipes for a good horseradish sauce. That I would watch. Horseradish sauce kicks ass, but not on pasta, so let's not get the ends of the two paragraphs mixed up.

Is it dinner time?

5) You are obviously not familiar enough with Tucker to be injecting motives into his words. You complained that you knew Carleas as a friend and are sure that he doesn't hate. I said that merely from the little that I have seen of him that I am certain that he does. But you have the upper hand merely from your much longer experience. I have a little advantage because I have a habit formed of immediately separating fact from opinion (an observer not a pundit). I didn't agree with you, but I didn't continue in argument either. Tucker is someone who I have more experience with and thus are more likely to guess his motives. I don't agree with everything he says, nor Hannty nor the entire Fox network. I observe for facts being shown, not reports and skewed opinions being promoted. I don't care who's side anyone is on. But I have little patience for those who willingly deceive.

I don't need to inject a motive if the words themselves make the motive clear to me, at least, from my view. Aside from that, I concede that you are likely more familiar with Tucker than I am. I wouldn't go out of my way to watch him again because his presentation annoys me, but I did learn new things about him today. Thank you.

6) The mainstay tactic of the loony left is hypocrisy and inflaming suspicion often by simply lying and projecting. So of course both sides say the other is lying. At very least one of them is right. Being able to distinguish fact from opinion reporting is how you tell the difference. The example that Carleas just brought up concerning Trump's bid to have the Russians dig up Hillary's emails is an example of seeing the evidence SHOWN (Mr Trump making the speech), having enough experience with the situation (knowing how Mr Trump talks and what he means by it), and distinguishing fake news being reported about it ("Trump solicited foreign aid"). It isn't about liking Mr Trump. It is about disliking deception and being able to filter it.

As long as you are making the, "Loony Left," something different than just, "The Left," I have no basis to argue with that statement without further specification on your part.

Where x and y are opposites:

Person 1: I say x, but I know it's not x.

Person 2: I say y, but I know it's not y.

THE CASE: z

This demonstrates to you that both sides can be lying, whether or not they know the case is z. If two parties are saying something that they do not believe to be true, even if the two different statements are diametrically opposed, it doesn't automatically make one side or the other right.

It also wouldn't automatically mean that either side is lying, as with:

Person 1: I know x, I will say x.

Person 2: I know y, I will say y.

THE CASE: z

In this case, neither side is lying, because to lie requires intent. Both sides are saying what they believe to be true, but unfortunately, both sides are making false statements.

And, another:

Person 1: I say x, but I know it's not x.

Person 2: I know y, I will say y.

THE CASE: z

In this case, one side is lying and the other side is not. However, the side that is not lying is still making a false statement.

---So, I would not be inclined to make a statement that says, "Nobody ever lies," because I believe both sides (meant VERY generally) do, on occasion. I believe both sides believe what they are saying is true, though what they are saying is false, on occasion. I believe both sides have made true statements.

---As far as Carleas goes, just in the limited time I've been around and involved again, I've seen him admit to possible biases. I don't think Carleas is one who is inclined to be intellectually deceptive. That doesn't mean that he is incapable of making a statement that is false.

[obsrvr524]

The repeated words and phrases did not support your opinion of the Leftist media outlets to the extent that not a single person in the montage (that I could tell) was a member of the media. I'm pretty sure they were all politicians of one ilk or the other. How does that montage demonstrate anything about the media?

Well, you might be right about that. I was just starting to gather the evidence and gave up. So my apologies for a poor example.

Another thing that you might not have considered is that there is such a thing as "the tail wagging the dog". The "tail" being the story being told and the "dog" being the real event being inspired into being even though it is assumed as the opposite. You probably already knew that much. But have you considered that the "tail" is the media and the politicians are the "dog" being wagged. In reality, the ideology controls the money. The money controls the media corporations. And the media controls the politicians into supporting the ideology. I will admit that is currently all merely my opinion but not irresponsibly formed. In some cases, the media is circumvented directly, such as with AOC being directly hired and controlled by her millionaire socialist "boyfriend".

messaging.

I'm curious as to exactly how you define that.

I am an American

My sympathies.

No, no, they want those who agree with them (in the media) to speak with that same voice. They don't have to agree to do that. The (left) media simply hears what they are saying and repeats that. No secret handshake or smoky backroom in a seedy dive bar needed.

Again, I believe that is an issue of the tail wagging the dog. The media is arranging, even extorting the politicians. Think about it. The politicians are very sensitive to what the media does, but the media is very largely independent of what the politicians do. Who really has greater influence over whom? What is a politician going to do to MSNBC without potentially getting crushed within an hour?

You almost certainly, along with most of the American population, have the influence perception backwards (Satanism in action).

..[a bunch of sophistry]..

I think that perhaps you missed my point - FACT vs OPINION. Fact being what YOU see. Opinion being what someone TELLS you happened. That is the only serious discussion that I am interested in.

And time for me to get ready for work. Enjoy your dinner.

[PavlovianModel146]

Well, you might be right about that. I was just starting to gather the evidence and gave up. So my apologies for a poor example.

Another thing that you might not have considered is that there is such a thing as "the tail wagging the dog". The "tail" being the story being told and the "dog" being the real event being inspired into being even though it is assumed as the opposite. You probably already knew that much. But have you considered that the "tail" is the media and the politicians are the "dog" being wagged. In reality, the ideology controls the money. The money controls the media corporations. And the media controls the politicians into supporting the ideology. I will admit that is currently all merely my opinion but not irresponsibly formed. In some cases, the media is circumvented directly, such as with AOC being directly hired and controlled by her millionaire socialist "boyfriend".

Apology accepted, good sir.

Your theory is interesting, definitely more interesting than your theory's opposite, which is what I thought you were originally suggesting. But, again, nothing necessarily evidences a cabal...as we will get to shortly.

I'm curious as to exactly how you define that.

Messaging? In the corporate world, one might call it, "Branding." That's the closest comparison I can think of. I fear any definition I offer for my use of the word would either be overly-encompassing or perhaps not encompassing enough. The voices of the many speaking as one, or closely enough.

My sympathies.

It happens sometimes. I don't mind so much.

Again, I believe that is an issue of the tail wagging the dog. The media is arranging, even extorting the politicians. Think about it. The politicians are very sensitive to what the media does, but the media is very largely independent of what the politicians do. Who really has greater influence over whom? What is a politician going to do to MSNBC without potentially getting crushed within an hour?

I would have used, "Controlling," rather than, "Extorting," but that control does not have to be direct. It does not have to be by way of any agreement. No agreement, no cabal.

Getting back to the points I made about 538, the decision-making process by which one would decide to Impeach or not to Impeach, it was assumed, could come down to a simple question of caring for one's own political well-being. Not getting voted out. Not facing a primary challenger. But, the voters are not (as a whole) putting any direct pressure on the politicians on this specific issue. That is to say that not every single person who voted for this politician is marching on Washington D.C., or that Representative's in-state office. Most of them just vote and then leave it alone until it's close enough to start paying attention again.

The media can be the same way. The pressure might be implied. If I am a Democrat and I do or say something that I think MSNBC might strongly disagree with, then MSNBC might unleash it's full fury on me, which negatively impacts my political well-being and perhaps future electability. I don't want that. I had better keep MSNBC happy with what I say and do, or if not happy, make it so they basically ignore me.

But, again, that wouldn't make anything a conspiracy or a cabal. It would just mean that the two things relate to one another in some way.

..[a bunch of sophistry]..

Everyone's a critic.

I think that perhaps you missed my point - FACT vs OPINION. Fact being what YOU see. Opinion being what someone TELLS you happened. That is the only serious discussion that I am interested in.

And time for me to get ready for work. Enjoy your dinner.

I presented a fact as we discussed above where I thought it was relevant. It was a fact that the montage was entirely comprised of politicians talking and not media persons.

I will, thank you. Safe travels and a good day at work to you.

[Carleas]

But, even assuming I come to my own conclusion (itself a problem) as to what a High Crime and Misdemeanor is or could be, we are still left with Question 3 as to whether or not the call rises to that level. Assuming that the call, in and of itself, is not sufficient (based on a reading of the transcript) to rise to that level, now I have to get into thought processes and related evidence. That is where the whistleblower could come in handy. Because he has awareness of the event in question (the call) it is not unreasonable to believe that he could have awareness of the thought processes involved (via discussion) both before and after the call. He might also have awareness or evidence of other matters directly related to the subject of the call. Not least of which is whether or not Trump actually intended to withhold the aid until such time that his purported demands were met.

...

And, like it or not, who the whistleblower is could add credence. Who precisely thought that this was such a big deal and reported it? Is it unacceptable to suggest that Mike Pence being the whistleblower would carry with it more weight than the whistleblower being some random staffer neither of us has ever heard of?

But there were a dozen people on that call, some of whom have testified in the House to the content of the call, and others who have been subpoenaed who have much better insight into Trump's mental state in relation to the request. We don't have any reason to believe that this is someone close enough to Trump to have any insight into Trump's intention or meaning (indeed, we actually know who it was and we know that he wasn't at all close to Trump). The whistleblower just isn't that valuable as a witness given the other witnesses we have.

He did not withhold the aid until his purported demands were met, this much we know, but what we cannot know is whether that was because outside influences changed his decision-making process in this regard or if it was simply a true bluff. We can't know either of these things absent Trump telling us directly, and that's only assuming one decides to believe him.

I don't actually think this matters much. For one thing, there's a good argument that withholding the aid as long as he did was illegal (as DoD lawyers pointed out to the White House at the time). But for another thing, even if it was entirely a bluff, what he's bluffing for is an improper use of the office (more on that below).

It does matter because the first instance in your example is undeniably a threat and, I believe, could constitute menacing at a minimum. The second statement, on the other hand, could be explained away as something else entirely or as legitimate concern for your well-being.
...
I do agree with you about the intent, but then you get into that keyword: prove.

Yeah, I am proceeding under the assumption that the statement itself is not the totality of evidence of the existence of a threat. If the only evidence we have is the statement, then we agree that it matters whether it's implicit or explicit. But if, as here, we have the statement, together with overt acts by the person making the statement showing that they intend to follow through (military aid was actually withheld), and over acts by the person being threatened showing that they understood the statement to be a threat (Zelensky was actually preparing to announce an investigation), we have corroborating evidence that shows it was intended and received as a threat. In that case, it's no defense to say, "well yes, but I only implicitly said X, so the fact that I intended to communicate X and that he understood me to be communicating X doesn't count".

Does something always cross a line because of what it is, or can it cross a line because of how it was done? That kind of gets into what we talked about above.

I don't think this is a sharp distinction. If Trump had gotten Congress to vote to withhold aid, I don't think anyone would bat an eye; is that what is is or how it's done? In a government of laws, how it's done is baked into what it is, and acts can be legitimate or illegitimate, criminal or lawful, based on how they're done.

The fact that they were Republicans is irrelevant.

I think it goes to sincerity of the shock. If they were all Obama appointees, it would be easy to write off the shock as affected. Where it's Republican appointees, Trump appointees, it suggests the shock is actually about a perceived violation of norms.

That is to say that they did not need to make the founding document simultaneously the incontrovertible (absent amendment) legally-binding document in the land to accomplish all of that other stuff that you said that it does. The founding document and the ultimate legal document of the land could have existed separately, or you could just not have the latter thing and instead focus on laws.

This is a solid point.

Tangentially, one thing I've long thought the Constitution needed was a much more robust system of amendments. I've even toyed with the idea that a much more minimal document should have been written which established the rules for making future constitutions, e.g. providing for periodic Constitutional Conventions. One big problem with the Constitution is that it hasn't been amended enough, because it has needed updating many times and many times it's been too hard to achieve. That creates a kind of pressure build up, which would be dissipated in a system where the document could shift a little more freely. It's a delicate balance, and I can't fault the Founders for getting it a little wrong, but they erred too far towards preventing change.

The Constitution made no effort to build as many bridges as possible, and therein lies the difference.

I think this doesn't give the Founders enough credit. The notes from the various ratifying conventions show vigorous debate around ratification, with different factions arguing it goes to far or doesn't go far enough. The 3/5 Compromise, for as horrible as it is, is pretty clear evidence that the authors went to frankly absurd lengths to appease opposing factions on the hot button issues of the day. It may not seem like that today, but in an era where everyone who mattered in politics was a wealthy white male, they built as many bridges as possible within that exclusive demographic.

If The Constitution was at all definitive, would the perceived political leanings of potential appointees to SCOTUS Justice be perceived of as being at all relevant?

This too is a solid point.

I do think liberal and conservative something a bit different in the context of Supreme Court justices than they do in the context of politicians, but it is still the case that many important and seemingly unrelated outcomes can be predicted based on the politics of the justices (why should privacy and bodily integrity jurisprudence be correlated with 2nd amendment jurisprudence?).

France cannot interfere in our elections without actually being on our soil, or if they could, it would take more than making an accusation.

I think misunderstood your argument here:

But, if one President actually orders a political opponent to be thrown in jail on not only false charges, but charges that the President knows to be false, then yes, that would be foreign interference.

If France arrested a candidate with the intent of changing the outcome of an election, that wouldn't be foreign interference? That seems untenable. It also seems intention with your claim here:

Now, for the purposes of your example, let's suppose for a second that France actually fabricated evidence of this non-event, or suppressed exculpatory evidence...then I think you might have an argument for electoral interference.

If France announces an investigation it knows is vacuous and it does so with the intent to change the outcome of an investigation, I don't see the difference. When a public official announces a criminal investigation, that strongly suggests that it has some reason to conduct such an investigation, i.e. that it has some evidence of wrongdoing. Strictly speaking, that isn't fabricated evidence, but when real evidence exists it isn't generally provided when the investigation is announced, so knowningly announcing an investigation for which insufficient evidence exists is effectively fabricating some unnamed piece of evidence (and which in context we would expect to be unnamed).

In my view, no accusation (absent evidence) carries with it any more automatic weight than any other

This can't be right. Impeachments and indictments are accusations, and they are different in kind from the same number of people making an accusation of the same conduct. More generally, when someone makes an accusation in their offical capacity as the representative for some larger body, particularly one charged with making formal accusations of wrongdoing, those accusations are different in kind.

It was a joke

This is what you'd call an "affirmative defense". You aren't saying that Trump didn't solicit foreign hacking of his opponent, you're saying that he was joking when he solicited foreign hacking of his opponent. The fact still stands that he solicited foreign hacking of his opponent.

Let me be clear: the President should not jokingly solicit foreign hacking of his political rivals.

Was your argument going to be that the other side does the same thing?

Your claim, as I understand it, is that left-leaning news media are speaking from the same script. I knew of an example of news media literally speaking from the same script, but it was not left-leaning media.

Now, if your belief is that all major media is speaking from a script biased by some small set of central controllers, I don't disagree, but it that case it's disingenuous to frame it as a problem on the left. There's a difference between saying "John's an idiot" and saying "all humans are idiots", even though the latter entails the former.

Next accusation, please.

Please refer to my littany of accusations above, and the subsequent posts where I elaborate on them and provide links to support my claims.

[obsrvr524]

And, like it or not, who the whistleblower is could add credence. Who precisely thought that this was such a big deal and reported it? Is it unacceptable to suggest that Mike Pence being the whistleblower would carry with it more weight than the whistleblower being some random staffer neither of us has ever heard of?

When you discover that the "whistleblower" (not actually) is a CIA operative that milked someone like Vindman (known for being anti-Trump and a very weak minded person) into saying something that was negative and potent fodder for a socialist/democrat led impeachment case and then collaborates with Adam Shiff so as to create an important sounding, yet false, claim, then it matters. Yes.

More generally, when someone makes an accusation in their offical capacity as the representative for some larger body, particularly one charged with making formal accusations of wrongdoing, those accusations are different in kind.

Especially when that one official has been proven to be a liar and political shill.

It was a joke

This is what you'd call an "affirmative defense". You aren't saying that Trump didn't solicit foreign hacking of his opponent, you're saying that he was joking when he solicited foreign hacking of his opponent. The fact still stands that he solicited foreign hacking of his opponent.

Let me be clear: the President should not jokingly solicit foreign hacking of his political rivals.

It was not a solicitation and he said nothing about hacking political rivals. He said,
"Russia, if you are listening, I hope that you can find Hillary's missing 30,000 emails. You will be rewarded mightily by our press."

You, now that I know that you have heard what he actually said and have misrepresented it yet again, are clearly complicit with willful deception.

Was your argument going to be that the other side does the same thing?

Your claim, as I understand it, is that left-leaning news media are speaking from the same script. I knew of an example of news media literally speaking from the same script, but it was not left-leaning media.

Now, if your belief is that all major media is speaking from a script biased by some small set of central controllers, I don't disagree, but it that case it's disingenuous to frame it as a problem on the left. There's a difference between saying "John's an idiot" and saying "all humans are idiots", even though the latter entails the former.

You point out that there is a conservative corporation reading from a single script. I am talking about collaboration of multiple, supposedly competing, corporations reading from the same script - MSNBC, NBC, CBS, ABC, and AT&T (CNN), not counting many smaller, more diverse distributors and print media.

Significant difference.

Please refer to my littany of accusations above, and the subsequent posts where I elaborate on them and provide links to support my claims.

Well okay.

I'd have seen him impeached for pardoning Arpaio, failing to separate himself from his business interests, refusal to read briefings, his likely cognitive deficits, his repeated lies, his general demeanor..

I'm curious what your defense for the "general demeanor" allegation is because it sounds amazingly fascist.

How do justify canceling the votes of half of your nation due to general demeanor?

How is that not fascist?

[Carleas]

When you discover that the "whistleblower" (not actually) is a CIA operative that milked someone like Vindman (known for being anti-Trump and a very weak minded person) into saying something that was negative and potent fodder for a socialist/democrat led impeachment case and then collaborates with Adam Shiff so as to create an important sounding, yet false, claim, then it matters. Yes.

This is such a post-hoc rationalization for why we need to interview the whistleblower, changing the justification from calling him because he's a witness to the alleged misconduct, to calling him because he's the handler for other witnesses of the alleged misconduct.

Especially when that one official has been proven to be a liar and political shill.

Are you calling Zelensky "a liar and political shill", or is this just due to an itchy trigger finger for scoring partisan points? Because I was talking about Zelensky (i.e. the foreign government official making a formal criminal accusation against a candidate in a way that is different in kind from other kinds of accusations).

It was not a solicitation and he said nothing about hacking political rivals. He said,
"Russia, if you are listening, I hope that you can find Hillary's missing 30,000 emails. You will be rewarded mightily by our press."

Vladimir Putin walks down the street, and stumbles over a pile 0s and 1s lying on the sidewalk. "Well well, what have I found here?" he says to himself, as he imagines the mighty rewards to be had from the US press.

Yep, definitely me being deceptive to think that Trump couldn't have intended to convey something other than hacking.

I'm curious what your defense for the "general demeanor" allegation is because it sounds amazingly fascist.

General demeanor: It is difficult to estimate how much Trump has damaged the office of the president, and the country in the eyes of the world. Joking about people breaking the law to his benefit; insulting foreign leaders; retweeting racists and conspiracy-mongers; this is damaging to the institutions of society in a way that the people do not have a right to overrule by simple majority. I say again, the election of the President is not democratic. We are prohibited from electing certain people, no matter how many people vote for them. We don't elect them directly, and each individual's vote is not given the same weight. The electoral college was intended as a mechanism to prevent the people's choice of a popular idiot. The Constitution takes a paternalist stance, limiting what democracy can provide, and providing for mechanisms by which democratic choices can be overturned by more conservative instutions of power. Trumps demeanor matters, it's an embarassment, and people who know better can and should do something about it.

[obsrvr524]

I was talking about Zelensky (i.e. the foreign government official making a formal criminal accusation against a candidate in a way that is different in kind from other kinds of accusations).

What formal accusation was made against whom?

I'm curious what your defense for the "general demeanor" allegation is because it sounds amazingly fascist.

General demeanor: It is difficult to estimate how much Trump has damaged the office of the president, and the country in the eyes of the world. Joking about people breaking the law to his benefit; insulting foreign leaders; retweeting racists and conspiracy-mongers; this is damaging to the institutions of society.

So when you don't like the manner in which an elected President talks to and about an obviously messed up world, you think that he should be impeached. Your accusation of racism is probably wrong even though not directed at Mr Trump. By "conspiracy-mongers", you must be referring to Nadler, Shiff, Pelosi, and the like.

That certainly is fascism - "YOU speak the way WE demand or else!"

So okay, the bottom line is that American left fascists don't like Mr Trump. The Iatola doesn't like him either. Surprise, surprise. i wonder if there is a connection (like $150 billion).

[Carleas]

What formal accusation was made against whom?

This is again in the context of trying to pin down what constitutes "foreign interference". Pav is taking a similar line to Urwrong: that anything short of vote tampering or fraudulent voting doesn't count. But I'm challenging his claim that announcing a criminal investigation is just another accusation. It isn't, it's different in kind when a government accuses someone formally.

So the formal accusation is what Zelensky was being asked to do: announce a criminal investigation into the Bidens.

So when you don't like the manner in which an elected President talks to and about an obviously messed up world, you think that he should be impeached.

Not liking it isn't the standard. Trump's demeanor is damaging important social institutions: the presidency, global alliances, norms of public discourse, respect for government, etc. When a president undermines the very institutions whose faithful execution he's sworn to uphold, he should be removed from office.

This is directly tied to doing the job of president. Among the presidents roles are as head of state and chief diplomat. If a CEO of any publicly traded company tweeted the way Trump does, she would be fired in an instant. If any diplomat treated allies with the level of disrespect Trump does, she would be recalled in an instant. Trump's demeanor, the way that he represents the country, is deeply damaging domestically and abroad. That constitutes a basic failure to do the job of president, and it's grounds for removal.

[PavlovianModel146]

This is again in the context of trying to pin down what constitutes "foreign interference". Pav is taking a similar line to Urwrong: that anything short of vote tampering or fraudulent voting doesn't count. But I'm challenging his claim that announcing a criminal investigation is just another accusation. It isn't, it's different in kind when a government accuses someone formally.

So the formal accusation is what Zelensky was being asked to do: announce a criminal investigation into the Bidens.

That's an oversimplification of my position, but we might get there in my response to you. I like to read everything four or five times and then read it again (and on a separate tab) as I am responding.

[PavlovianModel146]

But there were a dozen people on that call, some of whom have testified in the House to the content of the call, and others who have been subpoenaed who have much better insight into Trump's mental state in relation to the request. We don't have any reason to believe that this is someone close enough to Trump to have any insight into Trump's intention or meaning (indeed, we actually know who it was and we know that he wasn't at all close to Trump). The whistleblower just isn't that valuable as a witness given the other witnesses we have.

I am going to conditionally concede the point assuming the whistleblower is who he is widely reported to be, even though, "We don't know and could get sued for saying we do."

In this case, based on who he is reported to be, here is what we have:

1.) Registered Democrat.

2.) Millennial.

3.) Ivy-League educated.

4.) Grew up affluently.

He also worked under President Barack Obama and directly under Vice-President Joe Biden in a similar capacity to his current capacity as CIA analyst dealing with issues relevant to Russia/Ukraine.

Carleas, we need to have a little talk, but first, I'll stipulate and allow for a few things:

1.) None of this changes the conduct of the call.

2.) None of this changes the actions or intentions of the call, nor does it change anything that happened before/after the call.

First of all, I would suggest that the whistleblower, if not directly linked to the President per se, can certainly offer a unique insight into affairs concerning Ukraine because affairs concerning Ukraine is a major part of his job.

Secondly, this is definitely less impactful than if the whistleblower had been, say, Mike Pence. The whistleblower, while admittedly not overtly political, checks basically every box of the prototypical Democrat. The fact that this individual, if he is indeed the whistleblower, saw fit to escalate the whole Ukrainian thing to this level is, therefore, hardly surprising.

You may counter, as I have seen, that there is no evidence that this person is a political activist. But, I mean, he's CIA. He probably wants to keep his job. I imagine being openly against someone who is at least indirectly above you (i.e. The President) is a good way not to keep your job.

Also, I consider that this whistleblowing might actually be irresponsible and done without an eye towards the long-term stability of the country.

Think about it:

1.) This action caused further divisiveness within the citizens of this country at a time that we may be more politically divided than ever.

2.) This action was always extremely unlikely to result in anything aside from the Impeachment itself. I think that we can agree that it is true that Trump is extremely unlikely to be removed from office unless he were Impeached for reasons that are, what's the technical term I'm looking for........like, really, really bad.

3.) This action may lend to political instability down the line. Many things change when one President leaves office and another President takes office, though I think that we could agree that as many working parts (especially at the operative levels) as possible staying the same leads to continued stability. People can keep doing what they are doing. One CEO replacing another in a business almost never, if ever, has led to the dismissal of as many employees as possible below the CEO. Businesses would be going down the tubes left and right if that happened.

Now, there may be different policies, laws, stipulations, etc...that would prevent such a thing from happening immediately...but could future Presidents do it to as great an extent as possible over fear of something like this? Let's put aside the matter as relates Trump directly for a second and focus on a few things that you have advanced:

1.) "High Crimes and Misdemeanors," do not necessarily require a thing to be a crime or a misdemeanor at all.

2.) The term is open very much to interpretation, and even if that is not acceptable, it must be accepted for now.

3.) General conduct could be Impeachable.

We may draw different conclusions here, but I think what this leads to is that the House of Representatives can Impeach (and the Senate theoretically remove) virtually any President for virtually any reason that it believes to be acceptable.

Ignoring that aspect for a second, does it not stand to reason that a President would therefore want to staff, to the greatest degree possible, with people who like him and generally agree with his policies? If I were Donald Trump and one of my priorities was to get rid of anyone who I saw as a potential threat, this suggested whistleblower would be packing his box on Day 1. If not that, he would be getting sent somewhere else to do something else that is not related in any way whatsoever to anything that I do or might be doing.

But, if it becomes the case that such a thing is seen as desirable (cost/benefit) we sacrifice stability.

But, even with all of that, I would LOVE nothing more than to call him as a witness because I would like to hear what his perspective on what the whole Ukraine thing is, in general. I would also like to hear, from his unique viewpoint, could there have been any possible legitimate reason to investigate the Bidens.

I don't actually think this matters much. For one thing, there's a good argument that withholding the aid as long as he did was illegal (as DoD lawyers pointed out to the White House at the time). But for another thing, even if it was entirely a bluff, what he's bluffing for is an improper use of the office (more on that below).

Save me some research, please. Is it merely a good argument that it could have been illegal, or would I conclude that withholding it as long as he did was definitely illegal? Because, right now in the world of the politicos, I have seen many unrelated arguments (even before this) both for and against Impeachment, and have found almost none (on either side) to be particularly compelling. I guess the burden would also be more on those who favor Impeachment, probably for more than these two reasons, but at least because of these two reasons:

1.) It's just an unusual thing to do.

2.) It's an action rather than an inaction. What is the case (President Trump is President Trump) will remain the case without Impeachment and Removal from Office. It will also remain the case if he is not removed. In general, I think most people require a sufficient motivator to effectuate something that is not already the case.

Yeah, I am proceeding under the assumption that the statement itself is not the totality of evidence of the existence of a threat. If the only evidence we have is the statement, then we agree that it matters whether it's implicit or explicit. But if, as here, we have the statement, together with overt acts by the person making the statement showing that they intend to follow through (military aid was actually withheld), and over acts by the person being threatened showing that they understood the statement to be a threat (Zelensky was actually preparing to announce an investigation), we have corroborating evidence that shows it was intended and received as a threat. In that case, it's no defense to say, "well yes, but I only implicitly said X, so the fact that I intended to communicate X and that he understood me to be communicating X doesn't count".

In this case and to the first sentence, that's exactly why I want to hear from as many people as possible. I believe that I have read the phone call transcript and that, taken by itself, is completely insufficient for me to have been inclined to do anything whatsoever. One thing I notice about Trump's speech patterns...he jumps from thought to thought and it takes him a long time to ever actually say anything. He often doesn't really manage to convey a thought, which I think is by choice. Since President Trump does not often convey clear thoughts, I think it is possible that it could maybe just be a misunderstanding:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/u ... 9.2019.pdf

Like, does Page 2, "Interfere," with the relationship between Ukraine and Germany? Should we impeach him for interference in matters that don't directly involve us in terms of direct relationships with other countries? I'm sure there's some obscure/ambiguous term that could be made to fit.

I like the top of Page 3. If I were Zelensky, I would be thinking, "WTF did he just ask me to do? No, really, WHAT was the meaning of the words?" And, I'm a native English speaker.

Also on Page 3, Zelensky freely says, "All of the investigations will be done openly and candidly." Does that include the investigation for which Trump is purportedly withholding aid? Certainly someone talked to Zelensky and someone else to Trump prior to this phone call. How can Trump pressure Ukraine to do what they have already said they are doing?

Next, the first time, "Biden," comes out of Trump's mouth...absent any accompanying threat that I can see...Zelensky says that he intends to put in place a prosecutor, who will definitely get through approval because his party is in the majority wherever that is relevant, and that the prosecutor will investigate it. It sounds like, in order for the prosecutor to be nominated by Zelensky, the person will be required to have already spoken to Zelensky and agreed to do this. Zelensky then asks Trump for any additional information he might have on an investigation into some Ambassador.

While I accept that convincing me changes nothing...I have to ask...what is supposed to be wrong with anything whatsoever in the call itself? I have to assume that something is supposed to be wrong outside of the call. And, because of that, I would want to hear from as many witnesses as I possibly could. You should also want witnesses. I thought the Democrats were mad right now because there might be no witnesses?

Anything that follows after this conversation, in my view, would only pertain to the investigation that Zelensky (based on the conversation) said he was already going to do as part of, "All of the investigations," before Trump even asked about it. Something must have happened before this conversation in order for anything to be a problem.

Also, has Zelensky not directly denied that he took there to be a quid pro quo arrangement here?

Getting back to your hypothetical, doesn't it fall apart if the speaker is not completely direct and the person being spoken to did not even get that message from it?

I don't think this is a sharp distinction. If Trump had gotten Congress to vote to withhold aid, I don't think anyone would bat an eye; is that what is is or how it's done? In a government of laws, how it's done is baked into what it is, and acts can be legitimate or illegitimate, criminal or lawful, based on how they're done.

I mainly meant in terms of perception, but we agree on this as a general point. My point was simply that parties involved (whistleblower included) might have simply not liked the way all of this was done, but not so much a problem with the thing that was done itself. You have stated that the withholding of the aid (for as long as it was withheld) may well have been illegal by itself. I guess that would be a good avenue of pursuit.

I think it goes to sincerity of the shock. If they were all Obama appointees, it would be easy to write off the shock as affected. Where it's Republican appointees, Trump appointees, it suggests the shock is actually about a perceived violation of norms.

The whistleblower, if that is who it is, was certainly not a Republican appointee.

This is a solid point.

Tangentially, one thing I've long thought the Constitution needed was a much more robust system of amendments. I've even toyed with the idea that a much more minimal document should have been written which established the rules for making future constitutions, e.g. providing for periodic Constitutional Conventions. One big problem with the Constitution is that it hasn't been amended enough, because it has needed updating many times and many times it's been too hard to achieve. That creates a kind of pressure build up, which would be dissipated in a system where the document could shift a little more freely. It's a delicate balance, and I can't fault the Founders for getting it a little wrong, but they erred too far towards preventing change.

I agree with everything said, but would counter that the Founders got it more than, "A little wrong," and my statement as relates would be, "The Constitution is almost totally fucking stupid."

How much can you really do with a document that essentially forces a reference back to itself when it itself is very limited?

I think this doesn't give the Founders enough credit. The notes from the various ratifying conventions show vigorous debate around ratification, with different factions arguing it goes to far or doesn't go far enough. The 3/5 Compromise, for as horrible as it is, is pretty clear evidence that the authors went to frankly absurd lengths to appease opposing factions on the hot button issues of the day. It may not seem like that today, but in an era where everyone who mattered in politics was a wealthy white male, they built as many bridges as possible within that exclusive demographic.

Yeah, unintended consequences and all of that. I think some of this could have been preventable, but I wasn't there, so who knows? It doesn't make it any less stupid now. The fact that it even must be dealt with now is on the Founders, but yeah, I don't know how much was foreseen or could have been.

Anyway, they made it too hard to amend. I could forgive that, but completely tying the hands and restricting the highest court in the land...I really have a tough time with that.

This too is a solid point.

I do think liberal and conservative something a bit different in the context of Supreme Court justices than they do in the context of politicians, but it is still the case that many important and seemingly unrelated outcomes can be predicted based on the politics of the justices (why should privacy and bodily integrity jurisprudence be correlated with 2nd amendment jurisprudence?).

Exactly. Lifetime appointments are also stupid. As we so often see, it makes the political leanings of the potential justice matter even more. It can't even be seen as having the goal of a person being relatively Moderate, otherwise, you would need more than a simple majority of the Senate.

I guess it might not have been seen as much of a problem at that time because, in Article 1, Section 3 and how it used to be (1913), Senators for each state were put in place by State Legislatures who...pursuant to the Tenth Amendment...could decide what the process of voting for Senators for that state should be. In other words, the states' Legislatures could go 2/3rds, majority, 3/4th's...whatever they wanted.

So, I think that the whole process of an individual ascending to the Supreme Court was at least expected to go through layers and layers of lawmakers (indirectly) before that could actually happen.

The House of Representatives could kind of be the rabble who screams at one another until they, as if by accident, actually manage to send a bill to The Senate for their vote. The House would be more, "Of the people," while the Senate might be more analytical, particularly legally. Perhaps more objective, considering that appealing to the masses wouldn't really be much of a concern.

HOUSE: Dude, wouldn't it be cool if? House Votes 310-125, in favor.

SENATE: That's a really stupid idea for a whole litany of reasons. I really wish The Constitution would have given you guys some sort of babysitter. Senate Votes 97-3, opposed.

But, yeah, I'll be a little more forgiving on the SCOTUS thing because they obviously had no reason to know or believe that the means by which the Senate is made up should ever change. Lifetime appointments remain stupid. The highest court in the land being tied to one document remains stupid.

If France arrested a candidate with the intent of changing the outcome of an election, that wouldn't be foreign interference? That seems untenable. It also seems intention with your claim here:

If France knew that the charges were false, it would. But, a wise philosopher known as my mother always said, "Sayin' ain't doin'."

If France announces an investigation it knows is vacuous and it does so with the intent to change the outcome of an investigation, I don't see the difference. When a public official announces a criminal investigation, that strongly suggests that it has some reason to conduct such an investigation, i.e. that it has some evidence of wrongdoing. Strictly speaking, that isn't fabricated evidence, but when real evidence exists it isn't generally provided when the investigation is announced, so knowningly announcing an investigation for which insufficient evidence exists is effectively fabricating some unnamed piece of evidence (and which in context we would expect to be unnamed).

I guess my point is that I don't see the difference between one guy saying something and some other guy saying something. Foreign leaders lie about our leaders (not just referring to Trump), like, all the time. What's the qualitative difference between one lie and another lie?

Furthermore, I don't think that Trump or Zelensky would automatically conclude or, 'know,' that any such investigation would be vacuous.

I also don't think there was any Russian interference in any sense that would matter to me. I would be loathe to take someone's vote away, and support no law that would do so...but if someone made his/her voting decision based in whole or majority part because of something that person saw on Facebook, then I conclude that person:

A.) Is an idiot.

OR:

B.) Is not an idiot, but does not care enough about the political process such that he/she really should be voting.

So, I'd never question that person's right to do so, but I would definitely prefer if that person would abstain of his/her own volition.

I see all these campaigns to drive up voter turnout purportedly in general (but I know who is funding it and know what the likely correlation of the target market of the ads represents, on the basis of any individual ad) and it makes me want to puke a little bit. I think on each position or office being voted upon, voting would be much better (and result in better things) if a person could detail at least one contrast in a particular policy position as well as what the possible effect of that policy position might be. Don't just look at a candidate's stated goal, look at whether or not the policy behind the stated goal is actually likely to possibly achieve that goal.

But, that's just a question of who I would prefer to be voting and who I would prefer to stay at home...or maybe at least not feel the need to vote in each individual category. Do you know that there are actually people who think you have to make a vote in each individual category lest your ballot be thrown out!? Scary, I know.

Also, the straight ticket button should be illegal.

This can't be right. Impeachments and indictments are accusations, and they are different in kind from the same number of people making an accusation of the same conduct. More generally, when someone makes an accusation in their offical capacity as the representative for some larger body, particularly one charged with making formal accusations of wrongdoing, those accusations are different in kind.

I meant no accusation from an individual person about a different individual person outside of a judicial context, I should have been specific. I won't even say, "More specific," because that gives me too much credit. I assumed a contextual clue that was not there and I apologize. I reread it. The contextual clue was not there in what I wrote or what you said prior. I mean, it was to me, but not clearly enough there.

I've been trying to work on it for years. It's tough to find a balance between avoiding verbosity (my natural inclination and writing style) while simultaneously avoiding going from Point A to Point C on the map when I should have scheduled a stop at Point B to smell the flowers. Hopefully Easter Lillies.

[obsrvr524]

What formal accusation was made against whom?

This is again in the context of trying to pin down what constitutes "foreign interference". Pav is taking a similar line to Urwrong: that anything short of vote tampering or fraudulent voting doesn't count. But I'm challenging his claim that announcing a criminal investigation is just another accusation. It isn't, it's different in kind when a government accuses someone formally.

So the formal accusation is what Zelensky was being asked to do: announce a criminal investigation into the Bidens.

So you conflate an investigation with an accusation. You seem to have an extraordinary compulsion to strawman.

1) On your issue of foreign interference, it is untenable to tell foreign nations what they are allowed to do based on the idea that it might affect your elections. That is just silly wishful naivety. They are constantly doing things either to favor or disfavor American politics. And no one has the authority to tell them that they may not investigate this particular US citizen for criminal activity because he is our insider Grand Master and PooBah running for a high office.

2) Additionally anything that a President does that is publicly known might be to his personal political benefit. That is what politics is all about, appealing decisions to gain votes. But you would then proclaim that he should not be allowed to do anything that the public favored (never mind the thousands of times prior US Presidents have benefited from their official decisions).

I image that it is safe to assume that you would also have him impeached for doing anything NOT favored by the public as well (giving the US media even more control over politics), just to insure that your bases are covered.

So when you don't like the manner in which an elected President talks to and about an obviously messed up world, you think that he should be impeached.

Not liking it isn't the standard.

And yet the substance of your accusation is that he would not be liked and respected by foreign leaders. They think that his manner is quirky, strange, and cowboy. But he is most certainly respected and by a few even admired, especially by the Five Eyes leaders.

Trump's demeanor is damaging important social institutions: the presidency, global alliances, norms of public discourse, respect for government, etc. When a president undermines the very institutions whose faithful execution he's sworn to uphold, he should be removed from office.

All of that is YOUR calculus and hope filled projection. You don't get invited into the Royal Palace if you are an embarrassment and disrespected. You don't get to walk into North Korea if you are an embarrassment and disrespected. You don't get China to sign anything at all to your favor if you are an embarrassment and disrespected. And you sure as hell don't get the Iatola to back away if you are disrespected.

If a CEO of any publicly traded company tweeted the way Trump does, she would be fired in an instant.

A corporation is neither a republic nor a democracy. A corporate CEO is not voted into office. And I think that relates to your problem.

It seems that you think that the US should NOT be run by the people but instead by erudite elitist snobs condemning anyone for not meeting their standards for pomposity. And as for the public - "Let them eat cake." By recent accounts you appear to be a true typical socialist.



I was beginning to think that perhaps you were yourself one of these pompous snobs yearning to rule the world but then a different thought occurred to me -

Perchance do you work in Washington? Perhaps a part of that swamp being drained? A part of that deep state being exposed? A part of that bureaucracy that is getting put back down into its place?

That would certainly explain a lot because this is getting like trying to explain to Silhouette that two infinite lines are more than one infinite line despite incoherent liberal media strawman reporting.

[Carleas]

I would suggest that the whistleblower, if not directly linked to the President per se, can certainly offer a unique insight into affairs concerning Ukraine because affairs concerning Ukraine is a major part of his job.

I worry that this is post-hoc. As far as I can tell, the reason the Republicans want to force the whistleblower to testify is to smear the whole procedure as politically motivated and part of a deep-state conspiracy, and to discourage future whistleblowers from using the channels that have been established for raising concerns about Presidential conduct. We have laws that are intended to make whistleblowing safe, to give people who see some misconduct the ability to flag it for review without needing to leak to the press or worry about their jobs. Currently, that system is hurting the Republican president, and so the Republicans are trying to implicitly dismantle those protections.

As I mentioned earlier, there were a dozen people on that call, all of whom were on the call because of some part of their expertise and official duties. If the whistleblowere weren't the whistleblower, if he were just one of the dozen duty officers on the call, would we be very interested in his unique insights? It doesn't seem so. We aren't calling for testimony from the other low-level participants on the call, and I don't think we would be calling for the whistleblower either. He's the target of Republican interst not because of what he saw on the call, but because he blew the whistle about it: they want him because he reported the bad behavior, not because he has any particular insight into that behavior that we can't get from more senior people with more access to the president.

this is definitely less impactful than if the whistleblower had been, say, Mike Pence. The whistleblower, while admittedly not overtly political, checks basically every box of the prototypical Democrat.

But my point is that the whistleblower's report can be completely discard, and we can instead rely on the testimony of named witnesses before the House, especially those witnesses who were in the Ukraine, who were Trump appointees or earlier Republican appointees, who don't check any of the partisan box, but who have testified that the president's conduct was wrong. We have a dozen witnesses that paint a picture of presidential misconduct, there's no reason to focus on one witness who checks boxes for political bias other than to try to taint the proceedings.

Also, I consider that this whistleblowing might actually be irresponsible and done without an eye towards the long-term stability of the country.

Similarly, this isn't relevant. If he had tripped and fallen and accidentally delivered a write up of his concerns to the House Intelligence Committee, we would still have mounds of evidence independently corroborating those concerns. His motives do not matter, other than as political theater.

does it not stand to reason that a President would therefore want to staff, to the greatest degree possible, with people who like him and generally agree with his policies?

But several of the witnesses who testified to corroborate the allegations against Trump were Trump appointees!

More generally, this is a slippery slope. The president's powers are limited, and there must be a mechanism for oversight. The fact that future presidents will want to clean house is an argument against any mechanism of oversight. It's also quite speculative: maybe this leads instead to removing more hiring and firing decisions from the President, to an amendment that reigns in executive power, to the creation of new oversight bodies, etc.

Save me some research, please. Is it merely a good argument that it could have been illegal, or would I conclude that withholding it as long as he did was definitely illegal?

There's a common joke about lawyers that their answer to any yes-or-no question is, "it depends".

To address a refusal by Nixon to spend appropriated funds, Congress passed a law purporting to make it illegal for any officer of the United States to defer spending, with a few narrowly tailored exceptions that must be stated explicitly when they're used. Trump deferred spending, and did not state (and appears not to have available) any of the exceptions.

That said, the relationship between Congress and the Executive is always uncertain. I don't know that that law has ever been applied to a president or tested in court, and there is always a separation of powers question when Congress purports to restrict the president. When I say that there's a strong argument, I mean that it seems clear from the letter of the law that withholding the aid was illegal, and that impression is shared (and informed) by a lot of people who know this area of the law much better than I do (including attorneys in the DoD).

I believe that I have read the phone call transcript and that, taken by itself, is completely insufficient for me to have been inclined to do anything whatsoever.

We should be careful with this, as Obsrvr correctly cautioned me earlier in this thread: we don't have a transcript, we have a memo prepared from notes made by someone on the call. It's not word-for-word, it's a cleaned up version of the conversation. Some of the incoherence may be due to that (and some of the coherence may also be due to that as well).

But it does establish that certain facts that tie together with witness testimony, e.g. that the president asked Zelensky to investigate the Bidens, and that Giulliani was working on behalf of the president in his interactions with Ukrainian officials.

Also, has Zelensky not directly denied that he took there to be a quid pro quo arrangement here?

Getting back to your hypothetical, doesn't it fall apart if the speaker is not completely direct and the person being spoken to did not even get that message from it?

Yes, Zelensky said that, in a press conference seated beside Trump, speaking in a second language (he pauses to ask an interpreter for the word "elections"), and he tries his best to stay out of the matter and defer to the transcript. He says, "Nobody pushed... pushed me", and Trump helpfully clarifies, "In other words no pressure."

I don't see this as particularly strong evidence, and certainly not stronger than the fact that the aid was withheld for weeks leading up to the call, Giuliani was in direct contact with Ukrainian officials, and once the aid was release, the plans to announce an investigation were suddenly shelved.

The whistleblower, if that is who it is, was certainly not a Republican appointee.

Fiona Hill was a Trump appointee. She hired Vindeman. Sondland was a Trump appointee. Volker was appointed by Rex Tillerson, Trump's Secretary of State. George Kent was appointed by John Sullivan, then acting Secretary of State for Trump. Michael McKinley was advisor to Pompeo, also Trump's Secretary of State. Bill Taylor was made acting top diplomat to the Ukraine under Trump. Philip Reeker was made an ambassador by George W. Bush and became Assistant Secretary of State under Trump. Catherine Croft and Chris Anderson worked for Volker. David Hale was nominated as Undersecretary of State by Trump. Jennifer Williams was a policy advisor to Pence.

This isn't a politically motivated witch, many of Trump's chosen people, or people hired by his appointees, are making accusations and corroborating the details of the accusations of others.

a wise philosopher known as my mother always said, "Sayin' ain't doin'."

I would never impugn a mother's wisdom, so I'll assume we are not wise enough to understand her true meaning, but when a government official is empowered to make pronouncements that carry the force of law, saying is indeed doing.

Foreign leaders lie about our leaders (not just referring to Trump), like, all the time.

I don't think this kind of lie happens very often. This is an empirical question on which I can't say I'm particularly well informed, but I'm not aware of many other cases where an ally has lied about criminal conduct of another country's political candidate in order to sway an election. Maybe Russia in 2016 qualifies, but that too seems abnormal.

I also don't think there was any Russian interference in any sense that would matter to me.

I do agree that this is a tough call, but I also think it matters. Russia intentionally attempted to affect the outcome of a US election, that intent alone is problematic, if only because it telegraphs what they're likely to do in future elections, and how they might escalate their attempts. I don't think it had a particularly large effect, but it was a close election so it's hard to say. But it's dangerous to ignore it.

(I will say that the discussion around Russian 'collusion' is weird and tribal and doesn't clearly delineate what the wrongs are. Trump knowingly accepting illegally obtained information or funding is wrong (even attempting to accept information he believed to be illegally obtained is wrong). Russia knowingly trying to influence the election was wrong. There doesn't need to be an explicit conspiracy hashed out in detail for those things to be wrong.)

And it's true that the people who vote based on Facebook memes are idiots, but our idiot founders set it up so that the best informed voter and the worst informed voter have exactly the same vote, and we know that lots of Facebook meme idiots are going to vote. It's fine to judge the people who vote that way, but we should also hold it against people who use those idiots to influence the outcome, particularly when the Facebook memes are intentionally false or misleading.

So you conflate an investigation with an accusation.

The public announcement of a non-existent investigation, yes. And we know that that's how it would be received. And we know that's why Trump was pushing for it.

1) [...]

2) [...]

These don't seem responsive to anything I've said.

And yet the substance of your accusation is that he would not be liked and respected by foreign leaders.

I mean, this is a pretty uncharitable way of putting it, but yeah, him ruining all our global alliances is a problem for me. Note the difference, though, between me liking him and foreign leaders thinking he's a reliable or competent ally.

But he is most certainly respected and by a few even admired, especially by the Five Eyes leaders.

Are you talking about the ones caught laughing about what a buffoon he is?

It seems that you think that the US should NOT be run by the people but instead by erudite elitist snobs condemning anyone for not meeting their standards for pomposity.

1) The US is not run by the people. It isn't a direct democracy. It isn't a one-person-one-vote representative democracy. Even to the extent that it is a democracy, the founding documents intentionally restrict democratic choices to protect people from themselves. The candidates that we can vote for pass through layers and layers of elite gatekeeping, and even the little choice we do excercise is constrained because elected officals aren't allowed to do anything they want.

2) There's a reason that every culture around the world hit upon elaborate formal rituals for diplomatic affairs. Diplomatic formality is a costly signal of reliability and willingness to cooperate. A functioning, peaceful, cooperative relationship between nations is facilitated by that kind of costly signaling.

Perchance do you work in Washington? Perhaps a part of that swamp being drained? A part of that deep state being exposed? A part of that bureaucracy that is getting put back down into its place?

No, I live in Washington, but I don't work here (I commute outside the District), and I don't work in government or nonprofit. In fact, Trump has been great for my bottom line, and I'm not that worried about my own situation. I'm just a stubborn philosopher who votes against his interests.

That would certainly explain a lot because this is getting like trying to explain to Silhouette that two infinite lines are more than one infinite line despite incoherent liberal media strawman reporting.

Silhouette is right.

[obsrvr524]

That would certainly explain a lot because this is getting like trying to explain to Silhouette that two infinite lines are more than one infinite line despite incoherent liberal media strawman reporting.

Silhouette is right.

Sad to see you say that. I was hoping you would stay out of that 3rd category.

There is a Cambridge study indicating that in about 27% of the Western population the paracingular sulcus, PCS, of the brain is diminished or missing entirely, making it much more difficult for those people to distinguish facts from fancy. So when desires and passions get involved, they literally believe their own lies, "preferred truths". And showing them the facts merely causes cognitive dissonance, often leading to discomfort and further ensuring the blindness.

I guess that I have seen enough on this topic, although I will suggest that both of you while longing for your changes, more carefully consider the specific intended alternative, else the probability of things gets worse is much greater.

[PavlovianModel146]

I worry that this is post-hoc. As far as I can tell, the reason the Republicans want to force the whistleblower to testify is to smear the whole procedure as politically motivated and part of a deep-state conspiracy, and to discourage future whistleblowers from using the channels that have been established for raising concerns about Presidential conduct. We have laws that are intended to make whistleblowing safe, to give people who see some misconduct the ability to flag it for review without needing to leak to the press or worry about their jobs. Currently, that system is hurting the Republican president, and so the Republicans are trying to implicitly dismantle those protections.

As I mentioned earlier, there were a dozen people on that call, all of whom were on the call because of some part of their expertise and official duties. If the whistleblowere weren't the whistleblower, if he were just one of the dozen duty officers on the call, would we be very interested in his unique insights? It doesn't seem so. We aren't calling for testimony from the other low-level participants on the call, and I don't think we would be calling for the whistleblower either. He's the target of Republican interst not because of what he saw on the call, but because he blew the whistle about it: they want him because he reported the bad behavior, not because he has any particular insight into that behavior that we can't get from more senior people with more access to the president.

It almost seems like we would do better to have two completely separate discussions. I meant, for me, I would want to hear from the whistleblower as well as anyone else who might have some unique insight into the entire relationship post Trump being elected, pre phone call, into this whole matter.

That is also because, "High crimes and misdemeanors," which we both accept as non-clearly defined, is an affirmative charge. Something happened. The, WHY it happened doesn't necessarily have to be relevant, but it can be. I would maintain that, in this case, the why behind it could also be partially exculpatory. Did Ukraine already agree to do the investigation without being pressured? If they did, then Trump is simply acting to ensure Ukraine does what it already said it was going to do, which is just good foreign relations. It would be inadvisable to signal to a foreign country, even if an ally, that you're going to hold up your end of the deal (do what you say you will do) even if they don't hold up to what they said they are going to do...because that can affect completely unrelated things.

Therefore, where you have an ill-defined charge, then what might count as exculpatory is -by extension- also ill-defined. It is for each Senator (and us in the context of having this conversation) to decide the questions:

1.) What is a high crime or misdemeanor?

2.) What happened?

3.) Could what happened even be a high crime or misdemeanor?

4.) Are there factors that could sometimes make it no longer a high crime or misdemeanor? (Exculpatory considerations)

Another potentially exculpatory element would be whether or not there is any reason to believe inappropriate conduct occurred vis-a-vis the Bidens. Granted, that would not change the legitimacy or illegitimacy of withholding the aid, but what it would do is result in the accusation/investigation not being completely unfounded. Even if not, then you get into intent, did President Trump have any reason to believe that inappropriate conduct occurred? Any national official with ties to the Ukraine whatsoever would have knowledge in this regard, perhaps regardless of level.

Here's a question: If you went to a grocery store and wanted to know how the cash registers work: Would you first ask the owner of the store or a cashier?

But my point is that the whistleblower's report can be completely discard, and we can instead rely on the testimony of named witnesses before the House, especially those witnesses who were in the Ukraine, who were Trump appointees or earlier Republican appointees, who don't check any of the partisan box, but who have testified that the president's conduct was wrong. We have a dozen witnesses that paint a picture of presidential misconduct, there's no reason to focus on one witness who checks boxes for political bias other than to try to taint the proceedings.

I agree that there is no need for the whistleblower to tell me about the call itself if I have other accurate means of knowing about the call. I want the whistleblower to tell me about other stuff, per the above. I'm also not inclined to focus on one witness. If we want to even pretend that this Impeachment/Removal is this huge, legitimate, meaningful, non-politically driven and solemn process...then we should want to talk to as many people as possible. That neither side really seems to want that tells me everything that I need to know.

The Republicans don't want evidence to be introduced that would harm their position, the Democrats would probably prefer nothing that could be seen as exculpatory is introduced. Stalemate. Both of these things are understandable, not legally, but politically. I think both sides are more-or-less fine with where the public opinion status quo is right now, but both would also like to swing it more to their favor a bit. The Democrats made the first move, the Republicans seem to control the terms of the last move, the Democrats don't like that one bit.

Similarly, this isn't relevant. If he had tripped and fallen and accidentally delivered a write up of his concerns to the House Intelligence Committee, we would still have mounds of evidence independently corroborating those concerns. His motives do not matter, other than as political theater.

I'll stipulate that his motives don't matter.

But several of the witnesses who testified to corroborate the allegations against Trump were Trump appointees!

More generally, this is a slippery slope. The president's powers are limited, and there must be a mechanism for oversight. The fact that future presidents will want to clean house is an argument against any mechanism of oversight. It's also quite speculative: maybe this leads instead to removing more hiring and firing decisions from the President, to an amendment that reigns in executive power, to the creation of new oversight bodies, etc.

It is a slippery slope, but the President is the absolute authority for the entire country, from an Executive Branch standpoint, excepting only those things that laws or The Constitution would state to the contrary. I guess also states, he really shouldn't be involved in Executive affairs that only concern one individual state. I'm not arguing against a mechanism of oversight, I'm arguing in terms of what I think could happen and why I see the possibility as negative. The possibility that you have stated would be positive. In any case, while I do not love the status quo in every instance, a great deal of forethought must go into the potential consequences of disrupting it. At least the status quo is predictable and generally leads to predictable outcomes.

There's a common joke about lawyers that their answer to any yes-or-no question is, "it depends".

To address a refusal by Nixon to spend appropriated funds, Congress passed a law purporting to make it illegal for any officer of the United States to defer spending, with a few narrowly tailored exceptions that must be stated explicitly when they're used. Trump deferred spending, and did not state (and appears not to have available) any of the exceptions.

That said, the relationship between Congress and the Executive is always uncertain. I don't know that that law has ever been applied to a president or tested in court, and there is always a separation of powers question when Congress purports to restrict the president. When I say that there's a strong argument, I mean that it seems clear from the letter of the law that withholding the aid was illegal, and that impression is shared (and informed) by a lot of people who know this area of the law much better than I do (including attorneys in the DoD).

We might come back to this. For now, even if we assume it was illegal, why Impeachment/Removal as opposed to mere censure?

That's a really hard might come back to this. That bullshit is so far in the weeds that I can definitely understand why it is not the principal argument that is made directly to the public. Of course, considering that those were only two of...perhaps thousands of laws....the notion of a President who has never broken a law of this nature during a full tenure is fantastical to me.

My point? Do we want to Impeach/Remove over every little thing?

We should be careful with this, as Obsrvr correctly cautioned me earlier in this thread: we don't have a transcript, we have a memo prepared from notes made by someone on the call. It's not word-for-word, it's a cleaned up version of the conversation. Some of the incoherence may be due to that (and some of the coherence may also be due to that as well).

But it does establish that certain facts that tie together with witness testimony, e.g. that the president asked Zelensky to investigate the Bidens, and that Giulliani was working on behalf of the president in his interactions with Ukrainian officials.

They should hire me to do that stuff, instead. He missed a there/their. The first time I read it, I was astounded that such a grammatical oversight would appear on an official Government website. It seemed like Zelensky said he would do, "All of the investigations," before Biden was specifically mentioned. I want to know what order these things happened in outside of the call.

Yes, Zelensky said that, in a press conference seated beside Trump, speaking in a second language (he pauses to ask an interpreter for the word "elections"), and he tries his best to stay out of the matter and defer to the transcript. He says, "Nobody pushed... pushed me", and Trump helpfully clarifies, "In other words no pressure."

I don't see this as particularly strong evidence, and certainly not stronger than the fact that the aid was withheld for weeks leading up to the call, Giuliani was in direct contact with Ukrainian officials, and once the aid was release, the plans to announce an investigation were suddenly shelved.

I guess we have no legal standing to compel Zelensky to testify, but it would be awesome if we did and I think it should, at least, be requested. FaceTime is effective and generally reliable. Also, if the aid was contingent on announcing the investigation, why not announce the investigation? It seemed from what little of the phone call we have that Zelensky was fine with that.

I would never impugn a mother's wisdom, so I'll assume we are not wise enough to understand her true meaning, but when a government official is empowered to make pronouncements that carry the force of law, saying is indeed doing.

I disagree. I don't know why I should ever care about what some foreign leader says.

I don't think this kind of lie happens very often. This is an empirical question on which I can't say I'm particularly well informed, but I'm not aware of many other cases where an ally has lied about criminal conduct of another country's political candidate in order to sway an election. Maybe Russia in 2016 qualifies, but that too seems abnormal.

Would it be a lie, though? Is there no evidence sufficient to justify an investigation? These are important questions, at least to me.

I do agree that this is a tough call, but I also think it matters. Russia intentionally attempted to affect the outcome of a US election, that intent alone is problematic, if only because it telegraphs what they're likely to do in future elections, and how they might escalate their attempts. I don't think it had a particularly large effect, but it was a close election so it's hard to say. But it's dangerous to ignore it.

(I will say that the discussion around Russian 'collusion' is weird and tribal and doesn't clearly delineate what the wrongs are. Trump knowingly accepting illegally obtained information or funding is wrong (even attempting to accept information he believed to be illegally obtained is wrong). Russia knowingly trying to influence the election was wrong. There doesn't need to be an explicit conspiracy hashed out in detail for those things to be wrong.)

And it's true that the people who vote based on Facebook memes are idiots, but our idiot founders set it up so that the best informed voter and the worst informed voter have exactly the same vote, and we know that lots of Facebook meme idiots are going to vote. It's fine to judge the people who vote that way, but we should also hold it against people who use those idiots to influence the outcome, particularly when the Facebook memes are intentionally false or misleading.

I don't know because I have a problem with the whole underlying thing even being illegal and also understand the motivations. Here is a short list of some of my general thoughts on the matter:

1.) While U.S.-based, Facebook is a company and social media platform offering its services to the entire world. Because of that, there is no responsibility whatsoever for any Russian to not do something on Facebook that would violate U.S. laws unless Facebook has a specific policy that U.S. laws are to be adhered to on Facebook. Even if it did, then the onus would be on Facebook to do something about the Russian user.

2.) Foreign interests can potentially have reasons to be concerned with who wins the U.S. Presidency.

3.) Because of that, I would counter that foreign interests (though it didn't happen here) should be permitted to influence U.S. Elections in any way that they want to provided that way is transparent and does not directly benefit the candidate by way of the method itself. "Russians for Trump," is something that I wouldn't have a problem with, as long as it behaved as its own independent organization.

I know, I know, "But, we don't want foreign powers buying our elections!"

Thing is, they couldn't, because the whole thing would be transparent.

"RUSSIA wants Trump to win? Are you serious? Shit, what's going on in Russia these days? Screw that, no way I am voting for Trump."

"Russia WANTS Trump to win? Sweet! They could be a very beneficial partner for us to have if we worked with them more closely."

More than that, the candidates would have the opportunity, if they felt the need, to openly renounce the help of the country that wanted them to win.

[obsrvr524]

One last thing that I would like to pitch into this is that Mr Trump, with all his quirkiness, is acceptable and successful ONLY because the reality of the alternative is and has been so horribly, horribly bad and have more recently proven to be even worse than earlier estimated. Just look at what the socialist/democrat party proposes versus what they could ever deliver.

Before you ever change anything that you think is bad, carefully examine the real, actual alternative, not socialist propaganda fantasy. The reality of Mr Trump is far, far better than the false fantasy of the Left.

[Ecmandu]

One last thing that I would like to pitch into this is that Mr Trump, with all his quirkiness, is acceptable and successful ONLY because the reality of the alternative is and has been so horribly, horribly bad and have more recently proven to be even worse than earlier estimated. Just look at what the socialist/democrat party proposes versus what they could ever deliver.

Before you ever change anything that you think is bad, carefully examine the real, actual alternative, not socialist propaganda fantasy. The reality of Mr Trump is far, far better than the false fantasy of the Left.

There were over 100 presidential candidates. To say all the choices were bad is to be a media whore.

The media lies and lies and lies - it’s a corperatocracy.

[WendyDarling]

Carleas wrote

Which are you disputing?
Arpaio pardon; failure to separate himself from his business interests; refusal to read briefings; likely cognitive deficits;
repeated lies; general demeanor.

The Arpaio pardon is an impeachable offense? I thought he did legally separate himself from his business when he took office, signed over his businesses to his kids. I haven't heard anything to the contrary. I'll need evidence. Why does he have to read briefing and why can't he be told what is in them quicker and more succinctly. What are his repeated lies? Name three big ones out of the 1,000,000 that have been reported? Come on the number of lies grows exponentially by the week. I don't understand your descriptions of your proofs about Trump's cognitive deficits or general demeanor.

Basically, Trump's morality is abhorred, end of story?

[Pedro I Rengel]

Which are you disputing?
Arpaio pardon; failure to separate himself from his business interests; refusal to read briefings; likely cognitive deficits;
repeated lies; general demeanor.


See who can take some fucking person that says something like that seriously?

[WendyDarling]

No one who claims as much should be taken seriously unless you're in the mood to debate something. I'm in the mood and need the practice.

[Urwrongx1000]

I didn't read everything that Urwrong wrote, but I didn't see him writing anything false. And I suspect that it isn't so much that he loves Mr Trump, but like you hate Mr Trump, he hates the deep state dragon. People love to hate these days. I'm sure it's a symptom.

I am Pro-America, Pro-Constitution, Pro-Free-Speech, and Anti-Deep-State.

The Democratic Party has become severely corrupt. Joe Biden committed a Quid Pro Quo, and yet, the DNC wants to launch an impeachment and attempt to remove a duly-elected President, even though Biden has committed the crime that they are charging Trump? Ridiculous! This is completely corrupt and unjust! Democrats have gone way too far. This is an abuse-of-power of Congress, to so blatantly launch 100% purely-Partisan impeachments. Impeachment was never intended to be a Partisan tool, used by a One-party Congress. Furthermore, the corrupt manner in which the impeachment was ran, charged, without Defense, without Rules, without Due Process, and in contempt of the US Constitution, is a smear against the entire US public, our Republic, our system, and even the core of US Governance. It is a dark stain, in Modern History, to attempt such a Coup.

The Deep State is another matter of contention. Trump was elected to 'Fire' people. And he does. These lifelong politicians and Deep State operatives have lived comfortably, without threat of being fired for bad jobs, negligence, or for simply not doing their jobs at all. This corruption has festered, which is why Trump was elected in the first place. The DNC, the liberal-left, haven't figured this out yet. Those who push for Trump, are Anti-Establishment and Anti-Corruption.

Thus the Full Corruption is on display, and struggling to survive. The Deep State, the Media Mob, those who hate America, our Constitution, our Republic, are feeling threatened. And they should be threatened. They should be rooted-out, exposed, and destroyed. These forces are fundamentally evil, and Anti-American.


If anybody threatens to undermine the US Republic, Constitution, and Democracy, as the DNC has done with this sham-impeachment, then a strong counter-force must occur. If you abuse your power, trying to veto the votes of millions of Americans, WITHOUT CAUSE and UNJUSTLY!? Then you must pay a severe price. And I hope this toll is exacted soon, for the liberal-left and DNC.

To attempt to remove a duly-elected President, for NO CRIME COMMITTED?!?! is about as corrupt as you can get, in US history. These are dark days, and perhaps, many more to come, until these corruptions and treasonous forces are rooted-out. It is fundamentally Anti-American.

[Urwrongx1000]

There is no cabal.

It isn't "Fox is #1 and so it's fair". Not when you have the next several "news" agencies, clumped-together, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, Yahoo, Facebook, Google, etc. all pushing agendas and political points of the Radical-Looney-Liberal-Left.

Remember 20 years ago when every fucking commercial on television, was not miscegenation, "here's a black guy fucking a white woman, marriage, mixed race weird looking progeny, this is so normal" laden in every form of modern mass media? I do.

The "message" pushed by the Radical-Left has gone so far, that it is now obvious, and no longer deniable. That this contaminates all other forms of media, Fake News, and modern socialist-communist "Democrats", is the point.


One of the core-motivations of those pushing impeachment, is because Trump is fighting back against all this, and he is giving the middle-finger to the Corrupt DNC, Fake News establishment, and all the other corrupt, treasonous Deep Staters, who want their Federal pensions and health insurance (while the rest of the working-class America can "go fuck themselves"). Fuck that.

[Urwrongx1000]

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that. Rather, Urwrong suggested that only fraudulent voting or altering vote counts would qualify as foreign interference in an election. I presented the above hypothetical to show that there are definitely non-voting actions that would qualify. And I think it challenges your assertion that as long as voters are permitted to vote how they like, there is no interference.

My follow-up to Urwrong was a further hypothetical, also not what has happened, but intended to be closer to the current situation to help us draw lines:

Grandiose hypotheticals as "what could count" as "foreign election interference", is a moot-point, even if there was a clear example, which there's not.

Start with what's real and practical, which is, the overwhelming dominance of the Liberal-Left, Commie-Socialist, Mass Media, Facebook, Google Search algorithms... until these issues are addressed, there is no 'foreign' interference comparable.

"Russia" did not interfere in 2016. Russian soldiers did not fly to the USA, forcing people at gunpoint, to vote for Trump. And until such a thing happens, you had/have no point on the matter.


The fact that DNC wants to push this garbage, trashcan narrative, for 3-4+ years now, is pedantic and childish.

The US voted, and very well knew (most of) the consequences of their vote. Trump was elected as Anti-Establishment. That's exactly what he's done. That's exactly what he'll continue to do.

DNC should look within, if self-reflection were even possible for the Radical-Loony-Liberal-left?

[Urwrongx1000]

Not liking it isn't the standard. Trump's demeanor is damaging important social institutions: the presidency, global alliances, norms of public discourse, respect for government, etc. When a president undermines the very institutions whose faithful execution he's sworn to uphold, he should be removed from office.

This is directly tied to doing the job of president. Among the presidents roles are as head of state and chief diplomat. If a CEO of any publicly traded company tweeted the way Trump does, she would be fired in an instant. If any diplomat treated allies with the level of disrespect Trump does, she would be recalled in an instant. Trump's demeanor, the way that he represents the country, is deeply damaging domestically and abroad. That constitutes a basic failure to do the job of president, and it's grounds for removal.

This is purely opinion.

There is no Law regarding a President's "decorum" when conducting his sworn and official duty. You can have a foulmouth, abrasive, bully for a President, as there certainly was other times in US history, and that's just fine.

You cannot impeach a President for such. Well, apparently, now you can, because the DNC have chose to denigrate our Society by spreading their corruption.


It is neither a HIGH CRIME nor MISDEMEANOR to call Schiff a pencilneck, Hillary a crook, or no talent Biden.

The fact that Liberal-Left expose, daily, that the motivations for impeachment are emotionally based, the further solidifies the nature of this argument, and the Unjust composition of this impeachment.

Purely Partisan, by the way. This was the very intent of the Constitution to avoid.


I'll repeat my earlier point. Impeachment votes should require 66% majority of the House, as with the Senate. That would 'undo' this dark stain. But, as the status-quo continues to degenerate, there is only more Partisanship to come.

Hopefully Republicans can take the House, Senate, Supreme Court, and Executive in 2020, and start leveraging corrupt Democrats out of political power for decades to come, soon.


You're Fired!

[PavlovianModel146]

There is no cabal.

It isn't "Fox is #1 and so it's fair". Not when you have the next several "news" agencies, clumped-together, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, Yahoo, Facebook, Google, etc. all pushing agendas and political points of the Radical-Looney-Liberal-Left.

Remember 20 years ago when every fucking commercial on television, was not miscegenation, "here's a black guy fucking a white woman, marriage, mixed race weird looking progeny, this is so normal" laden in every form of modern mass media? I do.

The "message" pushed by the Radical-Left has gone so far, that it is now obvious, and no longer deniable. That this contaminates all other forms of media, Fake News, and modern socialist-communist "Democrats", is the point.


One of the core-motivations of those pushing impeachment, is because Trump is fighting back against all this, and he is giving the middle-finger to the Corrupt DNC, Fake News establishment, and all the other corrupt, treasonous Deep Staters, who want their Federal pensions and health insurance (while the rest of the working-class America can "go fuck themselves"). Fuck that.

The owners of those news stations are either doing what they think is best for business, or promoting political views that they agree with. That's it. There's nothing else to it. I promote political views that I agree with, and if inclined, would buy a yard sign...but I'm not as demonstrative as all of that. I prefer to talk quietly about things.

If I created a, "News," channel, then the presentation would be a fairly boring breakdown of the views of both sides with a big focus on what is or is not statistically accurate. That's what turns me on. Those sexy, sexy numbers. We'd probably break down, "The letter of the law," in proposed bills to as great an extent as we could, as well. It'd be like C-SPAN, but with actual hosts, and you could hear what's going on a lot better.

Yeah, I also remember five years ago when you could have a commercial about an exercise bike and nobody would ever think to bitch about it. I don't mind a statistically accurate representation of society, I also don't mind the statistically inaccurate ones, other than it makes it tougher for white actors to get day rate jobs. I mean, when minorities aren't 50% of the population but you think 50% of the people in your commercials have to be non-white, and of the white ones, at least 20% should be gay, just to be safe...yeah. I could see where some people might resent that. I don't. I can understand it.

I'm still missing the part where this is a cabal, unless it's like, literally the worst hidden cabal of all-time. I don't think, if it is a cabal, that I am one of the only people smart enough to see it. More likely it's not a cabal.

[obsrvr524]

Topic for a different thread, "What does a cabal look like to You?"
How would you know one if you saw it? Or is it one of those, "if I don't see it, it doesn't exist"? I hear that a lot. USIG Horowitz has that disease. The big giveaway is the exact same words and phrases at the exact same time from supposedly competing networks.